17-6.26-ZYN Let Me Show You What I Did Versus What I Have

Let Me Show You What I Did versus What I
Have: Sharing Experiential versus Material

Purchases Alters Authenticity and Liking of
Social Media Users
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

FRANCESCA VALSESIA
KRISTIN DIEHL
Social media may encourage novel ways of signaling that involve different pur-
chase types (experiential vs. material), signaling frequencies (multiple vs. single
signals), and other features unique to social media (e.g., hashtags). This work
examines how purchase signals are received on social media and how these sig-
naling variations affect signal receivers’ perceptions of the authenticity of social
media posts as well as the overall impressions receivers form of the signal sender.
Data collected across six experiments show multiple material purchase signals
lead to more negative impressions compared to multiple experiential purchase sig-
nals. Signal receivers perceive multiple material purchase posts as less authentic,
which dampens their impressions of the signal sender. In line with this mecha-
nism, the impression premium of experiential purchase signals disappears when
receivers use other cues (monetary mentions, other users’ comments, and mar-
keter associations via hashtags) to infer a signal’s lack of authenticity. Additional
data also document downstream consequences on engagement. This work con-
tributes theoretically to research in both signaling and social media and improves
the understanding of substantive situations in which consumers’ objectives of cu-
rating a positive image and creating engagement with their posts, collide with mar-
keters’ objectives of encouraging user-generated content and word of mouth.
Keywords: signaling, social media, impression management, word of mouth, en-

gagement, influencer
I magine reading a friend’s post on social media saying,

“So excited to have scored front row tickets! Laker’s
game here I come.” Now imagine reading a post by a
different friend saying, “Thrilled to have bought myself a
new phone! iPhone 13 Pro rocks.” While the posters may
have intended these messages to be informative and genu-
ine disclosures of their life, readers may question the sin-
cerity of such posts, seeing them more as self-promotional
Francesca Valsesia (valsesia@uw.edu) is assistant professor of mar- signals aimed at curating the poster’s image. Signaling,
keting at the University of Washington’s Foster School of Business, 4277
NE Stevens Way, Paccar Hall, Seattle, WA 98185, USA. Kristin Diehl and conspicuous consumption in particular, has been an
(kdiehl@marshall.usc.edu) is professor of marketing at the University of important area of study in consumer behavior and market-
Southern California’s Marshall School of Business, 3670 Trousdale Pkwy, ing for decades. However, much less is known about social
Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA. Please address correspondence to
Francesca Valsesia. Supplementary materials are included in the web ap-
media signaling and its novel and not yet well understood
pendix accompanying the online version of this article. aspects.
For example, social media allows a wider range of pur-
Editors: Amna Kirmani and Stacy Wood
chases and consumption occasions to serve as signals.
Associate Editor: Rebecca Walker Reczek Even though Veblen (1899) explicitly discussed conspicu-
ous leisure as one form of unproductive display of wealth,
Advance Access publication November 27, 2021
the vast majority of research on conspicuous consumption
C The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
V
For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com Vol. 49 2022
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab068
430
VALSESIA AND DIEHL 431
状态信号
and signaling has primarily focused on product signaling posters may choose to add certain social media-specific
(e.g., see JCR’s research curation “Products as signals”; elements (e.g., hashtags) that highlight connections with
Moreau 2014). Only recently have some researchers exam- other entities or marketing campaigns (e.g.,
ined different types of status signals (e.g., busyness: #ShotOnIphone). Or, other social media users might pro-
Bellezza, Paharia, and Keinan 2017), possibly, at least in vide feedback to a post, in the form of comments and likes,
part, because social media has broadened the scope of what which may also affect how the post is evaluated. In this
显眼的 can become conspicuous. Product signaling is still possible work, we explore how receivers use various social media-
on social media, as exemplified by the above post about specific cues to infer the authenticity of social media posts.
the iPhone. If anything, social media allows product signal-

By examining unique ways in which signaling can occur
ing even when purchases are generally not visible (e.g., and be received on social media, we both contribute an
they are consumed privately). Yet, social media also allows unexplored authenticity-based process to the signaling lit-
previously less observable experiential purchases to be erature and provide new insights to the literature on con-
made visible to others and to be used as signals. sumers’ involvement with and reactions to social media.
Because social media heightens the ability to use experi- Moreover, by systematically comparing experiential and
ential purchases as signals, we explore how posting about material purchase signals, we add to the literature explor-
different purchases (material or experiential) affects the ing the benefits (or lack thereof) of experiential versus ma-
impressions signal receivers form of signal senders. In this terial purchases. While making these theoretical
体验式购买 work, experiential versus material purchase signals also
与物质式购买 contributions, we also contribute to the substantive under-
provide the context in which we study other unique aspects standing of situations in which consumers’ objectives of
of social media signaling. Just like word of mouth (WOM) curating a positive image of themselves and marketers’
differs between social media and face-to-face contexts objectives of fostering user-generated content and WOM
(Eisingerich et al. 2015), signaling also differs. For in- may not align.
stance, one important aspect of social media is that expo-
曝光 sure to signals can be more lasting than in the offline
world; it is often said “the internet never forgets.” Signals SIGNALING ON SOCIAL MEDIA
sent by the same sender can be received independently
The rise of social media has provided everyday consum-
(e.g., when signal receivers scroll through their own social
ers an unprecedented stage that allows for both self-
media feed) or jointly (e.g., when signal receivers land on
expressive disclosure (i.e., providing factual information
the sender’s profile page). The latter situation heightens
about oneself to others) and self-presentation (i.e., provid-
the salience of multiple posts sent over time, one aspect of
ing selective information about oneself with the goal to im-
social media signaling whose consequences have yet to be
press others; Schlosser 2020, Wilcox, Kim, and Sen 2009).
explored.
As social media is constantly evolving (e.g., the recent rise
Another key feature of signaling on social media is that
sharing is undeniably intentional as posts are purposefully of TikTok and Clubhouse), the specific tools consumers
initiated by the signal sender and thus may be perceived as can use to express themselves and signal to others are also
more active choices compared to conspicuous consumption evolving (e.g., photos; Barasch, Zauberman, and Diehl
offline. Signal receivers may be prone to wonder whether 2018), as are the cues social media users use to form per-
what is being shared is a genuine form of self-expression ceptions of others (e.g., the number of users someone is
or, instead, a strategic form of self-presentation (Schlosser following; Valsesia, Proserpio, and Nunes 2020). We con-
2020). Thus, along with allowing novel types of signals to tribute to this real-world context by exploring the effect of
be used, social media may also bring to light an unexplored aspects common across many social media platforms, in-
process that influences how signal senders are perceived. cluding post frequency and hashtag use, on the impression
感知信号 In particular, we examine how the perceived authenticity signal receivers form of signal senders.
真实性 of a signal, defined as “the extent to which a signal is per- Prior literature has generally focused on the effective-
ceived to be sincere, that is, intrinsically motivated by a de- ness of signaling status (Nailya and Chandon 2011) or of
真实 sire to self-express,” affects overall impressions of the signaling other specific characteristics (e.g., coolness;
signal sender. Warren and Campbell 2014). While these are important
Perceiving social media posts as an insincere form of signaling objectives, they are in service of the universal,
self-presentation may arise differentially as a function of higher level objective of being perceived positively by
the posts’ content (e.g., experiential vs. material purchase others (Baumeister 1982). Particularly on social media,
signals) as well as the frequency of posting (e.g., just once people generally want to curate an overall positive image
vs. multiple times). In addition, such perceptions may be through their posting activities (Burrow and Rainone
heightened when the social media environment provides 2017). While any one post may be signaling specific char-
additional cues about the senders’ possibly inauthentic mo- acteristics, social media posts are ultimately meant to im-
tivation for posting about their purchases. For instance, prove the overall perceptions that signal receivers hold of
432 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
the sender (Jung, Song, and Vorderer 2012). Hence, we ex- Moreover, to infer brand authenticity specifically, they rely
amine the effect of using different purchase signals and dif- on observable cues such as the communication style
ferent ways of sharing these signals on the overall (Morhart et al. 2015) or a brand’s origin story (Cinelli and
印象对 impressions signal receivers form of the signal sender. In LeBoeuf 2020). In our case, we expect signal receivers will
用户参与 addition to being highly meaningful to signal senders, 行为 use observable aspects of a signal (a social media post) to
喜欢、转发、 impressions can have important behavioral consequences 后果 infer its authenticity. Since people value authenticity in
评论和点击）
也有重要 for user engagement (likes, retweets, comments, and click- others’ actions (Grandey et al. 2005), we reason that judg-
行为后果 throughs). We further discuss evidence for such down- ing signals as being more authentic may lead to more posi-

stream effects in the General Discussion. tive impressions of the signal sender.
SOCIAL MEDIA SIGNALING AND HOW ARE PURCHASE SIGNALS ON

