Rebecca Walker Naylor, Cait Poynor Lamberton, & Patricia M.

West

Beyond the “Like” Button: The

Impact of Mere Virtual Presence on
Brand Evaluations and Purchase
Intentions in Social Media Settings
By 2011, approximately 83% of Fortune 500 companies were using some form of social media to connect with
consumers. Furthermore, surveys suggest that consumers are increasingly relying on social media to learn about
unfamiliar brands. However, best practices regarding the use of social media to bolster brand evaluations in such
situations remain undefined. This research focuses on one practice in this domain: the decision to hide or reveal
the demographic characteristics of a brand’s online supporters. The results from four studies indicate that even
when the presence of these supporters is only passively experienced and virtual (a situation the authors term “mere
virtual presence”), their demographic characteristics can influence a target consumer’s brand evaluations and
purchase intentions. The findings suggest a framework for brand managers to use when deciding whether to reveal
the identities of their online supporters or to retain ambiguity according to (1) the 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.

W
Keywords: social influence, mere presence, social media, social networks, ambiguity

hile a decade and a half of work building on Hoff-
man and Novak’s (1996) analysis of computer-
mediated 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 com-
munities (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 prac-
tices 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 prospec-
tive 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
naylor_53@fisher.osu.edu), and Patricia M. West is Associate Professor
Rebecca Walker Naylor is Assistant Professor of Marketing (e-mail:
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 con-
sumers 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 dis-
played 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 com-
panies use some form of social media (Hameed 2011), prac-
titioners 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 gen-
erate substantive differences in brand evaluations and pur-

of Marketing (e-mail: west_284@fisher.osu.edu), Fisher College of Busi-

chase intentions?
We answer this question by exploring the effects of four
ness, The Ohio State University. Cait Poynor Lamberton is Assistant Pro-

Pittsburgh (e-mail: cpoynor@katz.pitt.edu). Order of authorship is arbi- distinct types of MVP on brand evaluations and purchase
fessor of Marketing, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of

intentions. Note that in the pre-social-media world, the

identity of a brand’s supporters was largely unknown. The
trary; all authors contributed equally to this article. The authors thank Dar-

analog to this position in the social media world would be

ren Dahl, Jeff Inman, Greg Allenby, and Andrew Hayes for their comments
on various aspects of this research.

