W hile a decade and a half of work building on Hoffman
and Novak’s (1996) analysis of computermediated environments has informed management of online media, much of this work suggests that consumers interact with brands online in ways similar to what they do offline. That is, consumers join online brand communities for many of the same reasons they join offline brand communities (e.g., Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann 2005; Muñiz and O’Guinn 2001; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnold 2009; Thompson and Sinha 2008). However, social media practitioners now seek best practices for contexts in which brick-and-mortar research is largely inapplicable. Specifically, social media can make the identity of a brand’s supporters transparent to prospective consumers in ways that have no offline analog. Before the advent of social networking, consumers could only guess at the identities of other brand supporters on the basis of advertising or the identity of spokespeople. In contrast, in the social media world, consumers viewing a brand page are likely to see pictorial information about other people who have voluntarily affiliated with the brand. We refer to the passive exposure to a brand’s supporters experienced in such social media contexts as “mere virtual presence” (MVP). Little is known about if, or how, MVP affects consumers or how it can best be managed. Note that MVP takes many forms. For example, some Facebook brand pages display profile pictures of the brand’s supporters. Companies may also use Facebook Connect, so that a user’s Facebook profile picture is displayed to other prospective users on their site (see, e.g., www.Groupon.com and www.Connect.Redbullusa.com). Other companies encourage consumers to post pictures of themselves using a brand either to their Facebook brand page (e.g., Talbots) or to a company-run social network (e.g., Burberry’s Art of the Trench website and the “How We Wear Them” section of Tom’s Shoes’ website). Although a 2011 study shows that more than 80% of Fortune 500 companies use some form of social media (Hameed 2011), practitioners recognize that a large number of “likes” does not necessarily translate into meaningful outcomes (Lake 2011). Given that consumers increasingly look to social media to form opinions about unfamiliar brands (Baird and Parasnis 2011; Newman 2011), how can managers use MVP to generate substantive differences in brand evaluations and purchase intentions? We answer this question by exploring the effects of four distinct types of MVP on brand evaluations and purchase intentions. Note that in the pre-social-media world, the identity of a brand’s supporters was largely unknown. The analog to this position in the social media world would be choosing not to reveal the identity of a brand’s online supporters, a case we call “ambiguous MVP.” If a brand displays the identity of its supporters, in social media settings, this information is typically conveyed through profile photographs that display brand supporters’ demographic characteristics. 1 Relative to a target consumer, displayed MVP may be demographically similar or demographically dissimilar, or it may present a heterogeneous mix of similar and dissimilar consumers. We compare the effects of maintaining ambiguous MVP with that created by each of these types of identified MVP. In doing so, we show when it is more beneficial to reveal the identity of current brand supporters to prospective customers and when to retain ambiguity about the brand’s support base. From a practical perspective, this research contributes to the limited academic research investigating how firms can best configure their social networks to meet strategic objectives. For example, Tucker and Zhang (2010) demonstrate that displaying the number of sellers and buyers in online exchanges can change business-to-business listing and buying behavior. However, such findings provide limited managerial guidance because they do not compare the effects of displaying the number of members on a particular site with the range of other actions a manager may consider when deciding how or whether to display online supporters. From a theoretical perspective, our work challenges social influence theory (SIT; Latane 1981), which suggests that virtual exposure to unknown others should exert little social influence. Furthermore, we provide novel insights into social influence effects created by heterogeneous groups and ambiguous others, for which the traditional reference group literature (e.g., Bearden and Etzel 1982; Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989; Berger and Heath 2007; Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Childers and Rao 1992; Escalas and Bettman 2003) is largely silent. In addition, we show the importance of joint versus separate evaluation mode (Hsee et al. 1999; Hsee and Leclerc 1998) as a moderator of the influence of ambiguous MVP. Finally, our findings yield a road map for brand managers to use when deciding whether to reveal the identities of their online supporters or to retain ambiguity according to (1) the demographic composition of existing supporters relative to targeted new supporters and (2) whether the brand is likely to be evaluated singly or in combination with competing brands. Predicting Consumer Response to MVP Building on past work in mere presence effects (e.g., Argo, Dahl, and Manchanda 2005), we use the MVP term to describe the photographic presence of brand supporters in online settings. This virtual exposure to other consumers 106 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012 contrasts with the social influence a consumer might encounter in an offline setting, where, for example, in a retail outlet, interpersonal comparison is more immediate, spatial crowding may occur, or future interaction is possible (e.g., Argo, Dahl, and Manchanda 2005). Notably, classic theory suggests that MVP may have little effect on a consumer evaluating a new brand. Social impact theory (SIT; Latane 1981) contends that for social influence to be manifest, individuals must be present in large numbers and be in close proximity to the target and that the influence must be provided by an important or powerful source. In MVP, these conditions are not met. Rather, brand supporters are generally displayed in small groups (making them relatively few in number), are not in physical proximity to the consumer, and, given that they are strangers to the target consumer, are low in “source strength.” However, we question whether the conditions of SIT are necessary for MVP to exert influence. The reference group literature acknowledges that knowing who the other users of a brand are may affect a consumer’s reaction to that brand (e.g., Bearden and Etzel 1982; Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989; Berger and Heath 2007; Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Childers and Rao 1992; Escalas and Bettman 2003). Although this literature has not explored virtual presence of other users, it raises the possibility that information about a brand’s supporters may change brand evaluations even if it does not meet SIT’s requirements. We first use the reference group literature to discuss the likely effects of similar and dissimilar MVP. We then make predictions about the impact of maintaining ambiguity as opposed to displaying different types of MVP. We also predict consumers’ responses to a heterogeneous group of similar and dissimilar individuals, a topic that, while not addressed in the reference group literature, becomes important when firms use social media platforms with potentially highly diverse users. Peas in a Pod: Similar Versus Dissimilar MVP People tend to express affinity for those to whom they are similar (Lydon, Jamieson, and Zanna 1988; Morry 2007; Shachar and Emerson 2000). Furthermore, seeing similar others supporting a brand will lead to greater affinity for the brand (Berger and Heath 2007; Escalas and Bettman 2003; McCracken 1988). Target marketing relies on this idea, such that individuals are assumed to be more persuaded by advertising featuring those who are similar to the self (Aaker, Brumbaugh, and Grier 2000; Deshpandé and Stayman 1994). More recent work shows parallel effects in the context of online reviews, in which consumers infer shared tastes and preferences from verbally provided descriptive information (vs. photos) about a reviewer, which in turn determine how persuasive they find the reviewer’s recommendation (Naylor, Lamberton, and Norton 2011). We refer to this inference of shared preferences as “inferred commonality.” Note, however, that inferred commonality has primarily been considered in cases in which such inferences are rationally based on provided information. For example, information provided in reviewer posts could rationally inform 1Although consumers may use pictures of things other than themselves as their profile picture on social networking sites, in an online survey we conducted of 307 Internet users (Mage = 28.7 years), 97% of participants who reported having a Facebook profile (n = 274) indicated that they use a photograph of themselves as their profile picture. inferred commonality; writing style, expression of priorities, or shared interest could prompt reasonable consumers to generalize to other facets of preference. In contrast, the present study considers the effect of the pictorial MVP of consumers. In this case, consumers have affiliated with the brand but have done so without any persuasive intent. Moreover, they have not provided written product information or recommendations to try the brand that would ground inferences of commonality. Despite these differences, we expect that similar MVP will generate high levels of inferred commonality with a brand’s user base. We base this expectation in management research suggesting that demographic similarity (which we refer to simply as “similarity” and can be observed from photographs) leads to inferences of deeper-level commonality. That is, even in the absence of any other information, demographically similar individuals are presumed to share personality traits, values, and attitudes (Cunningham 2007). This inferred commonality prompts the individual to raise his or her evaluation of the brand. In contrast, previous literature has suggested that consumers exposed to dissimilar MVP will infer little commonality with the brand’s users and will express lower evaluations for the brand than for a brand with similar MVP. Importantly, the reference group literature suggests that even if the dissimilar brand supporters are not explicitly dissociative (i.e., members of groups with whom consumers do not want to be associated) (White and Dahl 2006, 2007), consumers may avoid similar purchase patterns simply due to demographic dissimilarity (Berger and Heath 2008). Work on non–target market effects also suggests that seeing dissimilar individuals can lead consumers to infer low levels of commonality (Aaker et al. 2000). Thus, if MVP indicates that the brand is liked by people whom target consumers perceive as dissimilar, target consumers should infer less commonality between themselves and the brand’s user base and adjust their liking for the brand downward compared with when MVP is similar. Is Ignorance Bliss? Ambiguous MVP Given that displaying MVP dissimilar to a target consumer may lower brand evaluations in comparison with similar MVP, perhaps displaying ambiguous MVP is the firm’s safest decision. Ambiguous MVP involves the display of others about whom no or very limited identifying demographic information is provided. Thus, ambiguity may be manifest by not showing any pictures of brand