PERCEIVED AUTHENTICITY SOCIAL MEDIA RECEIVED?
社会媒体信号和感知的真实性
While social media plays an important role in consum- Prior literature suggests that a single experiential (vs.
积极的
ers’ lives, not everything about social media is positive. In material) purchase conveys a number of benefits to pur-
particular, social media has become associated with being chasers themselves (e.g., improved happiness and well-
联系 fake and inauthentic (Garsd 2018, Huddleston 2021), so being, Caprariello and Reis 2013; Van Boven and Gilovich
自我表达的 people may be prone to wonder whether social media posts 2003; slower adaptation, Nicolao, Irwin, and Goodman
披露，或是 reflect self-expressive disclosure or are instead a form of 2009; greater conversational utility, Bastos and Brucks
一种自我展
示的形式 self-presentation (Schlosser 2020). 2017, Kumar and Gilovich 2015). Moreover, experiential
在消费真实性
In a quantitative conceptualization of consumption au- purchases can foster social bonds when received as gifts
的定量概念化thenticity, Nunes, Ordanini, and Giambastiani (2021) show (Chan and Mogilner 2017). In terms of others’ perceptions
中，真实性是authenticity is a holistic assessment determined by differ- of purchasers, Van Boven, Campbell, and Gilovich (2010)
由不同环境因
素决定的整体ent context-dependent components. We are specifically in- find that learning about others’ experiential (vs. material)
评估。 terested in authenticity in the context of social media purchases in day-to-day interactions can lead individuals to
真实性 signaling and hence define perceived authenticity of a sig- think of the purchaser as less materialistic. Overall, a re-
真心实意
对信号真诚 nal as “an assessment of the extent to which a signal is sin- cent meta-analysis (Weingarten and Goodman 2021) quan-
程度的评估，cere, that is, intrinsically motivated by a desire to self- tified the general experiential advantage to the purchaser
内在的自我
表达的欲望 express.” This definition aligns with what Nunes et al. as robust and in the small-to-medium range.
所驱动。 (2021) identify as the integrity component of authentic- We are interested in a somewhat different question than
ity—the extent to which something is intrinsically moti- what has been addressed in prior literature, namely, how
vated—and is supported by work on brand authenticity that purposefully using a given purchase as a signal, that is, ex-
found that inferring intrinsic motivation of brands (Cinelli plicitly and unpromptedly broadcasting about a purchase
and LeBoeuf 2020) and brand creators (Holt 2002) height- on social media, affects others’ perceptions of the signal
ens perceived brand authenticity. Similarly, in the context sender. Offline, one may learn about someone’s purchases
of people perception, Smith, Vandellen, and Ton (2021) in various ways (e.g., by observing someone’s purchase
found that when individuals post on social media about al- actions; Dahl, Machanda, and Argo 2001). On social me-
tering their appearance (e.g., through cosmetics), framing dia, however, the sender explicitly decides to disclose such
these appearance-altering procedures as a form of self- purchases to a wide audience. Because posts are intentional
expression (vs. self-enhancement) affects perceived au- acts, signal receivers may be particularly likely to activate
thenticity of the individual, also highlighting the relation- meta-cognitive knowledge (Campbell and Kirmani 2000)
ship between intrinsic motivation and authenticity and make inferences as to why the sender decided to post
perceptions. about the purchase. Thus, posting about a purchase may be
Consumers are known to value authenticity both in similar to using brands conspicuously (Ferraro, Kirmani,
themselves and in others. For instance, Goor et al. (2020) and Matherly 2013) in that it may lead receivers to make
show how self-authenticity stems from feeling that one’s inferences about the reasons for that action (i.e., for
own actions are aligned with one’s inner thoughts and feel- posting).
ings, including showing one’s authentic self to others. People have long been criticized for the possession of
When judging one’s own authenticity, one has access to goods (Belk 1983), and talking about one’s purchases is
private information. When assessing authenticity outside considered a form of self-promotion (Scopelliti,
of the self, however, one needs to rely on observable Loewenstein, and Vosgerau 2015). Hence, postings about
aspects to assess authenticity. For example, consumers of- any type of purchase may be seen as inauthentic and lead
ten evaluate movies marketed as “based on a true story” to more negative perceptions of the signal sender compared
more positively (Valsesia, Diehl, and Nunes 2017). to non-purchase posts.
在社交媒体上的购买信号的背景下，接收信号的人可能也会利用各种
上下文线索来形成印象。其中一些线索受到信号发送者的直接控制，
他们可以选择在帖子中使用社交媒体特定的元素，但有些线索则不受
控制，例如帖子在评论、点赞和分享方面收到的反馈。我们提出，在
社交媒体环境中，各种元素可以作为关于发送者发布购买信息动机的
线索。暗示不真实动机的线索将改变信号类型对信号发送者印象的影
VALSESIA AND DIEHL 响程度。 433
相较于体验和物质购买信号，社交媒体上发送的非购买信号会产生更积极的总体印象。
H1a: Compared to both experiential and material purchase posting on a target’s Facebook wall affects the perceived at-
signals, non-purchase signals sent on social media create tractiveness of the target (Walther et al. 2008).
more positive overall impressions. In the context of purchase signals on social media, signal
While we make and test this prediction, our main inter- receivers might also use a variety of contextual cues as they
est lies in comparing the use of experiential versus material form impressions. Some of these cues are under the direct
purchase signals. Prior literature suggests not only that ma- control of signal senders, who may choose to use social
terial purchases are generally stigmatized (Van Boven media-specific elements in a post (e.g., hashtags), but some
et al. 2010), but also that experiential purchases are per- are not, such as the feedback that posts receive in the forms

明确地发布 ceived as providing greater insight into one’s own true self of comments, likes, and shares. We propose that various ele-
有关体验性 ments in the social media environment can function as cues
（而不是物质(Carter and Gilovich 2012). Even explicitly posting about
性）购买的帖experiential (vs. material) purchases may be seen as a more about the senders’ motivation to post about their purchases.
子，也可能被 Cues that suggest inauthentic motivations will alter the extent
视为更具自我self-expressive act and thus a more authentic representa-
表达性的行为，
tion of the self that creates more positive impressions. to which signal type affects impressions of a signal sender.
因此更能真实当额外的社交媒体线索暗示发送者的信号是不真实的时，社交媒体上
地展现自我，
产生更积极的印象
H1b: Experiential purchase signals sent on social media cre- 发送的体验性与物质性购买信号所形成的整体印象的差异被调节
H4: The difference in overall impression formed by experi-
ate more positive overall impressions than material purchase ential versus material purchase signals sent on social media
signals. 在社交媒体上发送的体验性购买信号比物质性购买信号产生更积极 is moderated when additional social media cues suggest a
的总体印象。 sender’s signals are inauthentic.
H2: The effect of purchase signal type (experiential vs. ma-
指的是在
terial purchase) on overall impressions is driven by the per- We examine H4 in the context of three types of cues: mon- 社交媒体
ceived authenticity of the signals sent on social media. etary mentions, feedback from other users, and hashtags 上提到与
购买信号类型（体验性 vs. 物质性购买）对总体印象的影响是由社交媒体上发送的信号的可信度所驱动的。 referencing marketers. First, monetary mentions may be seen 货币相关
One unique aspect of signaling on social media is the
社交媒体上 as a cue that a sender’s signals are inauthentic because mone- 的内容。
这可能包
信号传递的 frequently repeated nature of signals. Repetition may draw
一个独特方面attention to whether posts reflect authentic self-expression tary exchanges and product prices are often interpreted as in- 括与购买
是信号的频繁 sincere, conspicuous signals (Bagwell and Riordan 1991, 、价格、
重复性。重复 or more inauthentic self-presentation and hence affect
可能引起对帖overall impressions. While it may be hard to interpret a sin- Bristow and Sachau 1998). Second, other users may leave 交易或经
济相关的
子是否反映真 comments that call attention to posts being intended as self- 信息
实自我表达或 gle signal, multiple signals of the same type are generally
更多的不真实seen as more diagnostic (Skowronski and Carlston 1987). presentation rather than genuine self-expression and thus be-
自我展示的关 ing inauthentic. Finally, for both promotional and quantifica-
注，从而影响This may be particularly true in a context such as social
整体印象。 media where there is considerable ambiguity with regard to tion purposes, marketers are interested in consumers
why a user chooses to post about their purchases. As prior referencing their brand (e.g., #Amazon) or specific campaigns
literature highlighted, signal receivers tend to rely more on (e.g., Lay’s #Dousaflavor). However, hashtags that are explic-
less ambiguous signals (Mellers, Richards, and Birnbaum itly associated with marketers and written to gain benefits
1992, Van Dijk and Zeelenberg 2003), and repetition can from a brand (e.g., sweepstakes) may also suggest that the
decrease ambiguity. Hence, while prior research has not post is insincere and does not reflect a user’s authentic self. In
examined multiple purchase signals, we expect any differ- all these cases, the presence of additional cues can lead
ences in impressions between purchase types (experimental receivers to rely less on the type of purchase being shared
vs. material) will become more prominent or may even when assessing signals’ authenticity, which we expect dimin-
only emerge when signals are sent repeatedly. ishes or eliminates the benefit of purchase type on sender
社交媒体上发的
购买信号类型（体 impressions. In sum, we examine how social media-specific
验性vs. 物质性）
H3: The effect of the type of purchase signal (experiential elements affect signals’ perceived authenticity and how such
对整体印象的影响 vs. material) sent on social media on overall impressions is
受到多个信号的存 authenticity assessments impact impressions receivers form
在的调节。 moderated by the presence of multiple signals. of the signal sender, as highlighted in figure 1.
In the absence of complete information, individuals often
rely on a variety of cues that allow them to form opinions STUDY 1—DO PURCHASE SIGNALS
and make decisions (Brunswik 1956, Huber and McCann DAMPEN IMPRESSIONS COMPARED TO
1982). Online, and on social media in particular, many differ- NON-PURCHASE SIGNALS?
ent cues may be available and used to make inferences. For 购买信号与非购买信号相比，是否会减弱印象？
instance, people make inferences about others’ personalities In study 1, we compare how experiential and material pur-
based on their email addresses (Back, Schmukle, and Egloff chase signals are received on social media. Prior literature
2008), screen names in an online game (Graham and Gosling showed individuals who made an experiential, as opposed to
2012), or personal websites (Vazire and Gosling 2004). a material, purchase are generally perceived better by others
While some of these social media-specific elements are un- (Van Boven et al. 2010). We ask whether this is also the case
der the sender’s control, others are not. For example, past re- for those intentionally, broadly, and unpromptedly posting
search showed that the physical attractiveness of other users about purchases. Notably, we also test whether both types of
在缺乏完整信息的情况下，个体通常依赖各种线索来形成观点和做出决策。
在线上，特别是在社交媒体上，许多不同的线索可以用来进行推断。
例如，人们根据电子邮件地址、在线游戏中的用户名或个人网站来推断他人的个性。
虽然其中一些社交媒体特定的元素受到发信人的控制，但其他一些并不受控制。
例如，过去的研究表明，发布在目标用户Facebook上的其他用户的外貌吸引力
会被目标用户认为是具有吸引力的。
FIGURE 1
CONCEPTUAL MODEL.

引发不真实感的社交媒体元素
purchase signals decrease or improve impressions over non- We set our sample size to 150 respondents per cell, that is,
purchase signals. Importantly, because any single signal may 900 across the six-cell design. Of the 903 participants who
be hard to interpret and multiple signals may be seen as completed the survey, 890 unique responses were retained
more diagnostic, any benefit of experiential posts may be based on the criteria described above.
greater, or even only emerge, when sent repeatedly, which Across conditions, we used a total of 12 posts.
we test here. 第一项研究采用了3（体验性购买物质性、购买、非 Specifically, we created three different versions of four
购买）× 2（帖子数量：1vs.4）设计。被试被告知
他们将根据某人在Facebook上的帖子来评估他。他们 posts (see table 1). The three versions used the same word-
Method 看到了一个或四个Facebook帖子，这些帖子都被归属于 ing but mentioned an experiential purchase, a material pur-
他们所认识的人Alex Watson chase, or did not mention any purchase. Purchases were
Study 1 followed a 3 (post: experiential purchase, mate-
matched in terms of price and desirability based on a pre-
rial purchase, non-purchase) 2 (number of posts: 1 vs. 4)
test (see web appendix).
design. Respondents were told they would evaluate a per-
Depending on the condition (1 vs. 4 posts), respondents
son based on their Facebook posts. They saw either one or
either saw all posts of a given type in one of four predeter-
four Facebook posts attributed to their presumed acquain-
mined orders or only one randomly selected post of a given
tance Alex Watson (see web appendix).
type. Next, they evaluated the user who wrote these posts
Participants were recruited from MTurk. Respondents’
by answering: “What is your overall impression of the per-
eligibility was restricted to those residing in the USA with
son who wrote the post?” (1 ¼ very unfavorable, 9 ¼ very
a 95% or higher approval rate and who had completed at
favorable), and “To what extent do you like the person
least 50 hits (Goodman, Cryder, and Cheema 2013). Given
who wrote the post?” (1 ¼ not at all, 9 ¼ a great deal).
the research context, in this and all other studies, partici-
Responses were highly correlated (r ¼ .90) and were aver-
pants were screened to be Facebook users (see screening
aged to compute an impressions measure. All additional
questions in the web appendix). Respondents were also
measures collected in this and other studies (e.g., demo-
asked to complete a captcha verification question in order
graphics) are reported in the web appendix.
to complete the study. Participants on MTurk are known to
misrepresent their characteristics to meet study eligibility
(Chandler and Paolacci 2017). We thus allowed only one
Results
response per MTurk ID. If participants attempted the We estimated a 3 (post type) 2 (number of posts) anal-
captcha or the Facebook screener questions multiple times, ysis of variance (ANOVA) for impressions. This analysis
or entered the study twice for other reasons, only their first revealed a significant main effect of post type (F(2, 884) ¼
answer, even if incomplete, was considered valid. 41.38, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .083) and number of posts (MOne ¼
Subsequent responses were excluded from the analysis. 6.17, SD ¼ 1.60, MFour ¼ 5.74, SD ¼ 2.06; F(1, 884) ¼
TABLE 1
POSTS STUDY 1
Material posts
“Warm and sunny, the perfect day to spend time outdoors. . .if you have a new GoPro to try! #solucky”
“Today was a good day and is about to get even better! Guess who got a new awesome phone? #happyme”
“Sometimes you just gotta find a way to take care of yourself. . .Got the best cashmere pullover today! #selflove”
“Guys, I finally decided it’s time to be active again! Going to buy my first Fitbit today #excited”
Experiential posts
“Warm and sunny, the perfect day to spend time outdoors. . .if you have seats to watch your team live! #solucky”