© 2012, American Marketing Association Journal of Marketing

ISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic) 105 Volume 76 (November 2012), 105–120
choosing not to reveal the identity of a brand’s online sup-
porters, a case we call “ambiguous MVP.” If a brand dis-
plays the identity of its supporters, in social media settings,
this information is typically conveyed through profile pho-
tographs that display brand supporters’ demographic char-
acteristics.1 Relative to a target consumer, displayed MVP
may be demographically similar or demographically dis-
similar, or it may present a heterogeneous mix of similar
and dissimilar consumers. We compare the effects of main-
taining 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 sup-
porters to prospective customers and when to retain ambi-
guity 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) demon-
strate that displaying the number of sellers and buyers in
online exchanges can change business-to-business listing
and buying behavior. However, such findings provide lim-
ited 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 mod-
erator 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 sup-
porters or to retain ambiguity according to (1) the demo-
graphic composition of existing supporters relative to tar-
geted 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
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 pro-
file (n = 274) indicated that they use a photograph of themselves
as their profile picture.
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 lit-
tle 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 pow-
erful 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 pre-
dictions about the impact of maintaining ambiguity as
opposed to displaying different types of MVP. We also pre-
dict consumers’ responses to a heterogeneous group of
similar and dissimilar individuals, a topic that, while not
addressed in the reference group literature, becomes impor-
tant 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 adver-
tising 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 (Nay-
lor, Lamberton, and Norton 2011). We refer to this infer-
ence of shared preferences as “inferred commonality.”
Note, however, that inferred commonality has primarily
been considered in cases in which such inferences are ratio-
nally based on provided information. For example, informa-
tion provided in reviewer posts could rationally inform
inferred commonality; writing style, expression of priori-
ties, 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 informa-
tion 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 commonal-
ity. 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 con-
sumers exposed to dissimilar MVP will infer little common-
ality with the brand’s users and will express lower evalua-
tions 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 lev-
els of commonality (Aaker et al. 2000). Thus, if MVP indi-
cates that the brand is liked by people whom target con-
sumers 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 com-
pared 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 demo-
graphic 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 percep-
tions 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
person’s in-group will be subject to any stereotypes com-
mon 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, Lamber-
ton, 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 in-
and out-groups or interaction among members. Rather, it
involves only incidental, passive exposure to other con-
sumers. 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 cre-
ated 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 impor-
tant, because it is possible that a brand will not present sup-
porters 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 unrepre-
sented 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 indi-
viduals 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 con-
sumers as members of social networking sites (Dholakia
and Vianello 2009), arguing that heterogeneity could indi-
cate 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 differ-
ent reasons than those Dholakia and Vianello (2009) pro-
pose. We base our prediction in the idea that individuals
tend to be particularly sensitive to incidental similarities
between themselves and others, showing more positive atti-
tudes 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 self-
Beyond the “Like” Button / 107
relatedness for information processing (e.g., Perkins, Fore-
hand, 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 hypothe-
size that ambiguous MVP will create brand evaluations like
those created by similar MVP, heterogeneous and ambigu-
ous MVP should also produce equivalent brand evaluations.
A question that remains, however, is how much similar-
ity must be present in a heterogeneous MVP array for it to
generate inferences and evaluations like homogenous simi-
lar MVP. Note that in Asch’s classic work on conformity
(Asch 1955, 1956), social influence effects can be gener-
ated 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 judg-
ments 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 (dis-
similar MVP) to 100% (similar MVP).
Thus, we suggest that MVP will influence brand evalua-
tions as follows:
H1: Ambiguous MVP produces (a) equivalent brand evalua-
tions to homogeneous similar MVP, (b) equivalent brand
evaluations to heterogeneous MVP, and (c) significantly
more positive brand evaluations than homogeneous dis-
similar 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 pertain-
ing 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
2Note that because H and H predict equivalence, a media-
1a 1b
tion 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 evalua-
tions between these types of MVP predicted in H1c.
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 practi-
tioners 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 attrac-
tion 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. Simi-
larly, 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 indi-
viduals 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 infor-
mation 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 ques-
tions about Roots clothing. As discussed previously, we
operationalized similarity using perceived age, holding gen-
der 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 follow-
ing: (1) total number of fans and pictures of six fans that
3At the time we began this research, Facebook called brand sup-
porters “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 (homoge-
neous 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 con-
dition), (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 simi-
lar, dissimilar, and heterogeneous MVP conditions to indi-
cate 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 famil-
iar,” and 9 = “very familiar”).
Results