supporters, showing only supporters who have not provided a picture, or showing photos of brand supporters whose identity has been obscured. Prior research offers little guidance regarding the use of ambiguous MVP. Some literature suggests that when people encounter unidentified others, they infer little commonality with them. Sassenberg and Postmes (2002), for example, show that when people know nothing about other group members, they report low levels of liking and low perceptions of group cohesiveness. These authors ground their findings in social categorization theory (Turner et al. 1987), which argues that individuals who cannot be placed in a Beyond the “Like” Button / 107 person’s in-group will be subject to any stereotypes common to out-groups. However, recent research on ambiguity adopts an information-processing perspective and comes to a different conclusion. This work suggests that in the absence of externally provided information about others, consumers anchor on the self to infer that ambiguous others are like them. Because of these inferences, Naylor, Lamberton, and Norton (2011) demonstrate that an ambiguous online reviewer is more persuasive than a dissimilar reviewer and equally as persuasive as a similar reviewer. How does this research translate to the present context? Note that MVP does not involve extended formation of inand out-groups or interaction among members. Rather, it involves only incidental, passive exposure to other consumers. Given the nature of MVP exposure, we propose that the information-processing explanation, rather than the social categorization perspective, is likely to hold. In other words, when MVP is ambiguous, consumers will project their own characteristics onto the brand’s user base (thus inferring commonality), emerging with a level of affinity like that generated by similar MVP but greater than that created by dissimilar MVP. Heterogeneous MVP Although the difference between similar and dissimilar MVP can be predicted according to prior literature, existing theory fails to explain responses to heterogeneous MVP. Understanding reactions to heterogeneous groups is important, because it is possible that a brand will not present supporters that are uniformly similar or dissimilar to the target, either because doing so is out of their control or because their objectives include extension into previously unrepresented market segments. Diverse groups do not form a cohesive “reference group” in the traditional sense, and thus the reference group literature has little to say on this point. Some prior research has suggested that diverse groups may be interpreted in the same manner as a group perceived to be uniformly dissimilar (i.e., that the group’s preferences do not match the target’s). For example, Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale (1999) argue that diversity in a workgroup cues individuals to expect opinions and behaviors that diverge from their own. Similarly, Chatman and Flynn (2001) show that demographic heterogeneity within a workgroup initially leads to low levels of cooperation. However, some researchers advise broad inclusion of a wide range of consumers as members of social networking sites (Dholakia and Vianello 2009), arguing that heterogeneity could indicate a brand’s wide range of features or suggest broad appeal. Consistent with these recommendations, we predict that the MVP of a heterogeneous mix of supporters can be a strength rather than a weakness for firms, albeit for different reasons than those Dholakia and Vianello (2009) propose. We base our prediction in the idea that individuals tend to be particularly sensitive to incidental similarities between themselves and others, showing more positive attitudes toward a product in the presence of even superficial similarities (e.g., Jiang et al. 2010). Furthermore, work on the self-referencing effect shows the positive effect of selfrelatedness for information processing (e.g., Perkins, Forehand, and Greenwald 2005), such that individuals show enhanced attention and cognitive fluency for information perceived as self-congruent. If such effects hold in a social media context, individuals will be more influenced by the presence of even a small number of individuals in an MVP array who are similar to themselves (i.e., who are directly self-relevant) than a small number who are dissimilar (and thus are less self-relevant). Therefore, we anticipate that a consumer viewing a social media site with heterogeneous MVP will be particularly sensitive to the presence of the similar individual(s) in the array. In turn, brand evaluations will be equivalent to those formed when consumers are exposed to similar MVP. Notably, given that we hypothesize that ambiguous MVP will create brand evaluations like those created by similar MVP, heterogeneous and ambiguous MVP should also produce equivalent brand evaluations. A question that remains, however, is how much similarity must be present in a heterogeneous MVP array for it to generate inferences and evaluations like homogenous similar MVP. Note that in Asch’s classic work on conformity (Asch 1955, 1956), social influence effects can be generated by even a small number of individuals in a larger group. That is, homogeneity among confederates was not necessary to prompt study participants to alter their judgments of stimuli. Thus, while there is no theory to directly guide predictions about heterogeneity in the social media context, we propose that even a small proportion of similar individuals in a heterogeneous MVP array may produce evaluations like those produced by homogeneous similar MVP. To test this, we empirically manipulate number of similar individuals in an MVP array to range from zero (dissimilar MVP) to 100% (similar MVP). Thus, we suggest that MVP will influence brand evaluations as follows: H1: Ambiguous MVP produces (a) equivalent brand evaluations to homogeneous similar MVP, (b) equivalent brand evaluations to heterogeneous MVP, and (c) significantly more positive brand evaluations than homogeneous dissimilar MVP. H2: The relationship proposed between MVP composition and brand evaluations in H1c is mediated by inferences of commonality with the brand’s user base.2 We first test these hypotheses across three studies employing different operationalizations of ambiguous MVP and similarity. Study 1a tests all parts of H1 using age to manipulate similarity. Study 1b tests the parts of H1 pertaining to ambiguity, similarity, and dissimilarity using gender to manipulate similarity. Then, given that Study 1 leaves unanswered questions about heterogeneity, Study 2 focuses primarily on heterogeneity, providing a direct test of H1b. Studies 1b and 2 both include tests of H2 (the mediation 108 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012 hypothesis). Study 3 introduces our theorizing regarding the moderating effect of joint and single evaluation contexts and replicates results related to H1a and H1c. Study 1a Study 1a compares participants’ liking for an unfamiliar brand when they observe different types of MVP. We use age to manipulate similarity given previous work by practitioners and academics highlighting the influence of age similarity on product preferences. For example, the Yankelovich report on generational marketing argues that determinants of product value are strongly influenced by age cohort, shared experiences, media icons, and life stage (Smith and Clurman 2009). Previous academic studies have argued that other demographic characteristics drive attraction between consumers, but note that age is likely to be correlated with many of these characteristics. For example, Byrne (1971) finds that shared job classification and marital status make television media attractive to consumers. Similarly, Shachar and Emerson (2000) find that individuals who have families prefer watching shows about families. These characteristics are likely to be shared within at least broad age ranges, such that college students will differ from people 30–40 years of age, who will again differ from people older than 65 years. Thus, perceived age of the individuals in an MVP array may act as a proxy for numerous other demographic characteristics that have been shown to influence similarity-based attraction. Stimuli and Procedure A total of 128 undergraduate students participating in this study in exchange for extra credit were told that they would be viewing an excerpt from the Facebook fan page created by Roots, a Canadian clothing company. Participants read the following information: In this section of today’s study, we’d like to you to look at excerpts from an actual Facebook page for a real brand. This is the type of page where you can “become a fan” of a company or brand.3 You will see excerpts from a page maintained by Roots, a real Canadian company interested in expanding to the United States. Please look at the information featured on their Facebook page and respond to the questions as honestly as possible. Participants then viewed an excerpt from a simulated Roots Facebook page (see the Web Appendix at www. marketingpower.com/jm_webappendix) and answered questions about Roots clothing. As discussed previously, we operationalized similarity using perceived age, holding gender constant. Participants indicated their gender before the study began so that all participants viewed fans matched to their gender. All participants were told that there were the same number of total fans regardless of MVP condition. Depending on condition, participants saw one of the following: (1) total number of fans and pictures of six fans that 2Note that because H1a and H1b predict equivalence, a mediation test would not be able to explain variance in the dependent measure for these hypotheses. Thus, H2 predicts that ambiguous MVP leads to a higher level of inferred commonality than does dissimilar MVP, which explains the difference in brand evaluations between these types of MVP predicted in H1c. 3At the time we began this research, Facebook called brand supporters “fans” and brand pages “fan pages.” The term “fan” has since been replaced by the “like” button; consumers who were fans of a brand are now those that like the brand. were the same age and gender as the participant4 (homogeneous similar MVP condition), (2) total number of fans and pictures of six fans that were the same gender but a different age than the participant (homogeneous dissimilar MVP condition), (3) total number of fans and three pictures of fans that were the same gender and age and three pictures of fans that were the same gender but a different age (heterogeneous MVP condition) as the participant, or (4) no fan pictures, only the total number of fans (ambiguous MVP condition). No specific direction was given to attend to the fans, and participants viewed the page as long as they liked. Other information on the page was held constant across conditions. We captured brand liking by asking, “Based on the information you just saw from their Facebook page, how much do you like Roots brand clothing?” on a nine-point scale ranging from “do not like at all” to “like very much.” As manipulation checks, we asked participants in the similar, dissimilar, and heterogeneous MVP conditions to indicate how much they agreed that “Roots ‘fans’ are the same age I am” and “Roots ‘fans’ are the same gender I am.” Finally, we asked all participants whether they had heard of Roots before the study and, if so, how familiar they were with the brand on a nine-point scale (1 = “not at all familiar,” and 9 = “very familiar”). Results Sample and manipulation check. We first examined participants’ familiarity with Roots. Of the 128 participants, 27 had heard