“Today was a good day and is about to get even better! Guess who got awesome tickets for the play? #happyme”
“Sometimes you just gotta find a way to take care of yourself. . .Got the best Thai massage today! #selflove”
“Guys, I finally decided it’s time to be active again! Going to buy my first 2-day ski-pass today #excited”
Control posts
“Warm and sunny, the perfect day to spend time outdoors. . . #solucky”
“Today was a good day and is about to get even better! #happyme”
“Sometimes you just gotta find a way to take care of yourself. . . #selflove”
“Guys, I finally decided it’s time to be active again! #excited”
13.63, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .014). Planned main effect contrasts In the web appendix, we report an additional study fo-
showed that both material (F(1, 884) ¼ 78.25, p < .001, cusing only on purchase signals. Following prior literature
xp2 ¼ .080) and experiential purchase signals (F(1, 884) ¼ (Bastos and Brucks 2017, Carter and Gilovich 2012,
7.20, p ¼ .007, xp2 ¼ .007) led to less positive impressions Rosenzweig and Gilovich 2012), in that study we test the
than non-purchase signals did (MNon ¼ 6.51, SD ¼ 1.65). robustness of our effect by framing the same purchases as
Further, experiential purchase signals led to more positive either material or experiential, as opposed to comparing
impressions than material purchase signals (MExp ¼ 6.13, different purchases as we did in study 1. We again find that
SD ¼ 1.72 vs. MMat ¼ 5.25, SD ¼ 1.96; F(1, 884) ¼ material versus experiential purchase signals conclusively
38.92, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .041). alter impressions only when multiple signals are present
These main effects were qualified by a significant inter- (MMatFour ¼ 4.60, SD ¼ 2.06; MExpFour ¼ 5.63, SD ¼ 1.94;
action (F(2, 884) ¼ 13.93, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .028). Testing MMatOne¼ 5.77, SD ¼ 1.58; and MExpOne ¼ 6.09, SD ¼
H3 requires the decomposition of the omnibus 2 df interac-
1.61).
tion and the use of a planned 1 df interaction contrast.
In summary, these studies suggest that the number of
Using the interaction contrast, we find the difference be-
posts indeed acts as a moderating factor as suggested by
tween experiential and material purchase signals was mod-
H3. The fact that these studies find only weak support for
erated by the number of posts (F(1, 884) ¼ 13.67, p <
H1a and H1b in the context of single signals and stronger
.001, xp2 ¼ .014). Following up on this predicted interac-
tion, planned simple contrasts indicated the difference be- support in the context of multiple signals suggests that on
tween experiential and material purchase signals was only social media multiple posts may be necessary for differen-
marginally significant for a single post, but emerged ces in purchase type to alter impressions. This is consistent
strongly for multiple posts. The difference between non- with the fact that social media environments are highly am-
purchase signals and material purchase signals was signifi- biguous and receivers might have a hard time drawing di-
cant regardless of the number of posts, while the difference agnostic conclusions about senders’ intentions from a
between non-purchase signals and experiential purchase single post. Ambiguity is resolved as more posts of the
signals was only significant for multiple posts. All con- same type are present, consistent with cue diagnosticity
trasts are presented in table 2. theory.
Discussion STUDY 2—WHAT DRIVES IMPRESSIONS

Study 1 finds conclusive support for H1a and H1b only FROM PURCHASE SIGNALS?
in the presence of multiple signals. Impressions are penal-
ized when individuals post about purchases as opposed to In this and the following studies, we focus on purchase
posting about non-purchases, but only conclusively so in signals. Study 2 tests the mechanism underlying the re-
the presence of multiple posts. Further, experiential pur- duced impressions we observed for material versus experi-
chase signals lead to more positive impressions compared ential purchase signals in the presence of multiple signals
to material purchase signals, but again, conclusively so of the same type. We predict that material purchase posts,
only in the presence of multiple posts. particularly if repeated, will appear less authentic and that
TABLE 2
STUDY 1 RESULTS
One post Four posts
Impressions Non-purchase 6.41 6.61 F(1, 884) ¼ .92, p ¼.337

(1.59) (1.71)
Experiential 6.24 6.02 F(1, 884) ¼ 1.20, p ¼ .273
(1.61) (1.83)
Material 5.88 4.60 F(1, 884) ¼ 39.78, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .042

(1.56) (2.11)
N vs. E F(1, 884) ¼ .75, p ¼ .386 N vs. E F(1, 884) ¼ 8.60, p ¼ .003, xp2 ¼ .009
N vs. M F(1, 884) ¼ 7.04, p ¼ .008, xp2 ¼ .007 N vs. M F(1, 884) ¼ 96.71, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .097
E vs. M F(1, 884) ¼ 3.24, p ¼ .072, xp2 ¼ .003 E vs. M F(1, 884) ¼ 49.11, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .051
this perception will have a negative effect on the impres- and dependent variable (impressions). The Fornell-Larcker
sions signal receivers form of the signal sender. (1981) criterion for discriminant validity requires the aver-
age variance extracted (AVE) of both constructs to be
Method greater than the squared correlation between them. In this
case, the AVE is 0.90 for impressions and 0.82 for authen-
Study 2 followed a 2 (purchase signal type: experiential
ticity of the post and the squared correlation between them
vs. material) 2 (number of posts: 1 vs. 4) between-
is 0.44,1 meeting this criterion and suggesting discriminant
subject design. Participants were recruited through MTurk.
validity of the measures.
Instead of the captcha question used in study 1, we used a
cultural knowledge check (the same check was used in
studies 2, 3, 4, and 5, while an updated check was used in Results
study 6; see details in the web appendix). We set our sam- Impressions. We estimated an ANOVA with impres-
ple size to 175 respondents per cell. Of the 713 participants sions as the dependent variable, and purchase signal type,
who completed the survey, 700 unique responses were number of posts, and their interaction as independent varia-
retained. Respondents were told they would evaluate a per- bles. Similar to study 1, we found that respondents formed
son, Alex Watson, based on their Facebook post(s). We better impressions if Alex’s posts featured experiential
used the same purchases used in study 1. Changes in the rather than material purchase signals (MExp ¼ 5.98, SD ¼
language of the posts used are reported in table 3 (see stim- 1.76 vs. MMat ¼ 5.35, SD ¼ 1.89; F(1, 696) ¼ 20.91, p <
uli in web appendix). Depending on the condition (1 vs. 4 .001, xp2 ¼ .028). Moreover, there was a negative and sig-
posts), respondents either saw all posts of a given type in nificant effect of the number of posts (MOne¼ 6.21, SD ¼
one of four predetermined orders or saw only one ran- 1.47 vs. MFour ¼ 5.09, SD ¼ 2.03; F(1, 696) ¼ 70.75, p <
domly selected post of a given type. Afterwards they rated .001, xp2 ¼ .091) and a marginally significant interaction
both their impressions of the sender and the authenticity of (F(1, 696) ¼ 3.59, p ¼ .058, xp2 ¼ .004). Replicating the
the post(s). In addition to the two impression questions pattern observed in previous studies, simple effect con-
used in study 1, we added the question: “How do you feel trasts (see table 4) revealed that the difference in impres-
about Alex Watson?” (1 ¼ very negative, 9 ¼ very posi- sions between using experiential and material purchase
tive). Responses to these three impression questions were signals was marginal for a single post but significant for
highly correlated (a ¼ .96) and were averaged to compute multiple posts.
an impressions measure. Adding a third item allows
us to conduct discriminant validity analysis between over- Authenticity of the Post. Next, we estimated a separate
all impressions of the signal sender and the presumed me- ANOVA with authenticity of the post as the dependent var-
diator, authenticity of the post(s) (Fornell and Larcker iable. We found that experiential purchase signals were
1981). perceived as more authentic compared to material ones
Respondents evaluated the authenticity of Alex’s post(s) (MExp ¼ 66.78, SD ¼ 27.85 vs. MMat ¼ 58.86, SD ¼
by rating the extent to which the post/s was/were inauthen- 30.23; F(1, 696) ¼ 13.54, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .018).
tic, disingenuous, and artificial (0 ¼ not at all; 100 ¼ a Moreover, we observed a significant negative effect of the
great deal). Responses to these questions were reverse-
coded and averaged to compute a measure of post authen- 1 Note that the Fornell-Larcker analysis relies on the squared correla-
tion between the weighted factors extracted from the confirmatory fac-
ticity (a ¼ .93). A confirmatory factor analysis supports tor analysis; the squared correlation between factors computed by
discriminant validity between the mediator (authenticity) averaging item scores is .39.
TABLE 3
POSTS STUDY 2
Material posts
“Guys, I finally decided it’s time to be active again! Got a Fitbit today. #fun”
“Sometimes you just gotta find a way to take care of yourself. Got the best cashmere pullover today! #treatyourself”
“Guess who got a new awesome phone? #happyme”
“So glad I have the opportunity to do the things I like! Got myself a new GoPro! #bestcamera”
Experiential posts
“Guys, I finally decided it’s time to be active again! Got a 2-day ski pass today. #fun”