Sample and manipulation check. We first examined par-
ticipants’ 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 nine-
point familiarity scale, and therefore we removed them
from the data set. Of the remaining participants, two indi-
cated 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 begin-
ning 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 differ-
ences in amount of time spent viewing the page across con-
ditions (M = 26.7 seconds; F(3, 107) = 1.13, p = .34).
Liking for Roots clothing. We next examined partici-
pants’ 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-
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.
erogeneous MVP [H1b], and [3] ambiguous MVP vs. dis-
similar 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 dissimi-
lar 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 ambigu-
ous 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 con-
sidered 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 ambigu-
ous 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 net-
working 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. Specifi-
cally, 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
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 simi-
lar 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 lik-
ing: 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).
Beyond the “Like” Button / 109
(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 fea-
tured six fans of the day (see the Web Appendix at www.
marketingpower.com/jm_webappendix). We held all ele-
ments constant except the photos of the fans of the day.6 This
study included three between-subjects conditions. Partici-
pants 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 informa-
tion, they indicated their level of agreement with the fol-
lowing 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 hypoth-
esis, we also asked all participants how much they agreed
that “I have a lot in common with the typical Roots shop-
per.” 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 attrac-
tiveness, we also measured perceived attractiveness to rule
out this alternative explanation using the question, “Com-
pared to the average person of their age and gender, how
attractive were the Roots ‘fans of the day’?” (1 = “signifi-
cantly less attractive than average,” and 7 = “significantly
more attractive than average”). Finally, all participants
6The stimuli for this study were adapted from the Roots web-
site, which does feature a “Community” section (though this sec-
tion 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.
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 undergrad-
uate 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 famil-
iar 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 indi-
cated 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 dis-
similar 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 condi-
tions 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 dissim-
ilar (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 com-
mon with the typical Roots shopper” followed the same pat-
tern, 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) =
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 simi-
lar 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 con-
dition (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 boot-
strapping method (Preacher and Hayes 2008; Zhao, Lynch,
and Chen 2010). A confidence interval (CI) that excludes
zero for the indirect effect reveals that inferred commonal-
ity 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 exam-
ined whether perceived attractiveness mediated the relation-
ship between the focal contrast and liking. When attractive-
ness 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]), indi-
cating that attractiveness is not a significant mediator. The
results for willingness to interact with the brand through
social media are substantively identical. Inferred common-
ality 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 signifi-
cant 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 opera-
tionalization 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-
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 ambigu-
ous 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 simi-
lar MVP activates persuasion knowledge, such that consumers try
to avoid being manipulated by the individuals presented.
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 dif-
ferent manipulations of similarity (age and gender, respec-
tively). 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 search-
ing behavior or information provided by a social media
platform. We would anticipate that in some product cate-
gories, 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 support-
ers who were both the same age and same gender as them-
selves 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 con-
sumers consider. Clothing is a category in which both fac-
tors 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 deter-
mining 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 demo-
graphic 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 sup-
porter’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 heteroge-
neous MVP in greater depth, testing the level of hetero-
geneity 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.
Beyond the “Like” Button / 111
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” sec-
tion of the asos website, which featured user-posted photos
of brand users wearing asos clothing (see the Web Appen-
dix 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 seven-
point 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 seven-
point scale anchored by “significantly less attractive than
average” and “significantly more attractive than average.”
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 actu-
ally 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 con-
dition were older, with perceived ages ranging from their 40s to
their 70s.
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 famil-
iar,” and 7 = “very familiar”).
Results
Sample and manipulation check. Of the 289 undergrad-
uate 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 famil-
iarity 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 (pre-
sumably because they did not follow instructions and indi-
cated 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 inten-
tion measures were highly correlated ( = .90), we aver-
aged 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 het-
erogeneous conditions were significant (all ps > .24). The
only significant contrast (of the seven contrast codes com-
paring the ambiguous MVP condition with every other con-
dition) was the contrast code comparing the ambiguous
MVP condition directly with the homogeneous dissimilar
MVP condition. Consistent with H1c, participants in the dis-
similar MVP condition were less likely to buy asos clothing