of Roots before the study. Of these participants, 15 indicated a familiarity score of five or above on the ninepoint familiarity scale, and therefore we removed them from the data set. Of the remaining participants, two indicated that Roots fans were not the same gender they were (presumably because they did not follow instructions and indicated a different gender than their own before the beginning of the study); they were also removed from the data set. This left a final usable sample of 111 participants (59 men and 52 women) with an average age of 21 years. The manipulation check revealed that participants in the similar condition rated the fans as more similar to themselves in age (M = 7.81) than did participants in the heterogeneous (M = 5.11) and dissimilar conditions (M = 1.12; F(2, 81) = 147.76, p < .0001). We also note that there were no differences in amount of time spent viewing the page across conditions (M = 26.7 seconds; F(3, 107) = 1.13, p = .34). Liking for Roots clothing. We next examined participants’ liking for Roots clothing. Because MVP composition was a four-level variable, we used three orthogonal contrast codes to compare the ambiguous condition with the other three conditions (i.e., these codes compared [1] ambiguous MVP vs. similar MVP [H1a], [2] ambiguous MVP vs. het- Beyond the “Like” Button / 109 erogeneous MVP [H1b], and [3] ambiguous MVP vs. dissimilar MVP [H1c]). This analysis thus indicates the effect of the managerial decision to reveal consumers’ similar or different demographic information to one another or to obscure it, maintaining ambiguity. Note that these contrast codes partition the multivariate analysis of variance sums of squares into interpretable subsets, obviating the need for special alpha levels (Rosenthal, Rosnow, and Rubin 2000). Consistent with our hypotheses, only the contrast code comparing the ambiguous MVP condition with the dissimilar MVP condition was significant. There was no significant difference in liking between the similar (M = 4.74) and ambiguous (M = 4.48) MVP conditions (F(1, 107) = .86, p = .36) or between the heterogeneous (M = 4.89) and ambiguous MVP conditions (F(1, 107) = 1.91, p = .17), in support of H1a and H1b, respectively. We also note that there were no differences in brand liking in the similar, heterogeneous, and ambiguous conditions when these conditions were considered together in a separate analysis (F(2, 82) = .38, p = .68). As H1c predicts, the only one of the three contrast codes that was significant was the one comparing ambiguous MVP with dissimilar MVP: Participants liked Roots significantly less in the dissimilar (M = 3.81) than the ambiguous (F(1, 107) = 5.04, p < .05) MVP condition.5 Discussion The result of Study 1a suggest that fans on a social networking site do not need to directly interact with a target consumer or post comments about a brand to influence the brand evaluations of a consumer new to the brand. Specifically, MVP evokes equivalent levels of liking when it is composed of a homogeneous group of similar individuals, when it is composed of a heterogeneous group of dissimilar and similar individuals, and when brand supporters are left demographically ambiguous. In contrast, a homogenous group of dissimilar others produced significantly less brand liking. Thus, H1 is supported in this context. Study 1b It is possible that part of the reason that ambiguity was treated like similarity in Study 1a was because the numeric representation of fans in the ambiguous condition made it difficult for consumers to consider the possibility that these fans are different from themselves. It is also possible that the results we obtained could be unique to using age to manipulate similarity. Therefore, in Study 1b, we tested whether our results hold using a different type of ambiguity (i.e., generic Facebook profile picture silhouettes) and when manipulating (dis)similarity using participants’ gender 4Because all participants in the subject pool at the university where the studies were conducted were in their late teens to early 20s, the fans used in the similar condition were also in this age range. All fans in the dissimilar age condition were older, ranging from their 30s to their 60s. All pictures used were actual Facebook profile pictures selected from the Facebook pages of individuals whose profile picture was public. We note that these pictures manipulate perceived age, not objective age. 5We also analyzed these data using an alternate set of contrast codes comparing (1) the similar, ambiguous, and heterogeneous MVP conditions with the dissimilar MVP condition; (2) the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions with the heterogeneous MVP condition; and (3) the ambiguous and similar MVP conditions with each other. Consistent with our hypotheses, only the first of these alternate contrast codes had a significant effect on brand liking: Roots was liked significantly less in the dissimilar than in the other conditions (F(1, 107) = 5.04, p < .05); the other two contrast codes had a nonsignificant effect on liking (both ps >.40). (holding age constant). We also test our findings by altering MVP through “fans of the day,” an approach currently used both on Facebook and on the social portions of some brands’ own websites (e.g., the “Fan of the Month” featured on Blackberry’s blog). Stimuli and Procedure Study 1b once again asked participants about Roots brand clothing. All participants therefore first read the following: As part of its social networking strategy, in addition to a Facebook page, a Twitter account, and a blog, Roots also invites consumers to post photos of themselves to the main Roots website where they can be featured as “fans of the day.” Participants then saw a screenshot of what was purportedly the “Community” section of the Roots website, which featured six fans of the day (see the Web Appendix at www. marketingpower.com/jm_webappendix). We held all elements constant except the photos of the fans of the day.6 This study included three between-subjects conditions. Participants in the ambiguous MVP condition saw six photos of the anonymous Facebook silhouettes shown when someone does not provide or make public a profile picture. Participants in the similar MVP condition saw six photos of individuals who were the same age and gender that they were, while participants in the dissimilar MVP condition saw six photos of individuals who were the same age but opposite gender. After participants viewed the Roots website information, they indicated their level of agreement with the following statement on a seven-point scale: “Roots is a brand for me.” Next, they answered the question “How likely are you to join the Roots community so that you can have a chance to be featured as one of the ‘fans of the day’?” To capture inferred commonality to test our mediation hypothesis, we also asked all participants how much they agreed that “I have a lot in common with the typical Roots shopper.” As a manipulation check, participants in the similar and dissimilar MVP conditions also indicated (yes/no) whether the fans of the day were the same gender they were. Given that it could be argued that by manipulating age in Study 1a, we also inadvertently manipulated attractiveness, we also measured perceived attractiveness to rule out this alternative explanation using the question, “Compared to the average person of their age and gender, how attractive were the Roots ‘fans of the day’?” (1 = “significantly less attractive than average,” and 7 = “significantly more attractive than average”). Finally, all participants 110 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012 answered the same questions about their familiarity with Roots used in Study 1a. Results Sample and manipulation check. Of the 116 undergraduate students who participated in this study, 25 had heard of Roots before the study. Of these participants, we removed 4 from the data set because they reported being highly familiar with the brand. This left a final usable sample of 112 participants (53 men, 59 women) with an average age of 21 years. All participants in the similar MVP condition indicated that the fans of the day were the same gender they were, and all participants in the dissimilar MVP condition indicated that the fans of the day were the opposite gender. We also note that there were no differences in amount of time spent viewing the page across conditions (M = 35.6 seconds; F(2, 107) = 1.01, p = .37). Brand liking and willingness to interact with the brand through social media. Given that the independent variable in this study had three levels, we used two orthogonal contrast codes (no special alpha levels required) to analyze the data comparing (1) the ambiguous and similar MVP conditions with each other (H1a) and (2) the ambiguous with the dissimilar MVP condition (H1c). We analyzed brand liking and willingness to interact with the brand through social media separately. Again, consistent with H1a, participants in the ambiguous (M = 4.16) and similar (M = 3.91) MVP conditions expressed equivalent liking for Roots (F(1, 109) = .14, p = .71). Furthermore, consistent with H1c, participants in the dissimilar MVP condition (M = 3.46) liked Roots marginally less than participants in the ambiguous MVP condition (F(1, 109) = 3.75, p = .06). The results for willingness to interact with Roots through social media are similar. Participants reported that they were equally likely to interact with the brand in the ambiguous (M = 2.63) and similar (M = 2.57) MVP conditions (F(1, 108) = .90, p = .35) and more likely to join the Roots community in the ambiguous than the dissimilar (M = 1.97) MVP condition (F(1, 108) = 4.50, p < .05).7 Mediation. Using the same contrast codes, we examined whether consumers’ inferences that they had “a lot in common with the typical Roots shopper” followed the same pattern, as H2 predicted. As we expected, participants reported that they had the same amount of commonality with the typical Roots shopper in the ambiguous and similar MVP conditions (Mambiguous = 4.29, Msimilar = 3.85; F(1, 109) = 6The stimuli for this study were adapted from the Roots website, which does feature a “Community” section (though this section does not actually include fans of the day). We note that the fans of the day are not actual Roots users, however, and that Roots does currently sell clothing in the United States. We found the photos of purported Roots fans by searching various websites on which consumers had posted public photos of themselves (e.g., Facebook, HotorNot.com). Because all participants in the subject pool at the university where the studies were conducted are in their late teens to early 20s and we held age constant in this study, all photos used depicted people who would be perceived to be in this age range. 