“Sometimes you just gotta find a way to take care of yourself. Got the best Thai massage today! # treatyourself”
“Guess who got awesome tickets for the play? #happyme”
“So glad I have the opportunity to do the things I like! Got myself tickets to my favorite team live! #bestteam”
TABLE 4
STUDY 2 RESULTS
Panel A One post Four posts
Impressions Experiential 6.38 (1.46) 5.52 (1.95) F(1, 696) ¼ 21.56, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .029
Material 6.03 (1.46) 4.67 (2.03) F(1, 696) ¼ 52.31, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .068
F(1, 696) ¼ 3.70, p ¼ .055, xp2 ¼ .004 F(1, 696) ¼ 20.30, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .027
Panel B One post Four posts
Post authenticity Experiential 73.50 (26.11) 59.27 (27.89) F(1, 696) ¼ 24.13, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .032
Material 71.19 (26.71) 46.38 (28.48) F(1, 696) ¼ 71.14, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .091
F(1, 696) ¼ .64, p ¼ .423 F(1, 696) ¼ 18.92, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .025
number of posts (MOne¼ 72.39, SD ¼ 26.39 vs. MFour ¼ opposed to material ones. This study again supports the
52.77, SD ¼ 28.88; F(1, 696) ¼ 89.43, p < .001, xp2 ¼ moderating effect proposed in H3 but conclusively shows
.112) and a significant interaction (F(1, 696) ¼ 6.57, p ¼ support for H1b only in the presence of multiple signals,
.011, xp2 ¼ .008). Simple effect contrasts (see table 4) suggesting that multiple purchase signals are necessary to
revealed a similar pattern of results as for impressions. alter impressions. Similarly, receivers only form more neg-
When only one post was available, perceptions of authen- ative authenticity judgments for material purchase signals
ticity did not vary significantly as a function of purchase when multiple signals are present, suggesting the process
signal type. However, when multiple posts were available, proposed in H2 only takes place in the presence of multiple
the authenticity of the post was significantly greater for ex- signals. It appears that in the ambiguous context of social
periential purchase posts. media communication, if individuals post about a purchase
once, receivers might not form strong opinions about their
Mediation Analysis. Post authenticity significantly me-
motivation.
diated the effect of purchase type on overall impressions in
While not part of our predictions, it should be noted that
the presence of multiple purchases (bindirect ¼ .47, 95%
in both study 1 and study 2 we observe a decline in impres-
CI [.70, .25], 10,000 bootstrapped samples), but not
sions for purchase signals in the presence of multiple posts.
when only one purchase was displayed (bindirect ¼ .08,
This decline is always significant for material purchases.
95% CI [.28, .11]). A test of moderated mediation further
However, for experiential purchases, this effect is not con-
revealed the size of the indirect effect of purchase type
sistent across studies. In study 2, we observe a significant
through authenticity was greater in the presence of multiple
decline, as we do in the supplementary study presented in
purchase signals (bdifference ¼ .39, 95% CI [.69, .09],
the web appendix, while such a decline was not significant
PROCESS Model 8, Hayes 2013).
in study 1. Given that the study procedures and samples
were very similar between these studies, these differences
Discussion in results point to a small and likely unreliable effect.
In study 2, we replicated the previous findings that indi- Since purchase type only seems to affect impressions
viduals form more positive impressions of a person who when multiple signals are present, we focus on multiple
posted multiple times about experiential purchases as purchase signals in the remaining studies. Further, H4
argues that in the presence of additional diagnostic cues Test of Manipulation. We expected that highlighting
about a signal’s lack of authenticity, receivers will rely less the monetary exchange in the text and via hashtags would
on the type of purchase mentioned when they infer authen- render social media posts less authentic, and we confirmed
ticity. Thus, the type of purchases they post about may this was the case in a separate between-subject test con-
have less impact on the impression receivers form of signal ducted on 198 MTurk participants, who evaluated the au-
senders. We explore this prediction in the next three stud- thenticity of the four posts used in the two conditions (see
ies using different social media-specific cues. web appendix for details on stimuli and questions). Posts
that did not highlight the monetary exchange were per-

STUDY 3—DOES HIGHLIGHTING THE ceived to be significantly more authentic compared to ones
MONETARY EXCHANGE AS PART OF A highlighting the monetary exchange (MExchangeMention ¼
PURCHASE REDUCE THE 4.25, SD ¼ 2.25 vs. MNoMention ¼ 5.14, SD ¼ 2.42; F(1,
196) ¼ 7.25, p ¼ .008, xp2 ¼ .031).
EXPERIENTIAL PURCHASE
ADVANTAGE? Results
In study 3, cues that may indicate that posts were driven We estimated an ANOVA with impressions as the de-
by self-presentation motives come from the content of the pendent variable, and purchase signal type, monetary ex-
post itself. In particular, consumers are known to perceive change highlighted, and their interaction as independent
product prices as signals (Bagwell and Riordan 1991) and variables. We found that respondents formed better impres-
to consequently use price mentioning as a way of signaling sions if Alex’s posts were experiential purchase signals
to others (Bristow and Sachau 1998). We also know from rather than material ones (MExp ¼ 5.11, SD ¼ 2.01 vs.
study 1 that posts about any purchase, regardless of type, MMat ¼ 4.32, SD ¼ 1.92; F(1, 587) ¼ 25.02, p < .001, xp2
generate more negative impressions compared to non- ¼ .039). There was also a negative effect of highlighting
purchases, possibly because money was exchanged to ob- monetary exchange (MExchangeMention ¼ 4.38, SD ¼ 1.91
tain an item or experience (even without mentioning the vs. MNoMention ¼ 5.04, SD ¼ 2.03; F(1, 587) ¼ 17.77, p <
price itself). Thus, highlighting the exchange of money .001, xp2 ¼ .028). Importantly, we found the predicted sig-
should make it more likely that signal receivers infer a nificant interaction (F(1, 587) ¼ 7.08, p ¼ .008, xp2 ¼
given purchase post was due to self-presentation rather .010). Replicating our earlier studies, simple effect con-
than an authentic expression of the consumer’s everyday trasts revealed that in the absence of mentioning the ex-
life, ultimately reducing any differences between posting change of money, experiential purchase signals lead to
about experiential and material purchases. better impressions compared to material ones (MExp ¼
5.66, SD ¼ 1.93 vs. MMat¼ 4.45, SD ¼ 1.96; F(1, 587) ¼
Method 29.01, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .045), but this difference was not
significant when the exchange nature of the purchases was
Design and Measures. Study 3 followed a 2 (purchase made salient (MExp ¼ 4.57, SD ¼ 1.95 vs. MMat ¼ 4.20,
signal type: experiential vs. material) 2 (monetary ex- SD ¼ 1.86; F(1, 587) ¼ 2.78, p ¼ .096, xp2 ¼ .003).
change highlighted: yes vs. no) between-subject design. 提示金钱交易的标签会减弱对信号发送者的印象，支持理论推断，降低
We set our sample size to 150 respondents per cell. Of the 了关于体验性（相对于物质性）购买信号的帖子的优势。支持假设4
Discussion
额外的诊断性线索暗示发送者具有不真实的动机导致接收者对所使用
603 MTurk participants who completed the survey, 591 的购买类型的依赖程度降低。
unique responses were retained. Again, we asked respond- Study 3 finds that social media cues such as hashtags
ents to evaluate a Facebook user named Alex Watson. highlighting monetary exchanges can dampen impressions
Participants formed impressions based on one of two pro- of the signal sender and, supporting our theoretical reason-
files featuring four purchases. The four focal purchases ing, reduce the benefit of posting about experiential (vs.
used were the same as in studies 1 and 2, matched in price material) purchase signals. This supports H4, suggesting
and desirability. When the monetary exchange was that additional diagnostic cues that hint at senders having
highlighted, we modified the wording of each post and also an inauthentic motivation lead to receivers relying less on
included hashtags to emphasize the user had spent money the type of purchase used as signal.
to obtain a given item or experience (e.g., #happytopay).
Posts used are reported in table 5 (full stimuli in web STUDY 4—DOES OTHER USERS’
appendix). FEEDBACK REDUCE THE
Respondents evaluated the Facebook user who wrote EXPERIENTIAL PURCHASE
these posts by answering the same three impression ques- ADVANTAGE?
tions used in study 2. Responses to these questions were 其他用户的反馈是否会减弱体验性购买的优势？
highly correlated (a ¼ .97) and were averaged to compute On social media, other users can provide feedback on a
an impressions measure. post (e.g., by adding comments or by liking and providing
TABLE 5
POSTS STUDY 3
Monetary exchange not highlighted Monetary exchange highlighted

Material “So glad I have the opportunity to do the things I like! “So glad I have the opportunity to buy the things I like!
posts Got myself a new GoPro! #bestcamera” Bought myself a new GoPro! #bestdeal”
“Guess who got a new awesome phone? #happyme” “Guess who purchased an awesome new phone? I
“Sometimes you just gotta find a way to take care of think it’s money well spent! #happytopay”
yourself. Got the best cashmere pullover today! “Sometime you just gotta find the money to take care

#treatyourself” of yourself. Bought the best cashmere pullover to-
“Guys, I finally decided it’s time to be active again! Got day! #spendtotreatyourself”
a Fitbit today #fun” “Guys, I finally decided to be active again! Purchased
a Fitbit today. #fun$$$”
Experiential “So glad I have the opportunity to do the things I like! “So glad I have the opportunity to buy the things I like!
posts Got myself tickets to my favorite team live #beast- Bought myself tickets to my favorite team live!
eam” #bestdeal”
“Guess who got awesome tickets for the play? “Guess who purchased awesome tickets for the play?
#happyme” I think it’s money well spent! #happytopay”
“Sometimes you just gotta find a way to take care of “Sometime you just gotta find the money to take care
yourself. Got the best Thai massage today! of yourself. Bought the best Thai massage today!
#treatyourself” #spendtotreatyourself”
“Guys, I finally decided it’s time to be active again! Got “Guys, I finally decided to be active again! Purchased
a 2-day ski-pass today #fun” a 2-day ski pass today. #fun$$$”
properties of the same purchase (for posts see table 6, for

other reactions). Signal receivers can use other users’ feed-
back to make inferences about the sender’s motivation. In stimuli and test of this manipulation see web appendix).
fact, at times it may be this very feedback that calls atten-In the no-feedback condition, only the four posts were
tion to the fact that posts may have been intended as a way
displayed, whereas in the two feedback conditions, com-
to self-present rather than as a genuine expression of thements other users left in response to each post were also
sender’s life. Interestingly, this type of cue, which we ex-
displayed. These comments either alluded to the fact that
amine in study 4, is not under the control of the signal other users inferred self-presentation motives underlying
sender. We expect feedback that alludes to potential, inau-
the posts or, in the benign-approval condition, expressed
thentic motives will reduce the experiential benefit we generic approval of the posts. The language of the feed-
found in earlier studies. back is reported in table 7 (see web appendix for full
测试反馈存在是否影响对信号发送者的印象，特别是暗示自我展
示动机的反馈。采用了3（反馈：无反馈 vs. 暗示自我展示 vs. stimuli).
Method 良性认可）× 2（购买信号类型：体验性 vs. 物质性）的被试 Respondents evaluated the user who wrote these posts
间设计。
Design and Measures. The main goal of this study was by answering the same three impression questions used in
to test whether the presence (vs. absence) of feedback al- earlier studies. Responses to these questions were highly
luding to self-presentation motives affects impressions of correlated (a ¼ .96) and were averaged to compute an
the signal sender. Study 4 followed a 3 (feedback: no feed- impressions measure.
将良性认可
条件与无反馈back vs. alludes to self-presentation vs. benign approval) Test of Manipulation. We expected the self-
条件进行比较，
2 (purchase signal type: experiential vs. material) between-
我们可以评估 presentation feedback would render posts less authentic,
是反馈的存在subject design. By comparing the benign-approval condi- and we confirmed this in a separate, between-subject test
抑制了印象，tion to the no-feedback condition, we can assess whether it
只有那些引起 conducted on 294 MTurk participants, who evaluated the
注意到潜在自is the presence (vs. absence) of any feedback that dampens expected authenticity of four posts they imagined seeing
我展示动机的impressions, or whether, as we argue, impressions are re-
反馈才会降低 on social media. As intended, posts in the self-presentation
印象 duced only for feedback calling attention to potential self- condition were perceived as significantly less authentic
presentational motives. compared to the no-feedback condition (MSelfPresentation¼
We set our sample size to 200 respondents per cell. Of 3.93, SD ¼ 2.09 vs. MNoFeedback¼ 6.54, SD ¼ 1.68; F(1,
the 1,205 MTurk participants who completed the survey, 291) ¼ 74.53, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .201). See full results in the
1,150 unique responses were retained. We asked respond- web appendix.
ents to evaluate a Facebook user and examined the impres-
sions they formed based on a profile featuring four
purchases framed to be either experiential or material.
Results
Following prior research, we created two versions of each We estimated an ANOVA with impressions as the de-
post, emphasizing either the experiential or material pendent variable and purchase signal type, feedback, and
TABLE 6
POSTS STUDY 4
Material posts
“I am the proud owner of a bottle of Chateau Lafite. It makes a great addition to my wine collection! #thebestproduct”
“I just got a boxed set of my favorite TV show. I can’t wait to have it on display, it is going to have a place of honor on my DVD shelf!
#bestpurchase”
“I love owning a National Geographic subscription. Looking at all those yellow magazines in my library makes me so happy! #yellowmagazines”
“I recently bought this beautiful coffee table book—a collection of poems and nature pics from all over the world. It looks so amazing.
#beautifulproduct”