(M = 3.60) than participants in the ambiguous MVP condi-
tion (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 dis-
similar 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 homoge-
neous dissimilar MVP array (F(1, 65) = 1.29, p = .26).
However, when two of the six displayed individuals were
10In a separate analysis (excluding the dissimilar MVP condi-
tion), we also tested for differences across the homogeneous simi-
lar 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 com-
paring 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” fol-
lowed the same pattern of results found for purchase inten-
tions. 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 inten-
tions 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 attractive-
ness 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.
TABLE 1
Study 2: Means by MVP Composition
Mean Purchase Intention
Condition MVP Composition
1 6 ambiguous users
2 6 similar, 0 dissimilar users
3 5 similar, 1 dissimilar user
4 4 similar, 2 dissimilar users
5 3 similar, 3 similar users
6 2 similar, 4 dissimilar users
7 1 similar, 5 dissimilar users
8 0 similar, 6 dissimilar users
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 heteroge-
neous 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, con-
sumers will not evaluate a brand in isolation. Thus, the pre-
scription 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 par-
ticipants 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 find-
ings 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, con-
sumers 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.
Mean Rating of How Much
in Common Participant Has
(Indexed Variable) with Typical asos Shopper
4.61 3.63
4.38 3.94
4.48 3.75
4.25 3.49
4.21 3.35
4.23 3.45
3.96 3.21
3.54 3.00
Beyond the “Like” Button / 113
 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). Pre-
vious research has shown that people evaluate options dif-
ferently 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 attrac-
tive product is evaluated singly, consumers rely on an inter-
nal reference point to evaluate it. In contrast, when that tar-
get 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 com-
pares 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 infor-
mation 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 gener-
ated 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 nation-
wide. To protect confidentiality, the names of the restau-
rants 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, pho-
tographs 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 ambigu-
ous members (using the same anonymous Facebook silhou-
ettes 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 restau-
rants, 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 con-
dition saw information about only one restaurant, which
was manipulated between subjects to display similar, dis-
similar, 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 pre-
dictions 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. Par-
ticipants were again asked their gender before the study began so
that the fans shown matched their gender. We manipulated similar-
ity 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 partici-
pants 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 con-
ditions (F(1, 109) = .06, p = .81).
 Joint evaluation. An omnibus repeated measures analy-
sis of all three conditions revealed that there was not a sig-
nificant 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 par-
ticipants’ 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 ambi-
guity 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 restau-
rant 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 con-
texts. 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, ambigu-
ous 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 sup-
porters 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
13We also analyzed the joint evaluation data using only each
participant’s rating of the first restaurant they saw. Because par-
ticipants 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).
Galak 2012). The present work shows how mini-connections
with consumers created through social networking can
indeed yield positive effects on brand evaluations and pur-
chase 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 com-
position 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, ambigu-
ous 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 manipu-
lation of similarity (gender instead of age).
Perhaps surprisingly for many who assume that trans-
parency 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 support-
ers 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 conse-
quences 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 net-
working 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 con-
sumers’ inferences about how much they have in common
with the brand’s supporters.
While Studies 1 and 2 suggest that ambiguity is the pre-
ferred 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
Beyond the “Like” Button / 115
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 under-
standing 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 high-
lights the ways that online social influence may have an
effect despite its difference from the offline presence of oth-
ers 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 vol-
untarily affiliate with a brand, making it less likely that
their action will be discounted by consumers due to reac-
tance against marketer-driven recommendations (Fitzsi-
mons and Lehmann 2004) or persuasion knowledge (Fries-
tad 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 con-
sumers (as opposed to, e.g., employees of the brand “pos-
ing” 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 ambi-
guity: that created when (1) MVP is represented only
numerically, (2) MVP is displayed using silhouette pictures
that suggest real individuals but obscure all their demo-
graphic characteristics, and (3) MVP is displayed using pic-
tures of real supporters that obscure some of their demo-
graphic 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 evalua-
tion, 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 con-
sumers 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, particu-
larly 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 con-
sumers 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 seg-
ment: 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 Net-
works 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 pos-
sible. To help brand managers manage MVP both when
they have granular demographic information about the spe-
cific 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 support-
ers 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 pur-
 FIGURE 1
Framework for Decisions About Revealing the Identity of a Brand’s Fan Base and Selection of a Social
!
Media Platform