7We also conducted an alternate analysis of these data using two contrast codes that compare (1) the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions with the dissimilar condition and (2) the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions with each other. The results revealed that the brand was liked marginally more in the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions than in the dissimilar MVP condition (F(1, 109) = 3.75, p = .06) and was liked equally well in the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions (F(1, 109) = 2.37, p = .13). Participants were also more likely to want to connect with the brand through social media in the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions than in the dissimilar MVP condition (F(1, 109) = 4.50, p < .05) and were equally likely to want to connect with the brand in the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions (F(1, 109) = 1.40, p = .24). .05, p = .82) and more in common with the typical Roots shopper in the ambiguous than in the dissimilar MVP condition (Mdissimilar = 3.29; F(1, 109) = 7.45, p < .01). To explore whether inferred commonality mediated the relationship between the ambiguous versus dissimilar MVP contrast code and liking for Roots clothing, we used a bootstrapping method (Preacher and Hayes 2008; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010). A confidence interval (CI) that excludes zero for the indirect effect reveals that inferred commonality with the typical Roots shopper mediates the relationship between the ambiguous versus dissimilar MVP contrast code and liking (95% CI [–.72, –.12]), consistent with H2. Given that we used photographs to manipulate MVP, it is possible that our results could be driven by the perceived attractiveness of the specific fans shown, not perceptions of how similar the fans are to the participant (attractiveness and inferred commonality were moderately correlated; r = .38, p < .0001). To test whether this was the case, we examined whether perceived attractiveness mediated the relationship between the focal contrast and liking. When attractiveness is the only mediator in the model, it is a significant mediator (95% CI [–.38, –.004]). However, when we included both inferred commonality and perceived attractiveness in the model as mediators, only inferred commonality mediates the relationship (95% CI [–.74, –.12]). The lower bound of the CI for perceived attractiveness is negative in this model, and the upper bound is positive (95% CI [–.05, .17]), indicating that attractiveness is not a significant mediator. The results for willingness to interact with the brand through social media are substantively identical. Inferred commonality mediates the relationship between the focal contrast and the dependent variable both when alone in the model (95% CI [–.37, –.05]) and when attractiveness is included in the model (95% CI [–.36, –.04]). Attractiveness is a significant mediator when it is the only mediator in the model (95% CI [–.37, –.03]) but not when the model also includes inferred commonality as a mediator (95% CI [–.26, .05]). Discussion The results of Study 1b provide additional support for H1, demonstrating that the results hold across a different operationalization of ambiguity. In support of H2, consumers express greater liking for a brand and greater willingness to interact with that brand through social media when the brand displays ambiguous or similar MVP than when the brand displays dissimilar MVP because of greater inferred commonality with the brand’s user base.8 Note that ambigu- Beyond the “Like” Button / 111 ity in this format would be driven by consumers who have chosen not to upload pictures to their social media profile. Thus, this study suggests that if firms choose to select fans of the day, they can strategically choose to select or avoid individuals who have opted to maintain their privacy. Studies 1a and 1b provide support for H1 using two different manipulations of similarity (age and gender, respectively). These findings suggest that our results will be usable by a marketer who may only have access to either age or gender information based on consumers’ past searching behavior or information provided by a social media platform. We would anticipate that in some product categories, the similarity-enhancing effect of gender and age could be additive. That is, participants might infer greater commonality if they saw the similar MVP of brand supporters who were both the same age and same gender as themselves than if they saw brand supporters who match only in terms of age or gender. Whether age, gender, or both together are most effective at raising inferred commonality is likely dependent on the type of brands or products consumers consider. Clothing is a category in which both factors are clearly important, as shown in these two studies. Further work could identify specific categories for which one demographic factor or another is more central in determining inferred commonality. Study 2 Although the numbers-only presentation used in Study 1a and the fans-of-the-day format used in Study 1b are both common ways to display MVP, firms also increasingly allow consumers to upload pictures of themselves using or wearing a product to social media sites. If such pictures are displayed in ways that do not provide complete demographic information, they would also present the consumer with a type of ambiguous MVP. Therefore, Study 2 explores whether photos that do not reveal all of a supporter’s demographic characteristics create identical effects to those created by revealing only the total number of fans or showing profile pictures that reveal no demographic information. Study 2 also explores the effect of heterogeneous MVP in greater depth, testing the level of heterogeneity required to create effects equivalent to those seen with similar MVP. A secondary goal of this study was to test whether effects observed in prior studies extend to other downstream consequences of interest to managers beyond brand liking and interacting with a brand through social media. Stimuli and Procedure Study 2 asked participants to react to an online clothing retailer called asos: In this survey, we are interested in your opinions about a real brand’s social networking presence. This brand, asos, is an online clothing retailer that sells both men’s and women’s clothing mostly in the U.K. As part of its social networking strategy, in addition to a Facebook page and a Twitter account, asos also hosts “asos marketplace” on its company-owned website. Visitors to the website are invited to join asos marketplace and to post photos of themselves wearing asos brand clothing. 8Although not reported in the interests of brevity, we collected additional data in which we measured inferred commonality before brand evaluations. The results suggest that the effect of dissimilar MVP does not change regardless of whether it is made salient before brand evaluation questions are asked (F(1, 210) = 6.95, p < .01). As such, it appears that the effects of dissimilar and ambiguous MVP on brand evaluations are likely to be obtained either below or above the radar. However, when individuals are cued to notice similar MVP, they appear to discount it when forming brand evaluations (F(1, 210) = 4.50, p < .05). We would attribute this to the possibility that drawing attention to homogeneous similar MVP activates persuasion knowledge, such that consumers try to avoid being manipulated by the individuals presented. Participants then saw a screen shot of what was purportedly the splash page Internet users would find if they went to www.asos.com. They then viewed the “Marketplace” section of the asos website, which featured user-posted photos of brand users wearing asos clothing (see the Web Appendix at www.marketingpower.com/jm_webappendix). We manipulated photos to create the different types of MVP, such that everything on the website was held constant except the user-posted photos.9 Participants indicated their gender before the main study began so that all participants viewed members of the asos marketplace who were matched to their own gender. We manipulated similarity using perceived age, as in Study 1a. Study 2 had eight between-subjects conditions in which participants saw six photos of brand users. The number of similar brand users ranged from zero of six (homogeneous dissimilar MVP) to six of six (homogeneous similar MVP) in seven of the conditions. The eighth condition displayed six photos of brand users that showed only their clothing, not their faces (ambiguous MVP condition). After participants viewed the asos website information, they responded to the following three questions on sevenpoint scales (1 = “very unlikely,” and 7 = “very likely”): “How likely would you be to buy asos clothing if it were available in the U.S.?” “Recently, asos has been considering opening retail stores in addition to selling clothes online…. How likely would you be to shop at an asos store if one opened in your area?” and “If asos sent you a coupon to use in-store (for 20% off your total in-store purchase) to your home mailing address, how likely would you be to use that coupon?” We captured inferred commonality through agreement (on a seven-point scale) with the statement, “I have a lot in common with the typical asos shopper.” As a manipulation check, participants in the similar and dissimilar MVP conditions rated how much they agreed that “The asos marketplace users are the same age I am” and indicated (yes/no) whether the users were the same gender they were. Participants in all conditions responded to the question “Compared to other people in their age group, how attractive were the asos marketplace users?” on a sevenpoint scale anchored by “significantly less attractive than average” and “significantly more attractive than average.” 112 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012 Finally, all participants were asked whether they had heard of asos before the study and, if yes, how familiar they were with the brand on a seven-point scale (1 = “not at all familiar,” and 7 = “very familiar”). Results Sample and manipulation check. Of the 289 undergraduate students who participated in this study for extra credit, 17 had heard of asos before the study. All 17 indicated a familiarity score of four or greater on the seven-point familiarity scale, and therefore we removed them from the data set. Of the remaining participants, 12 indicated that the asos marketplace users were not the same gender they were (presumably because they did not follow instructions and indicated a different gender than their own before the beginning of the study) and were also removed from the data set. This left a final usable sample of 260 participants (151 men, 109 women) with an average age of 21 years. The age similarity manipulation check revealed that participants in the similar MVP condition rated the asos marketplace members as more similar to themselves in age (M6 similar, 0 dissimilar = 5.18) than did participants in the heterogeneous (M5 similar, 1 dissimilar = 4.07, M4 similar, 2 dissimilar = 3.74, M3 similar, 3 dissimilar = 3.75, M2 similar, 4 dissimilar = 2.74, M1 similar, 5 dissimilar = 2.38) and dissimilar MVP conditions (M0 similar, 6 dissimilar = 1.88; F(6, 233) = 23.71, p < .0001). Purchase intentions. Because the three purchase intention measures were highly correlated (= .90), we averaged them to form an overall purchase intention index. Our analysis uses seven contrast codes that compare purchase intentions in the ambiguous MVP condition with every other condition (with no need for special alpha levels because the codes are orthogonal). Consistent with H1a and H1b, none of the contrasts comparing ambiguous MVP with the homogeneous similar MVP condition or any of the heterogeneous conditions were significant (all ps > .24). The only significant contrast (of the seven contrast codes comparing the ambiguous MVP condition with every other condition) was the contrast code comparing the ambiguous MVP condition directly with the homogeneous dissimilar MVP condition. Consistent with H1c, participants in the dissimilar MVP condition were less likely to buy asos clothing (M = 3.60) than participants in the ambiguous MVP condition (M = 4.60; F(1, 249) = 6.84, p < .01).10 To learn more about the effect of different levels of heterogeneity, we conducted follow-up analyses comparing the heterogeneous MVP arrays that contained the fewest number of dissimilar individuals with the homogeneous dissimilar