Experiential posts
“I cannot wait to drink my bottle of Chateau Lafite. It is currently breathing and I know drinking it will be a once in a lifetime experience!
#thebestexperience”
“I just got a boxed set of my favorite TV show. I can’t wait to watch it all again, it is going to be great relieving all the cool parts of the show!
#bestshow”
“I love browsing my National Geographic subscription. Spending time reading all those yellow magazines makes me so happy! #lovereading”
“I recently had the most beautiful experience leafing through my new coffee table book—a collection of poems and nature pics from all over the
world. #beautifulexperience”
which was marginally significant (F(1, 1144) ¼ 3.79, p ¼

TABLE 7
.052, xp2 ¼ .002). Similar to earlier studies, in the absence
FEEDBACK STUDY 4 of feedback, experiential purchases (MExp ¼ 5.93, SD ¼
1.84) lead to more positive impressions than material pur-
Self-presentation “Brag alert!”
feedback “Oversharing these days?”
chases (MMat ¼ 5.16, SD ¼ 1.84; F(1, 1144) ¼ 16.21, p <
“mmm. . .ok?? Thanks for sharing, I guess. . .” .001, xp2 ¼ .013). However, there was no significant dif-
“How fascinating, please tell me more” (ironic ference between experiential (MExp ¼ 5.02, SD ¼ 1.89)
meme)
Benign positive “Nice”
and material purchases in the presence of self-presentation
feedback “That sounds awesome!” feedback (MMat ¼ 4.78, SD ¼ 1.94; F(1, 1144) ¼ 1.49, p
“Yay! Thanks for sharing!” ¼ .223). The interaction between purchase type (experien-
“I love this post” (cute meme)
tial vs. material) and the no-feedback versus benign-
approval condition was not significant (F (1, 1144) ¼ 1.06,
p ¼ .304). Just like in the no-feedback condition, in the
their interaction as independent variables. We again found benign-approval condition, experiential purchases (MExp ¼
that respondents formed better impressions if Alex’s posts 5.86, SD ¼ 1.73) created more positive impressions than
were experiential rather than material purchase signals material purchases (MMat ¼ 5.33, SD ¼ 2.14; F(1, 1144) ¼
(MExp ¼ 5.61, SD ¼ 1.86 vs. MMat ¼ 5.09, SD ¼ 1.98; 7.27, p ¼ .007, xp2 ¼ .005).
F(1, 1144) ¼ 20.88, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .017). We also found
significant differences between feedback conditions (F(2,
1144) ¼ 15.91, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .025). Planned main effect
Discussion
contrasts showed that feedback alluding to self-
presentation motives had a negative effect on impressions Feedback left by other users can be another social
(MSelfPresentation ¼ 4.89, SD ¼ 1.92) compared to both the media-specific cue that signal receivers use to assess the
no-feedback and the benign-approval conditions (vs. authenticity of the signal and the senders’ motivation.
MBenign¼ 5.59, SD ¼ 1.96; F(1, 1144) ¼ 22.41, p < .001, Study 4 finds that feedback can affect the impressions that
xp2 ¼ .018; vs. MNoFeedback ¼ 5.53, SD ¼ 1.88; F(1, 1144) signal receivers form about the signal sender. Specifically,
¼ 25.45, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .021). The no-feedback and it is the nature of the feedback, not just that feedback was
benign-approval conditions did not differ from each other received, that matters. In the absence of feedback and
(F(1, 1144) ¼ .11, p ¼ .736). when feedback is benignly positive, study 4 replicates the
While the 2 df omnibus interaction between purchase impression advantage of experiential posts. However,
signal type and feedback was not significant (F(2, 1144) ¼ when others’ feedback suggests that posts may be driven
1.90, p ¼ .150), testing H4 in fact requires the use of a 1 df by self-presentation motives rather than being a genuine
planned interaction contrast. We thus estimated an interac- form of self-expression, experiential purchase signals no
tion contrast between purchase type (experiential vs. mate- longer improve impressions over material purchase signals.
rial) and no-feedback versus self-presentation feedback, This finding provides additional support for H4.
STUDY 5—HOW ARE MARKETER- Test of Manipulation. We expected adding the three
DRIVEN PURCHASE POSTS RECEIVED? hashtags would render social media posts less authentic,
which we confirmed in a separate between-subject test
Our studies so far have shown that repeatedly sending conducted on 197 MTurk participants (see full details in
purchase signals (and material purchase signals in particu- web appendix). As intended, the presence of these hashtags
lar) can reduce others’ impressions of the sender.
affected perceptions of authenticity: posts including these
Marketers, however, want consumers to frequently post
hashtags were perceived as significantly less authentic
about their purchases. It is common for marketers to use
compared to ones that did not include these hashtags

sweepstakes and online contests to encourage consumers to
(MPresent ¼ 3.01, SD ¼ 1.90 vs. MAbsent ¼ 6.32, SD ¼
create social media posts about their purchases (Burns
1.80; F(1, 195) ¼ 156.89, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .442).
2017), often asking them to use particular hashtags. We ar-
gue that posts explicitly associated with marketers may be
perceived as inauthentic because they may be written to ac- Results
quire external benefits rather than reflecting a user’s au- Impressions. We estimated an ANOVA with impres-
thentic self, thus eliminating any benefits that experiential sions as the dependent variable and purchase signal type,
(vs. material) signals confer. We test this in study 5. marketer association, and their interaction as independent
While testing the impact of additional cues to a sender’s variables. We found that respondents formed better impres-
motivation on impressions, studies 3 and 4 did not assess sions if Alex’s posts were experiential rather than material
the moderating effect that such additional cues can have on purchase signals (MExp ¼ 5.71, SD ¼ 1.87 vs. MMat ¼
perceptions of the authenticity of social media posts. Study 5.19, SD ¼ 1.91; F(1, 788) ¼ 14.83, p < .001, xp2 ¼
5 remedies this. .017). There was no main effect of marketer association
(MAbsent ¼ 5.46, SD ¼ 1.99 vs. MPresent ¼ 5.44, SD ¼
Method 1.82; F(1, 788) ¼ .04, p ¼ .842), but there was a significant
Design and Measures. Study 5 followed a 2 (purchase interaction (F(1, 788) ¼ 5.09, p ¼ .024, xp2 ¼ .005).
signal type: experiential vs. material) 2 (marketer associ- Replicating our earlier studies, simple effect contrasts (see
ation: present vs. absent) between-subject design. We set table 9) revealed that when no association with marketers
our sample size to 200 respondents per cell. Of the 802 was disclosed, experiential purchase signals led to better
MTurk participants who completed the survey, 792 unique impressions compared to material purchase signals; how-
responses were retained. We asked respondents to evaluate ever, this difference disappeared when posts referenced the
a Facebook user named Alex who posted about four pur- marketer.
chases framed to be either experiential or material in nature Authenticity of the Post. Next, we estimated an
(see stimuli and text of our framing manipulation in the ANOVA with authenticity of the post as the dependent var-
web appendix). The posts used are presented in table 8. iable. Respondents found the posts to be marginally more
In the marketer-association-present condition, we added authentic if they mentioned experiential rather than mate-
three hashtags (#AmazonPurchase, #WinAmazonFun,
rial purchases (MExp ¼ 52.17, SD ¼ 31.63 vs. MMat ¼
#Amazon) to each post, suggesting that the post was pro-
48.52, SD ¼ 31.41; F(1, 788) ¼ 2.87, p ¼ .090, xp2 ¼
moting Amazon and that the motivation for writing about
.002). There was a significant negative effect of marketer
the purchases was to win a contest run by the company.
association (MAbsent ¼ 55.08, SD ¼ 31.38 vs. MPresent ¼
Respondents evaluated the user who wrote these posts
45.57, SD ¼ 31.04; F(1, 788) ¼ 18.77, p < .001, xp2 ¼
by answering the three impression questions used in previ-
.022), as well as a marginally significant interaction (F(1,
ous studies. Responses to these questions were highly cor-
related (a ¼ .96) and were averaged to compute an 788) ¼ 2.91, p ¼ .089, xp2 ¼ .002). Next, we conducted
impressions measure. In this study, we also measured the simple effect analyses to parallel the analysis conducted on
proposed mediator to provide additional process evidence. impressions. This revealed a very similar pattern of results
We measured perceived authenticity of the posts as we did (see table 9), namely, that any experiential advantage in
in study 2 (a ¼ .95). Similar to study 2, a confirmatory fac- authenticity disappeared when posts were associated with
tor analysis supports discriminant validity: the average var- the marketer.
iance extracted is 0.89 for impressions and 0.86 for Mediation Analysis. We find that authenticity of the
authenticity of the post, and the squared correlation be- posts significantly mediated the effect of purchase signal
tween them is only 0.42.2 type on impressions in the absence of marketer mentions
(bindirect ¼ .29, 95% CI [.52, .06], 10,000 boot-
2 Note that the Fornell-Larcker analysis relies on the squared correla- strapped samples), but not when marketers were mentioned
tion between the weighted factors extracted from the confirmatory fac-
tor analysis; the squared correlation between factors computed by (bindirect ¼ .00, 95% CI [.23, .23], 10,000 bootstrapped
averaging item scores is .39. samples). A test of moderated mediation was marginally
TABLE 8
POSTS STUDY 5
Material posts
“I am the proud owner of a bottle of Chateau Lafite. It makes a great addition to my wine collection! #thebestproduct”
“I love owning a National Geographic subscription. Looking at all those yellow magazines in my library makes me so happy! #yellowmagazines”
“My new mountain bike is by far the best product I own. It’s so beautiful—a single chain ring carbon fiber hardtail with 27 in. wheels. #beau-
tifulproduct”
“I just got a boxed set of my favorite TV show. I can’t wait to have it on display, it is going to have a place of honor on my DVD shelf!
#bestpurchase”