!"#$%"&'$(&$
)*+*,'#'*-&$"#.$
&(+(/"0$1*$1"0,'1$
"-.('#2'
!"#$%"&'$(&$
)'1'0*,'#'*-&$%-1$
(#2/-.'&$3"#&$&(+(/"0$
1*$1"0,'1$"-.('#2'
!"#$%"&'$(&$
)*+*,'#'*-&$"#.$
.(33'0'#1$30*+$
1"0,'1$"-.('#2'
!"#$%"&'$(&$
)'1'0*,'#'*-&$"#.$
(#2/-.'&$#*$3"#&$
&(+(/"0$1*$1"0,'1$
"-.('#2'
chase intentions. This is true in both more and less competi-
tive 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 evalua-
tions. Thus, revealing supporters that are dissimilar to the
target consumer is an inferior alternative to leaving support-
ers 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 mar-
ket). Managers should then ensure that these new support-
ers 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.
!"#"$%&'(")*+*,&-.&.$)&/$0"1&4"5$-&'$"#5$
&*2("/$+'.("$6/"13*0+$%'2"-&'$#*$2*#10*/$
(&$#''.'.$*7'0$&6'2(3(2$3"#&$&)*8#9
!"#"$%&'(")*+*,&-.&.$)&/$0"1&;&'$*#/5$
&*2("/$+'.("$6/"13*0+&$1)"1$"//*8$2*#10*/$
*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
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 per-
ceives as dissimilar will be shown. Giving the brand
manager the ability to tailor MVP makes revealing the iden-
tity of a brand’s supporters much less risky. Brand man-
agers 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 heteroge-
neous MVP array can enhance brand liking for multiple dif-
ferent target segments.
Our research also suggests that brands may need to be
cautious in allowing consumers to post photos of them-
selves 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
Beyond the “Like” Button / 117
that this management can be done in ways that further their
strategic objectives. Many brands appear to focus on inter-
activity 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 cre-
ate the desired form of MVP. If brands allow consumers to
post such photos with no oversight, they may risk the crea-
tion 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. Compa-
nies 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 strate-
gically 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 advan-
tage 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 them-
selves like the brand, which they answered on a seven-point
scale (1 = “not at all important,” and 7 = “extremely impor-
tant”). 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 con-
sumer already has a relationship. When consumers have
experience with a brand, our effects may change. For exam-
ple, existing brand users who encounter dissimilar MVP
might experience alienation or dissatisfaction because this
demographic composition violates their expectations. Alter-
nately, existing users may discount MVP information alto-
gether, 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 preva-
lence 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 dis-
similar 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-identity-
conflict or low-self-esteem consumers or in certain product
categories (e.g., luxury goods), a demographically dissimi-
lar 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 pur-
chase intentions.
Further research could also consider other operational-
izations 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 con-
sumers’ ethnicity, for example, further research could test to
determine whether this operationalization of similarity cre-
ates 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 similar-
ity (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 sim-
ply 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, Hoff-
man, 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
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 Con-
sumer 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,” Scien-
tific American, 193 (5), 31–35.
——— (1956), “Studies of Independence and Conformity: A
Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority,” Psychologi-
cal Monographs, 70 (416).
Baird, Carolyn Heller and Gautam Parasnis (2011), “From Social
Media to Social Customer Relationship Management,” Strat-
egy & 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), “Mea-
surement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influ-
ence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 473–81.
Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge
from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 34 (August), 121–34.
——— and ——— (2008), “Who Drives Divergence? Identity Sig-
naling, Outgroup Dissimilarity, and the Abandonment of Cul-
tural 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 Conse-
quences 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 Deci-
sions,” 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 Effective-
ness,” 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 Busi-
ness Insights, (August 17), (accessed July 11, 2012), [available
at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204482304
574222062946162306.html].
magnified. An exploration of consumers’ goals when inter-
acting 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 affil-
iated with a brand over time) is an important avenue for fur-
ther 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 Con-
sumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology, 13 (3), 339–48.
Fitzsimons, Gavan J. and Donald R. Lehmann (2004), “Reactance
to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Con-
trary 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-usage-
exploding-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 Experi-
ence 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,” Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 44 (December), 741–63.
Jiang, Lan, JoAndrea Hoegg, Darren W. Dahl, and Amitava Chat-
topadhyay (2010), “The Persuasive Role of Incidental Similar-
ity 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_social-
media.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 Attach-
ment and Declining Innovativeness,” Journal of Marketing, 74
(July), 104–121.
Beyond the “Like” Button / 119
Latane, Bibb (1981), “The Psychology of Social Impact,” Ameri-
can 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 Per-
sonal 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 Ambi-
guity, Egocentric Anchoring, and Persuasion,” Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 48 (June), 617–31.
Newman, Andrew Adam (2011), “Brands Now Direct Their Fol-
lowers 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. Green-
wald (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 Indi-
rect 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 Strate-
gic 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 Tradi-
tional 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 Communi-
ties 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 Experi-
ment,” 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), “Recon-
sidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation
Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (August),
197–206.