MVP array. We found that one similar individual in the MVP array was not enough to create purchase intentions significantly different from those generated by a homogeneous dissimilar MVP array (F(1, 65) = 1.29, p = .26). However, when two of the six displayed individuals were 9We adapted the stimuli for this study from the asos website. We note that the users shown are not actual asos users, however, and that asos does currently sell clothing in the United States. We selected asos for this study because of its user-posted marketplace photo section and because it was unfamiliar to the majority of the subject pool at the university where the study was conducted. We found the photos of purported asos users through a Google image search (thus, photos came from a variety of different websites where people had posted public photos of themselves, including Burberry’s Art of the Trench website) and Facebook brand pages where users had posted photos of themselves wearing a particular clothing brand (e.g., Talbots), so the clothing used was not actually asos clothing. As in Study 1a, because all participants in the subject pool at the university where the studies were conducted were in their late teens to early 20s, the photos used in the similar condition depicted people who would also be perceived to be in this age range. The purported asos users in the dissimilar age condition were older, with perceived ages ranging from their 40s to their 70s. 10In a separate analysis (excluding the dissimilar MVP condition), we also tested for differences across the homogeneous similar and all heterogeneous MVP conditions. This omnibus analysis revealed that there were no differences in purchase likelihood across these seven conditions (F(6, 228) = .77, p = .60). similar to the participant, purchase intentions were greater than for a dissimilar only MVP array (F(1, 64) = 3.75, p = .06). Further analysis demonstrates the incremental impact of adding an additional similar individual to the mix using regression. This analysis revealed a significant linear (b = .13, t = 2.75, p < .01), not curvilinear (b = –.03, t = –1.18, p = .24), relationship between the degree of similarity in the MVP array and purchase intentions (see Table 1). Mediation. Using the same seven contrast codes comparing each condition with the ambiguous MVP condition, we next examined whether consumers’ inferences that they had “a lot in common with the typical asos shopper” followed the same pattern of results found for purchase intentions. As we expected, the only significant difference was again that participants in the dissimilar MVP condition (i.e., six dissimilar users and zero similar users) perceived lower commonality with the typical asos shopper (M = 3.03) than participants in the ambiguous MVP condition (M = 3.50; F(1, 252) = 3.85, p = .05) (for means, see Table 1). As in Study 1b, we tested both inferred commonality and perceived attractiveness (r = .34, p < .0001) of the asos marketplace users as potential mediators of purchase intentions using a bootstrapping method (Preacher and Hayes 2008; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010). The results reveal that inferred commonality with the typical asos shopper mediates the relationship between the contrast code comparing the dissimilar MVP condition with the ambiguous MVP condition (95% CI [.09, .72]). In contrast, when we tested attractiveness as a mediator, the lower bound of the CI is negative, and the upper bound is positive (95% CI [–.07, .34]), indicating that perceived attractiveness is not a significant mediator. When we included both potential mediators in the model, inferred commonality remains a significant mediator (95% CI [.10, .69]), and perceived attractiveness does not (95% CI [–.03, .15]). Discussion Study 2 demonstrates that the brand liking effects in Studies 1a and 1b extend to purchase intentions and are consistently mediated by inferred commonality with the brand’s users. These results hold when manipulating ambiguity by showing photos that concealed key demographic characteristics. We note that this is a more conservative test of our hypotheses than that in Study 1a or 1b, given that the photos used in Study 2 conceal some, but not all, demographic characteristics. Beyond the “Like” Button / 113 Study 2’s results also indicate that consumers may respond to heterogeneous MVP in the same way they do to ambiguous and homogeneous similar MVP. Exposure to two or more similar individuals in a set leads to purchase intention levels not significantly different from ambiguous or homogenous similar MVP. We suspect, however, that the raw number of similar individuals in a heterogeneous MVP array is likely not as important as the proportion of similar individuals. Would two similar individuals in a heterogeneous MVP array of 100 individuals produce equivalent levels of brand liking as an ambiguous or homogeneous similar MVP array? We leave identification of the absolute tipping point to further study but expect that two would likely not be enough in this context. Across the three studies reported thus far, we show that leaving a brand’s online supporters ambiguous has only positive consequences. However, Studies 1 and 2’s effects were viewed in the context of only one brand’s presence— that is, in a separate evaluation context. In many cases, consumers will not evaluate a brand in isolation. Thus, the prescription to maintain ambiguity may need to be tempered for firms that face a more rather than less competitive space. Therefore, Study 3 examines whether our effects hold in a joint evaluation context more similar to the experience a consumer is likely to actually have on a social networking site. In previous research on interpretation of ambiguous others, Naylor, Lamberton, and Norton (2011) showed participants a set of different, verbally described reviewers (varying in identification and similarity) providing input about different products. In this setup, they found that an ambiguous reviewer was slightly less persuasive than a similar reviewer. This result diverged somewhat from findings in their other studies, in which participants viewed only one reviewer, leaving an explanation for this “cost of ambiguity” for further research. We propose that whether ambiguous MVP creates liking equivalent to or less than that created by similar MVP will depend on whether a brand is evaluated alone (i.e., no competing brands or their supporters are viewed) or evaluated at the same time as other competing brands. From a practical standpoint, consumers may view only one brand’s Facebook page (or the social component of only one brand’s website) in a category with little direct competition or may view many brands’ pages in a densely populated space. TABLE 1 Study 2: Means by MVP Composition Mean Rating of How Much Mean Purchase Intention in Common Participant Has Condition MVP Composition (Indexed Variable) with Typical asos Shopper 1 6 ambiguous users 4.61 3.63 2 6 similar, 0 dissimilar users 4.38 3.94 3 5 similar, 1 dissimilar user 4.48 3.75 4 4 similar, 2 dissimilar users 4.25 3.49 5 3 similar, 3 similar users 4.21 3.35 6 2 similar, 4 dissimilar users 4.23 3.45 7 1 similar, 5 dissimilar users 3.96 3.21 8 0 similar, 6 dissimilar users 3.54 3.00 Viewing multiple competing brands at the same time can be characterized as a case of joint evaluation, whereas single brand viewing can be characterized as separate evaluation (Hsee et al. 1999; Hsee and Leclerc 1998). Previous research has shown that people evaluate options differently in these two decision contexts, such that products that are evaluated highly under separate evaluation may be evaluated less positively under joint evaluation (Hsee and Leclerc 1998). This is because when an objectively attractive product is evaluated singly, consumers rely on an internal reference point to evaluate it. In contrast, when that target product is evaluated alongside another objectively attractive product, consumers shift away from their internal reference point. Instead, consumers focus more on the other product, rather than an internal source, as a reference point (Hsee and Leclerc 1998). In the present context, consider separate evaluation of a brand with ambiguous MVP. We have argued that this brand will be evaluated positively because consumers infer that ambiguous others are like themselves. Now imagine that the same brand is viewed alongside a brand with similar MVP. Rather than focusing exclusively on egocentric anchor-driven inferences of similarity, the consumer compares the ambiguous MVP directly with the similar MVP of the other brand. When ambiguity is directly compared with similarity, the consumer will still infer commonality with the ambiguous MVP brand’s user base, but this inferred information is likely to be weaker than the information observed when demographic similarity is displayed. Thus, in joint evaluation contexts, we predict that consumers will have higher evaluations of a brand about which commonality is more strongly indicated by the similar MVP displayed than a brand about which they have to make an inference (i.e., a brand whose supporters constitute ambiguous MVP), even if the egocentric-anchoring-driven inference would have, under separate evaluation, led to equivalent levels of liking for the brands with ambiguous and similar MVP. Formally, H3: In a joint evaluation context, ambiguous MVP creates brand evaluations that are less positive than those generated by homogeneous, similar MVP but more positive than those generated by homogeneous, dissimilar MVP. Study 3 Study 3 tests our hypothesis that the effect of ambiguity depends on the evaluation context in which a brand is viewed. In addition, Study 3 shows that the results from Studies 1 and 2 replicate in a different product category and in an additional social networking context. Stimuli and Procedure A total of 312 undergraduate students (178 men, 134 women) with a mean age of 21 years participated in this study for course credit. All participants read the following introduction: Now we’d like to you to look at some social networking websites developed by restaurants with locations nationwide. To protect confidentiality, the names of the restaurants have been changed to Restaurants X, Y, and Z [in the joint evaluation condition; only Restaurant X was men- 114 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012 tioned in the separate evaluation condition]. You will see some of the material that appears on the first page of each restaurant’s social networking site. After potential users see this information, they can create an account to join a restaurant’s site, which lets them post information that other users can see, including comments and photographs. Participants in the joint evaluation condition were told that the first pages of all three social networking sites that they would observe featured a “welcome” to the site, photographs of the restaurant, and photographs of members of the restaurant’s site. Participants in this condition were then shown the first page of the three restaurants’ sites with the pictures of five website members varying such that one restaurant featured members similar to the subject pool,11 one featured dissimilar members, and one featured ambiguous members (using the same anonymous Facebook silhouettes used in Study 1b). We rotated the order of type of member featured for each restaurant such that there were actually three joint evaluation conditions that differed only by order. (In all conditions, participants saw three restaurants, one with similar, one with ambiguous, and one with dissimilar members.) Participants in the joint evaluation conditions rated the