Experiential posts
“I cannot wait to drink my bottle of Chateau Lafite. It is currently breathing and I know drinking it will be a once in a lifetime experience!
#thebestexperience”
“I love browsing my National Geographic subscription. Spending time reading all those yellow magazines makes me so happy! #lovereading”
“I have had the best experience with my new mountain bike. It rides so beautifully—I have been able to use it on all types of soil and weather
conditions. #beautifulexperience”
“I just got a boxed set of my favorite TV show. I can’t wait to watch it all again, it is going to be great relieving all the cool parts of the show!
#bestshow”
significant (bdifference ¼ .29, 90% CI [.01, .56], PROCESS purchase—experiential or material—they would post about
Model 8, Hayes 2013). on Facebook (n ¼ 583). A large portion of respondents
chose a mixture of material and experiential posts (79%)
Discussion (see full results in the web appendix). This suggests that us-
ing mixed signals may indeed be quite widespread.
Study 5 explores a common occurrence on social media:
Interestingly, individuals expected to make equally posi-
consumers sharing marketer-promoted purchase posts. We
tive impressions regardless of how many material or expe-
find that when marketer connections are highlighted, post- riential posts they included (F(4, 577) ¼ 1.05, p ¼ .378).
ing about experiential purchases no longer leads to an im- In other words, everyone believed they had put their best
pression benefit over posting about material purchases. foot forward with whatever combination of signals they
The findings in this study lend additional support to H4 selected.
and to the proposed underlying authenticity-based process In study 6, we explore how different combinations of
(H2). Interestingly, these findings also suggest that when it purchase signals affect impressions. The nature of this
comes to these types of promotions, consumers’ and mar- study is exploratory, and we could a priori make several
keters’ incentives are not always aligned. Marketers want different predictions as to how a combination of experien-
consumers to post WOM and to attribute WOM to specific tial and material signals could be received compared to sig-
promotions (e.g., a sweepstakes); however, consumers may nals of the same nature. On the one hand, we know that
be hurt by associating themselves with marketers in their multiple experiential signals are received more positively
social media posts since this could dampen how others per- compared to multiple material signals. It is therefore possi-
ceive them. Note, however, it is possible not all viewers ble that receivers form more positive impressions of the
clearly perceive these hashtags as being marketer driven, signal sender the more they send experiential purchase sig-
possibly contributing to marginal results on some of our nals. On the other hand, prior literature has identified a
measures, but also suggesting that real-world marketers positive relationship between consistency in behavior and
may benefit from hashtag ambiguity. perceptions of authenticity (Kraus, Chen, and Keltner
2011), so it is also possible that receivers value consistency
STUDY 6—HOW ARE MIXED SIGNALS in a signal sender. In this case, we might find that multiple
RECEIVED? signals of the same nature, whether they are material or ex-
periential, lead to more positive impressions compared to
Earlier studies compared how multiple (vs. single) mate- mixed signals. Finally, a third pattern is also possible. We
rial or experiential purchase signals affect impression for- previously learned that receivers generally form more neg-
mation. In these studies, cumulative signals were all of the ative impressions of senders who send multiple purchase
same nature, either all experiential or all material. In real- signals of a given type (vs. a single signal). It is therefore
ity, however, people might use a combination of experien- also possible that mixed signals might lead to more favor-
tial and material purchase signals. To assess whether able impressions compared to multiple signals of the same
senders would indeed send a combination of multiple sig- type, if receivers focus on the fact that in the case of mixed
nals, we recruited Facebook users from MTurk and asked signals, fewer signals of any given type have been sent. In
them to make four sequential choices as to which study 6, we examine how the mixture of experiential and
TABLE 9
STUDY 5 RESULTS—(PANEL A) IMPRESSIONS AND (PANEL B) POST AUTHENTICITY
Marketer association
Panel A Absent Present
Impressions Experiential 5.87 (1.85) 5.54 (1.88) F(1, 788) ¼ 2.99, p ¼ .084, xp2 ¼ .003
Material 5.05 (2.03) 5.33 (1.76) F(1, 788) ¼ 2.14, p ¼.144
F(1, 788) ¼ 18.64, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .022 F(1, 788) ¼ 1.27, p ¼ .260

Marketer association
Panel B Absent Present
Post authenticity Experiential 58.92 (30.78) 45.56 (31.13) F(1, 788) ¼ 18.04, p < .001, xp2 ¼ .021
Material 51.40 (31.58) 45.58 (31.03) F(1, 788) ¼ 3.49, p ¼ .062, xp2 ¼ .003
F(1, 788) ¼ 5.78, p ¼ .016, xp2 ¼ .006 F(1, 788) ¼ .00, p ¼ .994
material purchases affects how authentic receivers perceive and the dependent variable. In this case, the AVE is 0.91
these posts and how authenticity affects impressions. for impressions and 0.82 for authenticity of the posts, and
the squared correlation between impressions and authentic-
Method ity of the posts is 0.37,4 meeting the Fornell-Larcker crite-
rion and suggesting discriminant validity of the measures.
We set our sample size to 150 participants per condi-
tion.3 Of the 750 MTurk participants who completed the
survey, 737 unique responses were retained. We told
Results
respondents we were interested in their impressions of a Impressions. An ANOVA predicting impressions
Facebook user named Alex Watson. Next, they were ran- revealed a significant omnibus effect of condition (F(4,
domly assigned to one of five conditions, varying the num- 732) ¼ 14.26, p < .001). More importantly, we identified a
ber of material (M) versus experiential (E) posts significant linear trend (F(1, 732) ¼ 46.43, p < .001),
respondents encountered (4M0E, 3M1E, 2M2E, 1M3E, alongside a quadratic term (F(1, 732) ¼ 9.85, p ¼ .002, see
0M4E). Each participant evaluated one of the possible 16 figure 2A). Simple comparisons revealed that posting only
combinations of four Facebook posts using the four mate- about material purchases led to significantly lower impres-
rial and four experiential purchases used in earlier studies sions compared to all other conditions. Further, including
(see table 10 and stimuli in the web appendix). only one experiential purchase led to marginally lower
Respondents in the 4M0E (4 material, 0 experiential) and impressions compared to including two experiential pur-
the 0M4E (0 material, 4 experiential) condition saw only chases and significantly lower impressions compared to in-
material or only experiential purchases in a predetermined cluding three or four experiential purchases. Impressions
order. Respondents in the other conditions saw a set of were not significantly different from each other for two,
posts randomly chosen among possible sets corresponding three, or four experiential purchases (full details in web
to their condition. For instance, respondents in the 3M1E appendix).
(3 material, 1 experiential) condition saw one randomly de- Authenticity of the Posts. An ANOVA predicting au-
termined experiential purchase among three material pur- thenticity of the posts also revealed a significant omnibus
chases. Respondents saw all four posts before answering effect of condition (F(4, 732) ¼ 6.69, p < .001). Again, we
the three impression questions and three authenticity ques- identified a significant linear trend (F(1, 732) ¼ 23.40, p <
tions used in earlier studies. Responses to these items were .001). However, while the overall pattern of results was
averaged to form a measure of impressions (a ¼ .97) and a very similar, the quadratic term was not significant (F(1,
post authenticity measure (a ¼ .93). 732) ¼ 2.38, p ¼ .123). Simple comparisons revealed post-
A confirmatory factor analysis including the items mea- ing only about material purchases or only about one experi-
suring impressions and those measuring authenticity of the ential purchase led to lower authenticity perceptions
posts supports discriminant validity between the mediator
4 Note that the Fornell-Larcker analysis relies on the squared correla-
3 In the web appendix, we also report an earlier version of this study tion between the weighted factors extracted from confirmatory factor
that did not measure authenticity. That study finds a very similar pat- analysis; the squared correlation between factors computed by averag-
tern of results with regard to impressions. ing item scores is .41.
TABLE 10
POSTS STUDY 6
Material posts
“Warm and sunny, the perfect day if you have a new GoPro to try! #solucky”
“Today was a good day! Guess who got a new awesome phone? #happyme”
“Sometimes you just gotta do it! Got the best cashmere pullover today! #treat”
“Guys, I finally decided it’s time to be active again. Going to buy my first Fitbit today #excited”
Experiential posts
“Warm and sunny, the perfect day if you have seats to watch your team live! #solucky”

“Today was a good day! Guess who got awesome tickets for the play? #happyme”
“Sometimes you just gotta do it! Got the best Thai massage today! #treat”
“Guys, I finally decided it’s time to be active again! Going to buy my first 2-day ski-pass today #excited”
compared to any condition that included at least two expe- accuracy of what senders expect versus what receivers
riential purchases. Authenticity perceptions were not dif- perceive.
ferent from each other for two, three, or four experiential
purchases (see figure 2B; details in the web appendix). GENERAL DISCUSSION
Mediation Analysis. We find authenticity of the post
Using purchases as signals has a long history in practice
significantly mediated the effect of the number of experi- and has been researched extensively. However, the rise of
ential posts on overall impressions (bindirect ¼ .14, 95% CI social media has allowed for novel ways of signaling with
[.08, .20], 10,000 bootstrapped samples, PROCESS model purchases. Across six studies, we find that signal receivers
4, Hayes 2013). question why social media users post about their purchases,
which affects perceptions of post authenticity and, ulti-
Discussion mately, the impression receivers form of the signal sender.
Study 6 replicates our earlier findings that posting about We find the type of purchases senders choose to post about
multiple, exclusively experiential purchases leads to more matters for this process. Receivers perceive multiple mate-
favorable impressions compared to posting about multiple, rial purchase signals as less authentic compared to multiple
exclusively material purchases. Moreover, we find that, experiential purchase signals, and this affects the impres-
generally, including more experiential purchases in one’s sion they form of the signal sender. Importantly, in the so-
posts leads to better impressions. Importantly, we find cial media environment, receivers can use a variety of
these differences are driven by perceptions of the posts’ au- additional cues to infer the sender’s intentions, some of
thenticity, in line with our theorizing. which are under the direct control of the signal sender
Interestingly, sending only experiential purchase signals (e.g., hashtags) and others of which are not (e.g., feedback
by other users). We explored three of these cues (monetary
does not necessarily lead to more positive impressions
mentions, other users’ comments, and marketer associa-
compared to sending mostly experiential purchase signals.
tions via hashtags) and found that receivers do indeed use
Combined with the data discussed in the study’s introduc-
these additional cues to make authenticity inferences, re-
tion, this suggests mixed signals can be equally effective as
ducing the impact of purchase signal type on impressions
only selecting experiential signals, as long as material sig- when such cues allude to inauthentic motives.
nals are kept at a low level. In fact, the data discussed in By exploring how using purchases as signals on social
this study’s introduction find that about half of the senders media affects impressions, we contribute unique instances
choose to post mostly, but not exclusively, about their ex- and a novel understanding of consumers’ reactions to so-
periential purchases (50.77%), seemingly anticipating cial media messages to the well-established literature on
these results, while those who only choose experiential signaling and conspicuous consumption as well as to the
purchase posts (16.98%) may be overestimating how help- burgeoning literature on user-generated social media com-
ful experiential purchase posts are. In addition, there is a munication. Further, by systematically examining how
sizeable portion of the senders who clearly appear miscali- others perceive those that intentionally broadcast purchase
brated (20.24%). They predominantly chose material sig- signals on social media (rather than incidentally observing
nals, which lead to more negative impressions than all ownership, as previously studied), we also contribute to the
other choices, contrary to their stated expectations that literature comparing the various benefits of experiential
what they chose will help them make a good impression on versus material purchases. Notably, we conclusively find
others. Future research may find it interesting to more sys- an experiential benefit only when multiple signals are pre-
tematically explore the role of mixed signals as well as the sent, while prior literature generally observed a variety of
FIGURE 2
IMPRESSIONS (A) AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE POST PERCEPTIONS (B) AS A FUNCTION OF THE NUMBER OF EXPERIENTIAL
PURCHASE POSTS.