restaurants sequentially. In contrast, participants in the separate evaluation condition saw information about only one restaurant, which was manipulated between subjects to display similar, dissimilar, or ambiguous MVP. Participants in all conditions were asked, “How much do you think you’d like the bar area at [restaurant name]?” (for each restaurant they saw) on a nine-point scale (1 = “would not like at all,” and 9 = “would like very much”). Results Separate evaluation. We first assessed whether our predictions held in the separate evaluation conditions using two contrast codes that compare (1) the ambiguous and similar MVP conditions with each other and (2) the ambiguous with the dissimilar MVP condition. When we regressed the liking variable on the two contrast codes, we again observed support for H1a, as the bar area was liked equally well in the similar (M = 5.78) and ambiguous MVP conditions (M = 5.92; F(1, 144) = .55, p = .46). That is, as in Studies 1 and 2, there is no cost to ambiguity relative to similarity in a separate evaluation context. Consistent with H1c and the results of the prior studies, participants liked the bar area more in the ambiguous MVP condition than in the dissimilar (M = 5.18) MVP condition (F(1, 144) = 4.77, p < .05).12 11Member pictures used were the same used in Study 1a. Participants were again asked their gender before the study began so that the fans shown matched their gender. We manipulated similarity using perceived age. 12We also conducted an alternate analysis using two contrast codes that compare (1) the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions with the dissimilar condition and (2) the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions with each other. The results revealed that participants liked the bar area more in the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions than in the dissimilar MVP condition (F(1, 109) = 5.24, p < .05) and equally well in the similar and ambiguous MVP conditions (F(1, 109) = .06, p = .81). Joint evaluation. An omnibus repeated measures analysis of all three conditions revealed that there was not a significant between-subjects effect of order (in which the restaurants were viewed) on brand liking, so we dropped order from further analysis (F(1, 163) = .65, p = .42).13 We then used within-subject contrast codes analogous to the ones used in the separate evaluation analysis to analyze participants’ liking for the three restaurants. Consistent with H3 and diverging from H1a, participants liked the bar area in the restaurant with similar MVP (M = 5.97) significantly more than the bar area in the restaurant with ambiguous MVP (M = 5.34; F(1, 164) = 13.22, p < .001), showing a cost of ambiguity relative to known similarity. However, even under joint evaluation, ambiguity is still preferable to dissimilarity: Participants anticipated liking the bar area in the restaurant with ambiguous MVP more than the bar area in the restaurant with dissimilar MVP (M = 4.39; F(1, 164) = 30.01, p < .0001).14 Discussion Study 3 examines participants’ response to similar versus ambiguous MVP in joint versus separate evaluation contexts. In separate evaluation, ambiguous MVP leads to an almost identical response to that generated by similar MVP, as in Studies 1 and 2. However, in joint evaluation, ambiguous MVP leads to a significantly less positive response than does similar MVP. Still, ambiguous MVP generates liking greater than that evoked by dissimilar MVP. These findings shed light on the decision managers must make about whether to reveal the identity of their brand’s supporters: The decision must be determined not just by whether the brand supporters shown are likely to be perceived as similar or dissimilar to a target consumer but also by whether the consumer is likely to encounter the supporters in a joint or separate evaluation context, an issue we return to in the “General Discussion” section. General Discussion At the end of 2011, iMedia Connection published an article titled “Why Facebook Fans Are Useless” (Lake 2011). In the article, the author notes that “on their own, Facebook ‘likes’ don’t add any value.” Yet research has shown that social media can translate into increases in sales (Stephen and Beyond the “Like” Button / 115 Galak 2012). The present work shows how mini-connections with consumers created through social networking can indeed yield positive effects on brand evaluations and purchase intentions. A central proposition of our research is that the decision to reveal a brand’s fan base or to leave supporters’ identities ambiguous is important because the demographic composition of the MVP presented affects consumers’ reactions to the brand. Importantly, the effects of revealing the identities of a brands’ fan base vary depending on the demographic composition of the individuals presented. In Study 1a, we demonstrate that consumers respond as positively to a brand when the brand’s supporters remain ambiguous (because no photos of supporters are displayed) as they do when the brand reveals the identity of supporters that the consumer perceives to be similar to the self. Consumers also respond as positively to the display of a heterogeneous group of similar and dissimilar brand supporters as they do to an ambiguously presented group. Importantly, ambiguous MVP produces significantly greater brand liking than homogeneous dissimilar MVP. Study 1b replicates these effects using a different type of ambiguity (i.e., the generic Facebook silhouette profile picture) and a different manipulation of similarity (gender instead of age). Perhaps surprisingly for many who assume that transparency is key in developing a brand’s social networking presence, the results of both Studies 1a and 1b suggest that revealing the identities of a brand’s online supporters may actually have negative consequences if the brand’s supporters are homogeneous and dissimilar to the target consumer. This may be the case when a brand initially extends into a new target market. In these cases, leaving a brand’s fan base ambiguous may be a safer strategy because consumers will like the brand as much when supporters are ambiguous as when at least some similar supporters are revealed. Notwithstanding expectations about the “social” nature of such platforms, Studies 1a and 1b show no negative consequences of choosing not to reveal the identity of a brand’s supporters. Study 2 uses a third type of ambiguity (photos of brand supporters with key demographic characteristics obscured) and further explicates the impact of heterogeneous MVP, showing that a small proportion of similar supporters can create effects like that of ambiguous MVP. This finding suggests that brands need not fear diversity on social networking sites as long as they can anticipate that a target audience will make up a nontrivial proportion of the group of supporters shown. Both Studies 1b and 2 also document that the effects of MVP on brand liking are driven by consumers’ inferences about how much they have in common with the brand’s supporters. While Studies 1 and 2 suggest that ambiguity is the preferred strategy in separate evaluation contexts, Study 3 shows that in joint evaluation contexts, ambiguity is not as powerful as similarity in generating brand liking. These findings suggest that if the consumer is likely to evaluate a brand in isolation, ambiguity may be the safest strategy. In contrast, if the brand is likely to be encountered in a context in which it is being compared with multiple other brands, managers may need to display information about online 13We also analyzed the joint evaluation data using only each participant’s rating of the first restaurant they saw. Because participants viewed the restaurants sequentially, we expected these results to be consistent with the separate evaluation results. As we expected, participants liked the bar area equally well in the similar (M = 5.57) and ambiguous MVP conditions (M = 5.88; F(1, 162) = .90, p = .34) but more in the ambiguous MVP condition than in the dissimilar (M = 4.66) MVP condition (F(1, 162) = 10.69, p < .01). 14The results using the same alternate contrast codes used in the separate evaluation analysis reveal that participants anticipated liking the bar area in the restaurants with similar and ambiguous MVP more so than the bar area in the restaurant with dissimilar MVP (F(1, 164) = 63.47, p < .0001). However, in contrast to the separate evaluation results, they liked the bar area in the restaurant with similar MVP significantly more so than they did the bar area in the restaurant with ambiguous MVP (F(1, 164) = 13.22, p < .001). supporters, despite the potential risks, to compete with brands with supporters whose demographic characteristics are displayed. Theoretical Contributions This work provides several novel theoretical insights. First, the concept of MVP offers a new framework for understanding social influence. Although spatial proximity is absent, exposure is only passive, typically just a handful of individuals are shown, and no future relationship is likely to exist among the consumers, we show that MVP still has substantial effects on consumers’ brand evaluations and purchase intentions. As such, the concept of MVP highlights the ways that online social influence may have an effect despite its difference from the offline presence of others and despite its failure to conform to the parameters of SIT (Latane 1981). Importantly, in contrast to traditional advertising or spokesperson contexts, we also note that MVP created by social media exposure is provided by individuals who voluntarily affiliate with a brand, making it less likely that their action will be discounted by consumers due to reactance against marketer-driven recommendations (Fitzsimons and Lehmann 2004) or persuasion knowledge (Friestad and Wright 1994). Further research could explore whether the effects of MVP hold if consumers do not trust that the brand supporters presented are truly other consumers (as opposed to, e.g., employees of the brand “posing” as supporters). Furthermore, our investigation into consumers’ responses to ambiguous others may prompt deeper explorations of interpretations of interpersonal ambiguity. In the present research, we show the equivalence of three types of ambiguity: that created when (1) MVP is represented only numerically, (2) MVP is displayed using silhouette pictures that suggest real individuals but obscure all their demographic characteristics, and (3) MVP is displayed using pictures of real supporters that obscure some of their demographic characteristics. Although these operationalizations of ambiguity appear to have similar effects, further research may find additional nuances in the concept of ambiguity and may actually find that different types of ambiguity have variant impacts on consumers. Finally, by directly comparing consumer response to ambiguous others in separate and joint evaluation, we explain Naylor, Lamberton, and Norton’s (2011) findings. We suggest that the difference in ambiguity’s effects across evaluation modes stems from the finding that the internally derived egocentric anchor is the determinant of similarity when ambiguity is encountered in a separate evaluation mode but that the importance of this internal anchor is diminished in joint evaluation. Therefore, in joint evaluation, a brand with ambiguous MVP will be less attractive when compared with a brand with similar MVP. Thus, in Study 3, consumers evaluated a brand with identified similar supporters more positively than a brand whose supporters were not identified. This finding is consistent with work by Forman, Ghose, and Wiesenfeld (2008), who find that consumers rate product reviews containing identity-descriptive 116 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012 information more positively than those that lack identifying information. In the same way, our work suggests that some identification information may be better than none, particularly in joint evaluation contexts. How Can This Research Inform Practice? To determine how our findings can be used, we should first note the breadth of applicability for our studies. Note that we have removed consumers who are extremely familiar with a brand from our analysis and that we focus on brand perceptions and purchase intentions as our outcomes of interest. This makes our findings most applicable to consumers who are relatively new to a brand and who, at least passively, have the goal of forming an opinion about the brands to which they are exposed. This is a substantial segment: Approximately 23.1 million consumers between 13 and 80 years of age use social media to discover new brands or products, and 22.5 million people use social media to learn about unfamiliar brands or products (Knowledge Networks 2011). Thus, our results will be relevant to marketers seeking to reach this large segment of consumers but may not be applicable for marketers of universally known brands. Our research will also be easiest to use when marketers can manipulate their displayed MVP in response to target consumer demographics. Emerging tracking and targeting tools can be used to do this. For example, Facebook ads are often targeted only to certain demographic groups. In such cases, marketers know that individuals who click on a link to their social media sites will fit a certain demographic profile and can adjust MVP accordingly. In other cases, consumers who remain logged in to social media sites while browsing other Internet sites may inadvertently provide access to age or gender information to the other sites they visit. Alternately, forms that have been filled out in one online location can provide information to other sites through stored cookies. Using this information, companies can tailor the MVP that a given consumer encounters when he or she visits a brand’s social media page. However, we recognize that this may not always be possible. To help brand managers manage MVP both when they have granular demographic information about the specific consumers visiting their site and when they do not, we developed a decision framework based on two key factors: (1) the demographic composition of existing brand supporters relative to targeted new supporters and (2) whether the brand is likely to be evaluated singly or in combination with competing brands. This framework (presented in Figure 1) shows when brands should reveal the identity of their online supporters and when ambiguity is preferable, and it highlights cases in which managerial control over MVP composition is particularly crucial. When brands should reveal the identity of social media supporters. If a brand has a social media support base that is either homogeneous and similar to target consumers or a heterogeneous base that includes at least some supporters similar to a target consumer, our research suggests that revealing the identity of a brand’s supporters is unlikely to have adverse consequences for brand evaluations or purchase intentions. This is true in both more and less competitive product categories. If the brand is being evaluated in isolation, revealing a fan base similar to a target consumer (or one that contains at least some similar supporters) is likely to prompt relatively positive evaluations. In joint evaluation contexts, revealing the brand’s similar supporter base may give the brand an edge over brands that provide no supporter information on their social media sites. When a brand’s supporters are better left ambiguous. If a brand’s current supporters are likely to be perceived as dissimilar by new consumers, our results suggest that revealing the identity of a brand’s existing supporters will undermine brand liking in both separate and joint evaluations. Thus, revealing supporters that are dissimilar to the target consumer is an inferior alternative to leaving supporters ambiguous. One situation in which a brand’s current supporters are likely to be dissimilar to targeted consumers is when a brand extends into new demographic segments. In these cases, it will be important to recruit new supporters first (who are perceived to be similar to the new target market). Managers should then ensure that these new supporters are displayed either as a homogenous group when the new target market visits the brand’s social networking site or mixed in with the old supporters to create heterogeneous MVP in which at least some supporters are shown that the new target market perceives as similar. Beyond the “Like” Button / 117 When brand managers need control over the specific brand supporters shown. Our research suggests that brand managers may want to control who is displayed on their social media brand pages, particularly if their supporter base is heterogeneous. If the supporters to be shown are randomly selected each time a consumer visits the page, it is possible that supporters that the target consumer perceives as dissimilar will be shown. Giving the brand manager the ability to tailor MVP makes revealing the identity of a brand’s supporters much less risky. Brand managers may choose to use existing social media sites such as Facebook more strategically (e.g., through a fans of the day feature such as that used in Study 1b) or may create social portions of their own website where they have the ability to control exactly which consumers are featured in MVP arrays. Fortunately for brand managers, the finding that consumers respond as positively to heterogeneous MVP as they do to similar MVP suggests that the same heterogeneous MVP array can enhance brand liking for multiple different target segments. Our research also suggests that brands may need to be cautious in allowing consumers to post photos of themselves using the brand. An examination of sites that allow users to post these types of photos suggests that many brand managers do not realize the effect that failure to manage the MVP these photos create may have on brand evaluations or ! !"#$%"&'$(&$ )*+*,'#'*-&$"#.$ &(+(/"0$1*$1"0,'1$ "-.('#2' !"#$%"&'$(&$ )*+*,'#'*-&$"#.$ .(33'0'#1$30*+$ 1"0,'1$"-.('#2' !"#"$%&'(")*+*,&-.&.$)&/$0"1&4"5$-&'$"#5$ &*2("/$+'.("$6/"13*0+$%'2"-&'$#*$2*#10*/$ (&$#''.'.$*7'0$&6'2(3(2$3"#&$&)*8#9 2$+)*$+)&$3/+45+*,&-.&.$)&/$0":$4"5$-&'$ "#5$&*2("/$+'.("$6/"13*0+$%'2"-&'$#*$ 2*#10*/$(&$#''.'.$*7'0$&6'2(3(2$3"#&$&)*8#9 !"#$%"&'$(&$ )'1'0*,'#'*-&$%-1$ (#2/-.'&$3"#&$&(+(/"0$ 1*$1"0,'1$"-.('#2' !"#$%"&'$(&$ )'1'0*,'#'*-&$"#.$ (#2/-.'&$#*$3"#&$ &(+(/"0$1*$1"0,'1$ "-.('#2' !"#"$%&'(")*+*,&-.&.$)&/$0"1&;&'$*#/5$ &*2("/$+'.("$6/"13*0+&$1)"1$"//*8$2*#10*/$ *7'0$&6'2(3(2$3"#&$&)*8#9 FIGURE 1 Framework for Decisions About Revealing the Identity of a Brand’s Fan Base and Selection of a Social Media Platform that this management can be done in ways that further their strategic objectives. Many brands appear to focus on interactivity and inclusiveness, allowing any user-posted photo to stay up on their site (unless it is offensive), with no thought about how it may be influencing consumers new to the brand. We hope that one of the outcomes of our research is the importance of oversight of this type of content. Brand managers should continually monitor these types of sites, actively deleting photos or other content that does not create the desired form of MVP. If brands allow consumers to post such photos with no oversight, they may risk the creation of MVP that is dissimilar from their target segment and see brand evaluations suffer among new consumers as a result. The ethics of managing mere virtual presence. Companies must also carefully consider the ethical implications of creating customized MVP arrays, as well as the potential for customer backlash, particularly if different arrays will be shown to different consumers. A firm might be perceived as willfully misleading its consumers if it presents a strategically selected MVP array as being exhaustive of a brand’s supporters. However, as long as consumers are aware that only a segment of the brand’s supporters are shown (who may not be representative), they may interpret the display of individuals like themselves as providing customized, diagnostic information, rather than as a dishonest tactic. Fans-of-the-day MVP presentations (a tactic successfully used by Oreo on Facebook; Keath 2012) have the advantage of not purporting to be representative or random, which may decrease the potential for backlash. It is also important to note that consumers do not seem to be aware of the influence that MVP has on their brand evaluations. In an online survey we conducted (for details, see footnote 1), we asked participants how important the identity of other people who have already “liked” a brand on Facebook was in determining how much they themselves like the brand, which they answered on a seven-point scale (1 = “not at all important,” and 7 = “extremely important”). Notably, respondents seemed basically unaware of the effect that the identity of other social media users has on them, reporting a mean value of 3.13, significantly below the scale midpoint. Thus, studying MVP is important not only because of the potentially powerful effect it can have on brand liking but also because of consumers’ apparent lack of awareness of its effects. Further research should explore the possible interpretations of actively managed MVP to avoid the possibility that consumers will be misled. Limitations and Avenues for Further Research There are several factors that may moderate the effects of MVP and that warrant additional research. First, social media can be used to affiliate with brands with which a consumer already has a relationship. When consumers have experience with a brand, our effects may change. For example, existing brand users who encounter dissimilar MVP might experience alienation or dissatisfaction because this demographic composition violates their expectations. Alternately, existing users may discount MVP information altogether, lacking the need to make any inferences about a 118 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012 product’s appropriateness for them. For these consumers, other major factors in a social media site (e.g., the prevalence of coupons, prizes, discounts) may dilute any effects of MVP. Further work could combine both MVP effects and other variations across social media platforms to determine whether they lead to additive or interactive effects. Next, our research suggests that consumers view dissimilar MVP as largely dissociative (White and Dahl 2006, 2007). In the context of clothing and restaurant choices, as well as other socially embedded consumption contexts, we anticipate that this is the case. In addition, for the young consumers who participated in our studies, homophily is strong. However, it is also possible that for high-identityconflict or low-self-esteem consumers or in certain product categories (e.g., luxury goods), a demographically dissimilar group may be aspirational rather than dissociative. For example, Lambert-Pandraud and Laurent’s (2010) study of the French perfume industry notes that although older women are the target market for some fragrances, the advertising for almost all brands features young actresses and models. It may be that, in such cases, dissimilar MVP would have a positive effect on brand evaluations and purchase intentions. Further research could also consider other operationalizations of similarity. We