experiential benefits even for single purchases, possibly As further support of the managerial implications of our
due to social media being a more ambiguous environment. findings, additional data, presented in the web appendix,
found that the type of purchases social media users post
Managerial Implications about can have meaningful downstream consequences for
user engagement within the social media platform (likes,
In addition to these theoretical contributions, our work
retweets, comments, and click-throughs). The studies were
also has important managerial implications. Encouraging
consumers to post about purchases is something marketers not included here due to space limitations; however, the
are very interested in when it comes to consumer- methods and analyses are described in full detail online
generated content and WOM. Yet, our work highlights a and readers are encouraged to examine them in the web ap-
conflict between consumers’ objective of curating a posi- pendix. First, in a consequential study conducted on
tive image of themselves and marketers’ objective of fos- MTurk, we find that receivers are less likely to click on a
tering user-generated WOM about their offerings and link shared by a Twitter user who had repeatedly posted
trackable attribution of their campaigns (e.g., through hash- about their material (vs. experiential) purchases, and that
tags). Importantly, this conflict might partially explain why this effect is driven by the more negative impressions they
marketer-initiated viral campaigns are oftentimes unsuc- formed of this individual. Second, in a study conducted on
cessful (Watts, Peretti, and Frumin 2007) and marketer Prolific Academic, we find receivers are less likely to fol-
sponsorship of posts by social media influencers leads to low, like, and retweet posts from a Twitter user who re-
lower favorability of those posts (Pöyry et al. 2019). While peatedly posted about his material (vs. experiential
marketers want consumers to post about purchases, such purchases), due to the lower impressions they formed.
posts might be perceived as inauthentic by the consumers’ These findings are important not only because marketers
friends and followers and may hurt the opinion these indi- want to generate consumer engagement with brand-
viduals form of them. To the extent that consumers antici- relevant content, and social media sites want consumer en-
pate potential downsides of posting about purchases, they gagement on their platforms, but also because consumers
may be reluctant to share any purchases on social media, might respond negatively to receiving low engagement on
and material purchases in particular (consistent with our their posts, which may make them less responsive to
exploratory study examining signal senders), as well as to WOM initiatives in the future.
make any references to marketers. Further, even if they While our findings identify potential barriers to user-
choose to post about purchases following a marketer’s generated content and WOM, they also offer guidance to
prompt, they might receive negative feedback from other reduce such barriers. Marketers could try to align their
social media users (as simulated in study 4), which likely incentives with those of consumers by emphasizing authen-
will reduce such behavior in the future and might even ticity when encouraging consumers to post about their pur-
have negative effects on the relationship between the con- chases online. In particular, marketers could encourage
sumer and the brand. consumers to share their purchases as part of their life
experiences, reducing associations with money being ex- when algorithms prioritize showing certain users consis-
changed. Our findings suggest this could be beneficial for tently in curated feeds. When posts are temporally sepa-
any type of purchase, and for material purchases in particu- rated, other processes such as memory decay may become
lar. An example of how marketers could do that is the more important. Longitudinal investigations of impression
award-winning social media campaign #livelokai that management efforts would be able to examine these issues.
encourages consumers to share pictures of their Lokai bra- Third, we only explore situations in which receivers are
celets on Instagram as a way of sharing about their non- exposed to multiple purchase signals sent in relatively
commercial experiences and their life story. close succession. Future research could explore whether
our effect would be attenuated if more time elapsed be-

The Lokai campaign also highlights another important
aspect that emerged in our research: hashtags matter when tween posts and if purchase posts are mixed in with non-
it comes to sharing purchases on social media. Marketers purchases posts.
should pay particular attention to selecting hashtags that Fourth, while experiential purchases generally convey
can convey authenticity. For example, hashtags could greater intrinsic benefits to consumers over material pur-
frame purchases as enabling life experiences and de- chases, there are situations, such as when consumers want
emphasizing ownership and monetary associations, such as to honor special life events (Goodman, Malkoc, and
Coca-Cola’s #ShareACoke, Peloton’s #WearPeloton, and Stephenson 2016), when the opposite is true. Our work has
Domino’s Pizza’s #LetsDoLunch hashtag campaigns. We identified situations in which the use of experiential pur-
believe marketers should also pay attention to other unique chase signals leads to more positive impressions compared
social media cues that could similarly affect how a social to the use of material purchase signals. We also identified
media post is received. For instance, tagging other users situations where this experiential benefit does not exist.
can actually decrease perceptions that a self-promotional However, we did not identify situations in which the use of
social media post is overtly braggy (Valsesia, Nunes, and experiential purchase signals leads to unequivocally worse
Ordanini 2021), suggesting that tags could heighten per- impressions. Such situations might be interesting for future
ceived authenticity. If this is the case, also mentioning mar- research to explore. For instance, material purchase signals
keters in “tag a friend” campaigns (in which marketers might have an advantage with certain individuals (e.g.,
invite consumers to tag a friend in branded content) may those more financially constrained; Tully, Hershfield, and
not necessarily come at the expense of creating favorable Meyvis 2015) or when the sender is trying to convey spe-
impressions. Yet, this may hold true only if tagging is cific characteristics (e.g., uniqueness; D’Angelo, Diehl,
meaningful and done sparingly, since overtagging and and Cavanaugh 2019).
meaningless tagging are known to alienate others (Dodaro Fifth, while we find that receivers’ evaluations of a
2021), because those practices might suggest the sender is post’s authenticity impact the impressions they form, other
motivated by self-promotional motives. processes may also come in to play, since impression for-
mation is generally a multi-determined phenomenon
Limitations and Future Research (Goodwin, Piazza, and Rozin 2014). Particularly in the
case of a single post, where we found no differences in au-
Given this work constitutes an initial exploration of the thenticity perceptions, other processes may be at work. For
use of purchases as signals on social media, many impor- instance, it is possible that certain types of social media
tant questions remain unanswered. First, our work takes posts (e.g., posts about material purchases, or posts
the perspective of the signal receiver. Prior work on focal- highlighting monetary exchanges) are seen as less norma-
ism and on emotional perspective taking suggests that sig- tively appropriate compared to others. Since social media
nal senders might not always be well calibrated in their is a relatively new and constantly evolving medium, such
signaling strategies (Scopelliti et al. 2015, Sezer et al. norms are also likely to be developing and being negotiated
2018). Indeed, our initial exploration of signal senders, pre- over time. Future research could examine social media-
sented in the introduction of study 6, hints at the fact that specific norms and their effect on impressions.
some consumers are miscalibrated regarding how their so- Norms may also be, at least to some extent, platform
cial media posts will be received. Future research may specific (e.g., norms on Instagram and Twitter may differ).
want to compare whether and when signal senders and sig- This is particularly true for social media such as TikTok
nal receivers on social media see eye to eye. and Instagram that rely more on visuals than text. One lim-
Second, our studies examined multiple signals that are itation of our work is that it is limited to the exploration of
encountered concurrently (e.g., when looking at a person’s highly text-focused social media, such as Facebook. Future
Facebook wall or Twitter profile). While this situation is work could explore the use of purchases as signals on
realistic, other ways of encountering multiple signals on other, more visually focused social media.
social media are also possible, for instance encountering a Finally, future work might explore further downstream
post every day from the same person. This may be the case consequences of the process we unveiled in this work. One
way in which consumers can learn about new products and Burrow, Anthony L. and Nicolette Rainone (2017), “How Many
services is by seeing others post about them on social me- Likes Did I Get?: Purpose Moderates Links between Positive
dia. While consumers may not rely on others’ opinions Social Media Feedback and Self-Esteem,” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 232–36.
equally for all purchase types (Dai, Chan, and Mogilner Campbell, Margaret C. and Amna Kirmani (2000), “Consumers’
2020), an interesting question is whether the same features Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility
that influence the impression they form of the signal sender and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence
and their subsequent social media engagement also affect Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69–83.
their interest in the purchase itself. These and many other Caprariello, Peter A. and Harry T. Reis (2013), “To Do, to Have,
or to Share? Valuing Experiences over Material Possessions