anticipate that gender and age information are most likely to be available to marketers and, therefore, that understanding the effects of these types of similarity or dissimilarity is of most utility. However, if marketers anticipate access to information about consumers’ ethnicity, for example, further research could test to determine whether this operationalization of similarity creates parallel effects. Furthermore, the decision to alter the number of individuals displayed may also alter the effect of MVP composition. For example, if there are only one or two brand supporters shown, consumers may recognize that the MVP composition is not diagnostic. As the number of supporters displayed increases, their composition may have greater impact. We also note that the inferences consumers make on the basis of MVP may be false because demographic similarity often diverges from psychographic or value-based similarity (Wells 1975). Thus, inferences associated with the MVP of similar others may inappropriately inflate expectations of a “perfect fit” to a given consumer’s preference, leading to product dissatisfaction (Diehl and Poynor 2010). Therefore, it would be worthwhile for further research to analyze the accuracy of inferences stemming from MVP and how this accuracy affects brand evaluations, satisfaction, word of mouth, and either present or future purchase intentions. Finally, in our studies, we instructed participants to simply look at a social networking site to form a perception of a new brand. This might be considered a goal-directed behavior, given that is extrinsically motivated, possesses an instrumental orientation, and is part of a prepurchase search process (Novak, Hoffman, and Duhachek 2003). However, consumers may approach social media sites with numerous goals, some of which are more focused on the production than the consumption of content (see Hoffman and Novak 2012), while some may be more experiential (Novak, Hoffman, and Duhachek 2003). For example, consumers driven by intrinsic motivation or in pursuit of an experiential goal may primarily base their affinity for a brand on its social networking site’s ability to help them create the desired level of hedonic benefit. Here, SIT’s prediction of null or weak effects may be correct. In contrast, if a consumer’s goal is to affiliate with others, the effect of MVP may be Beyond the “Like” Button / 119 magnified. An exploration of consumers’ goals when interacting with a brand through social media, the effect of MVP, and the interaction between the two on the influence of downstream variables (e.g., consumer desire to stay affiliated with a brand over time) is an important avenue for further research. Diehl, Kristin and Cait Poynor (2010), “Great Expectations?! Assortment Size, Expectations and Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (April), 312–22. Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339–48. Fitzsimons, Gavan J. and Donald R. Lehmann (2004), “Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses,” Marketing Science, 23 (1), 82–94. Forman, Chris, Anindya Ghose, and Batia Wiesenfeld (2008), “Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets,” Information Systems Research, 19 (September), 291–313. Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1–31. Hameed, Bilal (2011), “Social Media Usage Exploding Amongst Fortune 500 Companies,” Social Times (accessed January 17, 2012), [available at http://socialtimes.com/social-media-usageexploding- amongst-fortune-500-companies_b35372]. Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 50–68. ——— and ——— (2012), “Why People Use Social Media: How Online Social Identity and Motivations Influence the Experience of Being Connected,” working paper, Sloan Center for Internet Retailing, University of California, Riverside. Hsee, Christopher K., Sally Blount, George F. Loewenstein, and Max H. Bazerman (1999), “Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, 125 (5), 576–90. ——— and Frederic Leclerc (1998), “Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (September), 175–86. Jehn, Karen A., Gregory B. Northcraft, and Margaret A. Neale (1999), “Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (December), 741–63. Jiang, Lan, JoAndrea Hoegg, Darren W. Dahl, and Amitava Chattopadhyay (2010), “The Persuasive Role of Incidental Similarity on Attitudes and Purchase Intentions in a Sales Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (February), 778–91. Keath, Jason (2012), “Oreo Features Facebook Fans Daily,” Social Fresh, (January 5), (accessed March 2, 2012), [available at http:// socialfresh.com/oreo-facebook-fan-of-the-day/]. Knowledge Networks (2011), “Social Media Now Influences Brand Perceptions, Purchase Decisions of 38 Million in U.S.” (accessed January 17, 2012), [available at http:// www. knowledgenetworks.com/news/releases/2011/061411_socialmedia. html]. Lake, Amielle (2011), “Why Facebook Fans Are Useless,” iMedia Connection, (accessed January 17, 2012), [available at http:// www.imediaconnection.com/content/30235.asp]. Lambert-Pandraud, Raphaëlle and Gilles Laurent (2010), “Why Do Older Consumers Buy Older Brands? The Role of Attachment and Declining Innovativeness,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (July), 104–121. REFERENCES Aaker, Jennifer, Anne M. Brumbaugh, and Sonya Grier (2000), “Non-Target Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (3), 127–40. Algesheimer, René, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Hermann (2005), “The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (July), 19–34. Argo, Jennifer J., Darren W. Dahl, and Rajesh V. Manchanda (2005), “The Influence of a Mere Social Presence in a Retail Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (September), 207–212. Asch, Solomon E. (1955), “Opinions and Social Pressure,” Scientific American, 193 (5), 31–35. ——— (1956), “Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority,” Psychological Monographs, 70 (416). Baird, Carolyn Heller and Gautam Parasnis (2011), “From Social Media to Social Customer Relationship Management,” Strategy & Leadership, 39 (5), 30–37. Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), “Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183–94. ———, Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel (1989), “Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 473–81. Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (August), 121–34. ——— and ——— (2008), “Who Drives Divergence? Identity Signaling, Outgroup Dissimilarity, and the Abandonment of Cultural Tastes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (September), 593–607. Burnkrant, Robert E. and Alain Cousineau (1975), “Informational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (December), 206–215. Byrne, Donn Erwin (1971), The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Chatman, Jennifer A. and Francis Flynn (2001), “The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Terms,” Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 956–74. Childers, Terry L. and Akshay R. Rao (1992), “The Influence of Familial and Peer-Based Reference Groups on Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September), 198–211. Cunningham, George B. (2007), “Perceptions as Reality: The Influence of Actual and Perceived Demographic Similarity,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 22 (1), 79–89. Deshpandé, Rohit and Douglas M. Stayman (1994), “A Tale of Two Cities: Distinctiveness Theory and Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (February), 57–64. Dholakia, Utpaul M. and Silvia Vianello (2009), “The Fans Know Best,” Sloan Management Review/ Wall Street Journal Business Insights, (August 17), (accessed July 11, 2012), [available at http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052970204482304 574222062946162306. html]. Latane, Bibb (1981), “The Psychology of Social Impact,” American Psychologist, 36 (4), 343–56. Lydon, John E., David W. Jamieson, and Mark P. Zanna (1988), “Interpersonal Similarity and the Social and Intellectual Dimensions of First Impressions,” Social Cognition, 6 (4), 269–86. McCracken, Grant (1988), Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Morry, Marian M (2007), “Relationship Satisfaction as a Predictor of Perceived Similarity Among Cross-Sex Friends: A Test of the Attraction-Similarity Model,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24 (1), 117–38. Muñiz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March) 421–32. Naylor, Rebecca Walker, Cait Poynor Lamberton, and David A. Norton (2011), “Seeing Ourselves in Others: Reviewer Ambiguity, Egocentric Anchoring, and Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (June), 617–31. Newman, Andrew Adam (2011), “Brands Now Direct Their Followers to Social Media,” The New York Times, (August 4), B3. Novak, Thomas P., Donna L. Hoffman, and Adam Duhachek (2003), “The Influence of Goal-Directed and Experiential Activities on Online Flow Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (1/2), 3–16. Perkins, Andrew W., Mark R. Forehand, and Anthony G. Greenwald (2006), “Decomposing the Implicit Self-Concept: The Relative Influence of Semantic Meaning and Valence on Attribute Self-association.” Social Cognition, 24 (4), 387–408. Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,” Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3), 879–91. Rosenthal, Robert, Ralph L. Rosnow, and Donald B. Rubin (2000), Contrasts and Effect Sizes in Behavioral Research: A Correlational Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sassenberg, Kai and Tom Postmes (2002), “Cognitive and Strategic Processes in Small Groups: Effects of Anonymity of the Self and Anonymity of the Group on Social Influence,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 41 (3), 463–81. 120 / Journal of Marketing, November 2012 Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M. Muñiz Jr., and Eric J. Arnould (2009), “How Brand Community Practices Create Value,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (September), 30–51. Shachar, Ron and John W. Emerson (2000), “Cast Demographics, Unobserved Segments, and Heterogeneous Switching Costs in a Television Viewing Choice Model,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (May), 173–86. Smith, J. Walker and Ann Clurman (2009), Generation Ageless. New York: HarperCollins. Stephen, Andrew T. and Jeff Galak (2012), “The Effects of Traditional and Social Earned Media on Sales: A Study of a Microlending Marketplace,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (October), 624–39. Thompson, Scott A. and Rajiv K. Sinha (2008), “Brand Communities and New Product Adoption: The Influence and Limits of Oppositional Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (November), 65–80. Tucker, Catherine and Juanjuan Zhang (2010), “Growing Two- Sided Networks by Advertising the User Base: A Field Experiment,” Marketing Science, 29 (5), 805–881. Turner, John C., Michael A. Hogg, Penny J. Oakes, Stephen D. Reicher, and Margaret S. Wetherell, eds. (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell. Wells, William D. (1975), “Psychographics: A Critical Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (May), 196–213. White, Katherine and Daren W. Dahl (2006), “To Be or Not Be? The Influence of Dissociative Reference Groups on Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (4), 404–414. ——— and ——— (2007), “Are All Out-Groups Created Equal? Consumer Identity and Dissociative Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (December), 525–36. Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch Jr., and Qimei Chen (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (August), 197–206.