open questions highlight the many opportunities to im-
Depends on the Involvement of Others,” Journal of
prove our understanding of the role social media plays in Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (2), 199–215.
everyday self-presentation. Carter, Travis J. and Thomas Gilovich (2012), “I Am What I Do,
Not What I Have: The Differential Centrality of Experiential
and Material Purchases to the Self,” Journal of Personality
DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION and Social Psychology, 102 (6), 1304–17.
Chan, Cindy and Cassie Mogilner (2017), “Experiential Gifts
The first and second authors jointly designed all studies
Foster Stronger Social Relationships than Material Gifts,”
and managed the collection of data using Amazon Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6), 913–31.
Mechanical Turk in August 2017 (study 1), October 2018 Chandler, Jesse J. and Gabriele Paolacci (2017), “Lie for a Dime:
(study 3), December 2018 (study 2), August 2019 (study When Most Prescreening Responses Are Honest but Most
5), April 2020 (study 4), and February 2021 (study 6). Study Participants Are Impostors,” Social Psychological and
These data were shared, discussed, and analyzed by both Personality Science, 8 (5), 500–8.
Cinelli, Melissa D. and Robyn LeBoeuf (2020), “Keeping It Real:
authors. The data are currently stored in a project directory How Perceived Brand Authenticity Affects Product
on ResearchBox and in a Dropbox folder shared by the Perceptions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30 (1),
authors. 40–59.
Dahl, Darren W., Rajesh V. Manchanda, and Jennifer J. Argo
(2001), “Embarrassment in Consumer Purchase: The Roles
REFERENCES of Social Presence and Purchase Familiarity,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 28 (3), 473–81.
qe/>PBack, Mitja D., Stefan C. Schmukle, and Boris Egloff
D’Angelo, Jennifer K., Kristin Diehl, and Lisa A. Cavanaugh
(2008), “How Extraverted Is Honey.bunny77@Hotmail.de?
(2019), “Lead by Example? Custom-Made Examples Created
Inferring Personality from E-Mail Addresses,” Journal of
by Close Others Lead Consumers to Make Dissimilar
Research in Personality, 42 (4), 1116–22.
Choices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (4), 750–73.
Bagwell, Kyle and Michael H. Riordan (1991), “High and
Dai, Hengchen, Cindy Chan, and Cassie Mogilner (2020), “People
Declining Prices Signal Product Quality,” The American Rely Less on Consumer Reviews for Experiential than
Economic Review, 81 (1), 224–39. Material Purchases,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (6),
Barasch, Alixandra, Gal Zauberman, and Kristin Diehl (2018), 1052–75.
“How the Intention to Share Can Undermine Enjoyment: Dodaro, Melonie (2021), “Is Your LinkedIn Content Strategy
Photo-Taking Goals and Evaluation of Experiences,” Journal Making You Look Desperate?” https://www.socialmediato-
of Consumer Research, 44 (6), 1220–37. day.com/news/is-your-linkedin-content-strategy-making-
Bastos, Wilson and Merrie Brucks (2017), “How and Why you-look-desperate/569900/.
Conversational Value Leads to Happiness for Experiential Eisingerich, Andreas B., HaeEun Helen Chun, Yeyi Liu, He
and Material Purchases,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 Michael Jia, and Simon J. Bell (2015), “Why Recommend a
(3), 598–612. Brand Face-to-Face but Not on Facebook? How Word-of-
Baumeister, Roy F. (1982), “A Self-Presentational View of Social Mouth on Online Social Sites Differs from Traditional Word-
Phenomena,” Psychological Bulletin, 91 (1), 3–26. of-Mouth,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (1),
Belk, Russell W. (1983), “Worldly Possessions: Issues and 120–28.
Criticisms,” ACR North American Advances, 10, 514–19. Ferraro, Rosellina, Amna Kirmani, and Ted Matherly (2013),
Bellezza, Silvia, Neeru Paharia, and Anat Keinan (2017), “Look at Me! Look at Me! Conspicuous Brand Usage, Self-
“Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Brand Connection, and Dilution,” Journal of Marketing
Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol,” Journal of Research, 50 (4), 477–88.
Consumer Research, 44 (1), 118–38. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Structural Equation
Bristow, Dennis N. and Daniel A. Sachau (1998), “Who Could Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Blame Me? I Got It on Sale! An Investigation of Purchase Error: Algebra and Statistics,” Journal of Marketing
Price Disclosure as an Impression Management Tactic,” Research, 18 (3), 382–88.
Management Research News, 21 (4/5), 11–22. Garsd, Jasmine (2018), “#Blessed: Is Everyone Happier Than You
Brunswik, Egon (1956), Perception and the Representative On Social Media?,” https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/
Design of Psychological Experiments, Berkeley, CA: 636016812/-blessed-is-everyone-happier-than-you-on-so-
University of California Press. cial-media.
Burns, Kelli S. (2017), Social Media: A Reference Handbook: A Goodman, Joseph K., Cynthia E. Cryder, and Amar Cheema
Reference Handbook, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. (2013), “Data Collection in a Flat World: The Strengths and
Weaknesses of Mechanical Turk Samples,” Journal of Nicolao, Leonardo, Julie R. Irwin, and Joseph K. Goodman
Behavioral Decision Making, 26 (3), 213–24. (2009), “Happiness for Sale: Do Experiential Purchases
Goodman, Joseph K., Selin A. Malkoc, and Brittney L. Make Consumers Happier than Material Purchases?,”
Stephenson (2016), “Celebrate or Commemorate? A Material Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (2), 188–98.
Purchase Advantage When Honoring Special Life Events,” Nunes, Joseph C., Andrea Ordanini, and Gaia Giambastiani
Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1 (4), (2021), “EXPRESS: The Concept of Authenticity: What It
497–508. Means to Consumers,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (4), 1–20.
Goodwin, Geoffrey, Jared Piazza, and Paul Rozin (2014), “Moral Nailya, Ordabayeva and Pierre Chandon (2011), “Getting Ahead
Character Predominates in Person Perception and of the Joneses: When Equality Increases Conspicuous
Evaluation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Consumption among Bottom-Tier Consumers,” Journal of

106 (1), 148–68. Consumer Research, 38 (1), 27–41.
Goor, Dafna, Nailya Ordabayeva, Anat Keinan, and Sandrine Pöyry, Essi, Matilde Pelkonen, Emma Naumanen, and Salla-
Crener (2020), “The Impostor Syndrome from Luxury Maaria Laaksonen (2019), “A Call for Authenticity:
Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (6), Audience Responses to Social Media Influencer
1031–51. Endorsements in Strategic Communication,” International
Graham, Lindsay T. and Samuel D. Gosling (2012), “Impressions Journal of Strategic Communication, 13 (4), 336–51.
of World of Warcraft Players’ Personalities Based on Their Rosenzweig, Emily and Thomas Gilovich (2012), “Buyer’s
Usernames: Interobserver Consensus but No Accuracy,” Remorse or Missed Opportunity? Differential Regrets for
Journal of Research in Personality, 46 (5), 599–603. Material and Experiential Purchases,” Journal of Personality
Grandey, Alicia A., Glenda M. Fisk, Anna S. Mattila, Karen J. and Social Psychology, 102 (2), 215–23.
Jansen, and Lori A. Sideman (2005), “Is ‘Service with a Schlosser, Ann E. (2020), “Self-Disclosure on Social Media,”
Smile’ Enough? Authenticity of Positive Displays during Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 1–6.
Service Encounters,” Organizational Behavior and Human Scopelliti, Irene, George Loewenstein, and Joachim Vosgerau
Decision Processes, 96 (1), 38–55. (2015), “You Call It ‘Self-Exuberance’; I Call It ‘Bragging’
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), “Mediation, Moderation, and Miscalibrated Predictions of Emotional Responses to Self-
Conditional Process Analysis,” in Introduction to Mediation, Promotion,” Psychological Science, 26 (6), 903–14.
Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Sezer, Ovul, Francesca Gino, and Michael I. Norton (2018),
“Humblebragging: A Distinct—and Ineffective—Self-
Regression-Based Approach, New York: The Guilford Press,
Presentation Strategy,” Journal of Personality and Social
1–20.
Psychology, 114 (1), 52–74.
Holt, Douglas B. (2002), “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A
Skowronski, John J. and Donald E. Carlston (1987), “Social
Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,”
Judgment and Social Memory: The Role of Cue
Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 70–90.
Diagnosticity in Negativity, Positivity, and Extremity
Huber, Joel and John McCann (1982), “The Impact of Inferential
Biases,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52
Beliefs on Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing
(4), 689–99.
Research, 19 (3), 324–33. Smith, Rosanna K., Michelle R. Vandellen, and Lan Anh N. Ton
Huddleston, Tom J. (2021), “How Instagram influencers can fake (2021), “Makeup Who You Are: Self-Expression Enhances
their way to online fame,” https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/ the Perceived Authenticity and Public Promotion of Beauty
02/hbo-fake-famous-how-instagram-influencers-.html Work,” Journal of Consumer Research, 48 (1), 102–22.
Jung, Younbo, Hayeon Song, and Peter Vorderer (2012), “Why Tully, Stephanie M., Hal E. Hershfield, and Tom Meyvis (2015),
Do People Post and Read Personal Messages in Public? The “Seeking Lasting Enjoyment with Limited Money: Financial
Motivation of Using Personal Blogs and Its Effects on Users’ Constraints Increase Preference for Material Goods over
Loneliness, Belonging, and Well-Being,” Computers in Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 59–75.
Human Behavior, 28 (5), 1626–33. Valsesia, Francesca, Kristin Diehl, and Joseph C. Nunes (2017),
Kraus, Michael W., Serena Chen, and Dacher Keltner (2011), “Based on a True Story: Making People Believe the
“The Power to Be Me: Power Elevates Self-Concept Unbelievable,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Consistency and Authenticity,” Journal of Experimental 71, 105–10.
Social Psychology, 47 (5), 974–80. Valsesia, Francesca, Joseph C. Nunes, and Andrea Ordanini
Kumar, Amit and Thomas Gilovich (2015), “Some ‘Thing’ to (2021), “I Am Not Talking to You: Partitioning an Audience
Talk about? Differential Story Utility from Experiential and in an Attempt to Solve the Self-Promotion Dilemma,”
Material Purchases,” Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Bulletin, 41 (10), 1320–31. 165, 76–89.
Mellers, Barbara A., Virginia Richards, and Michael H. Birnbaum Valsesia, Francesca, Davide Proserpio, and Joseph C. Nunes
(1992), “Distributional Theories of Impression Formation,” (2020), “The Positive Effect of Not following Others on
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51 Social Media,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (6),
(3), 313–43. 1152–68.
Moreau, Paige (2014), “Products as Signals,” Journal of Van Boven, Leaf, Margaret C. Campbell, and Thomas Gilovich
Consumer Research, Research Curation, https://academic. (2010), “Stigmatizing Materialism: On Stereotypes and
oup.com/jcr/pages/products_as_signals. Impressions of Materialistic and Experiential Pursuits,”
Morhart, Felicitas, Lucia Mal€ar, Amelie Guèvremont, Florent Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (4), 551–63.
Girardin, and Bianca Grohmann (2015), “Brand Van Boven, Leaf and Thomas Gilovich (2003), “To Do or to
Authenticity: An Integrative Framework and Measurement Have? That is the Question,” Journal of Personality and
Scale,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 200–18. Social Psychology, 85 (6), 1193–202.
Van Dijk, E. and M Zeelenberg (2003), “The Discounting of Individuals on Facebook: Are we Known by the Company
Ambiguous Information in Economic Decision Making,” we Keep?,” Human Communication Research, 34 (1), 28–49.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16 (5), 341–52. Warren, Caleb and Margaret C. Campbell (2014), “What Makes
Vazire, Simine and Samuel D. Gosling (2004), “e-Perceptions: Things Cool? How Autonomy Influences Perceived
Personality Impressions Based on Personal Websites,” Coolness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 543–63.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (1), Watts, Duncan J., Jonah Peretti, and Michael Frumin (2007), Viral
123–32. Marketing for the Real World, Boston, MA: Harvard
Veblen, Thorstein (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Business School Publishing.
Economic Study of Institutions, New York: The Macmillan Weingarten, Evan and Joseph K. Goodman (2021), “Re-
Company, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_ Examining the Experiential Advantage in Consumption: A

Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class/dHIyEAAAQBAJ?hl¼en& Meta-Analysis and Review,” Journal of Consumer Research,
gbpv¼1&pg¼PP1&printsec¼frontcover. 47 (6), 855–77.
Walther, Joseph B., Brandon Van Der Heide, Sang-Yeon Kim, Wilcox, Keith, Hyeong Min Kim, and Sankar Sen (2009), “Why
David Westerman, and Stephanie Tom Tong (2008), “The Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands?,” Journal of
Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Marketing Research, 46 (2), 247–59.

17-6.26-ZYN Let Me Show You What I Did Versus What I Have

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

17-6.26-ZYN Let Me Show You What I Did Versus What I Have

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Let Me Show You What I Did versus What I

Have: Sharing Experiential versus Material

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Keywords: signaling, social media, impression management, word of mouth, en-

I magine reading a friend’s post on social media saying,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

SOCIAL MEDIA SIGNALING AND HOW ARE PURCHASE SIGNALS ON

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Discussion STUDY 2—WHAT DRIVES IMPRESSIONS

One post Four posts

Impressions Non-purchase 6.41 6.61 F(1, 884) ¼ .92, p ¼.337

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Panel A One post Four posts

Panel B One post Four posts

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Monetary exchange not highlighted Monetary exchange highlighted

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

properties of the same purchase (for posts see table 6, for

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

which was marginally significant (F(1, 1144) ¼ 3.79, p ¼

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

STUDY 5 RESULTS—(PANEL A) IMPRESSIONS AND (PANEL B) POST AUTHENTICITY

Panel A Absent Present

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Panel B Absent Present

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/3/430/6444995 by University of Nottingham user on 05 June 2023

You might also like