Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39

Social Influence in the Retail Context: A Contemporary Review of the

Literature
Jennifer J. Argo a,∗ , Darren W. Dahl b,∗
a School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R6, Canada
b Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
Available online 28 December 2019

Abstract
In this article we review research from the past decade that explores how elements of social influence in the bricks-and-mortar retail environment
impact customers. We focus our discussion on demonstrating how the active and passive social influence of the salesforce and other shoppers in
the retail context can impact a focal customer’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Additionally, we utilize our review as an opportunity to highlight
a variety of directions future research could pursue to further our understanding of the impact of the social retail environment.’
© 2019 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Social influence; Retail; Consumer behavior

No man (woman) is an island. John Donne A social influence can impact a consumer actively or pas-
sively. An active social influence refers to tangible verbal
As the above quote suggests, no one operates in a vacuum,
or physical interactions that are both recognized and shared
and rather, we are all influenced by those around us. Interest in
between two parties (i.e., actor(s) and the focal customer). Exam-
the important impact these other individuals (i.e., social influ-
ples of this type of influence can include a salesperson verbally
ence) can have on consumers in the retail environment is not
informing a focal customer about an in-store promotion, another
new; over the years several taxonomies and discussions have
unknown shopper accidently touching the focal customer, or two
surfaced describing how sales associates and other customers
friends shopping together. In contrast, a passive social influence
in the retail setting can influence consumer behavior in the cus-
does not involve a direct and shared engagement between a social
tomer journey (e.g., Baker, Levy and Grewal 1992; Bitner 1990,
influence and the focal customer; rather, it involves a one-way
1992; Buckley 1991; Donovan and Rossiter 1982; Grewal and
social experience whereby the focal customer is either influ-
Baker 1994; Kotler 1973). More recently, a variety of reviews
enced by the actor in the absence of a social exchange or through
have appeared that focus on the service industry (Albrecht 2016),
social information present in the retail environment. As such a
servicescapes (Tombs and McColl-Kennedy 2003), and com-
passive social influence can occur without the knowledge of the
plaining behavior (Yan and Lotz 2009). The central goal of this
actor and can be characterized as a background or atmospheric
article is to provide an overview of how social influence has
influence. Representative examples of passive social influence
been brought to life by marketing academic researchers in the
are the mere presence of other customers located in the same
bricks and mortar retail environment over the last decade. In
store aisle as the focal customer, and the number of people wait-
this article, social influence refers to the myriad ways that a sec-
ing in line to enter a restaurant. As active and passive social
ondary actor or actors (e.g., retail salesperson, other customers)
influences impact consumers through different processes, we
can impact a focal customer’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
broadly structure our review along these two dimensions. We
during a retail shopping experience.
further divide each of these sections into relevant subcategories;
active social influence is divided based on the source of the active
∗
influence (i.e., retail personnel and secondary customers) and
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: jennifer.argo@ualberta.ca (J.J. Argo),
passive social influence is divided by the nature of the influence
darren.dahl@sauder.ubc.ca (D.W. Dahl). (i.e., passive influence targeted directly towards a focal recipi-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.12.005
0022-4359/© 2019 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
26 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
Fig. 1. Social influence in the retail context.
ent, indirect social information as a passive influence; see Fig. 1
for a delineation of our review). Further, in our discussion we
identify how this recent work seeds opportunities for additional
research in this space. Simply, what research opportunities are
still available in these defined areas?
Active Social Influence in the Retail Context
An active social influence in the retail context refers to a
shared exchange between a focal customer and a secondary actor
that involves a tangible verbal or physical interaction. To under-
stand the impact that an active social influence can have on a
focal customer, this section is divided based on the source of the
influence (i.e., a salesperson and a secondary customer). Further,
within the salesperson source category we divide the literature
based on the type of interaction that transpires (i.e., verbal,
nonverbal), whereas we divide the secondary customer source
category based on whether the source is known or unknown to
the focal consumer. See Table 1 for a full summary of articles
reviewed in this section. We conclude by providing guidance for
a number of future research opportunities related to active social
influence in the retail environment (see Table 2 at the end of this
section for a summary of the future research ideas discussed).
Salesperson-Based Active Social Influence
It has long been established that a salesperson can have a sig-
nificant influence on the focal customer. Indeed, the majority of
the original academic work in the social influence area explored
how salespeople strive to persuade customers using sales pitches
and other direct sales tactics (e.g., Campbell and Kirmani 2000;
Cialdini 1984; DeCarlo 2005; Friestad and Wright 1994; Sujan,
Bettman and Sujan 1986). The field has since evolved, and
recent research now focuses on not only overt verbal com-
munication interactions (e.g., greeting, presenting information,
making salient social norms), but also specific nonverbal social
information (e.g., salesperson appearance).
Verbal communication interactions
There are a variety of different types of verbal influence tac-
tics that salespeople will implement to persuade customers to
make a purchase. To date, the influence tactic that has received
the most attention is flattery. In general, research has found
that, consistent with persuasion knowledge (Friestad and Wright
1994), a complimenting salesperson may be (mis)perceived as
untrustworthy and this distrust can persist even when it is not
possible that the salesperson has an ulterior motive (Main, Dahl,
and Darke 2007). Interestingly however, although focal cus-
tomers are highly suspicious of complimenting salespeople, they
are unable to protect the self from flattery attempts when they
are under cognitive load and the compliment occurs before the
purchase (Main, Dahl, and Darke 2007), or, when a delay exists
between the flattery attempt and purchase judgments (Chan and
Sengupta 2010). In both these instances, customers will ulti-
mately fall prey to the persuasive impact of a compliment and
hold more favorable evaluations and purchase intentions. Thus,
over time or during cognitively taxing decisions, a salesperson’s
flattery attempt can positively influence customers.
A second influence tactic that salespeople often use is to make
salient various social norms. One such norm that has received
recent attention in the literature is the norm of reciprocity. In
particular, when a salesperson offers a consumer a price discount
(i.e., makes the norm of reciprocity salient), the consumer will
feel compelled to do something in return such as comply with
a request to share positive word-of-mouth (Blanchard, Carlson,
and Hyodo 2016). This simple influence tactic is highly effective
as individuals have a pervasive desire to comply with social
norms and it enables retailers to solicit much desired and sought
after online recommendations or reviews.
A final influential verbal communication tactic that has
recently been explored is the demeanor of the salesperson. As
one might expect, friendly salespeople are effective in achieving
acquiescence on the part of the focal customer. For example, a
friendly salesperson facilitates impulsive shopping (Mattila and
Wirtz 2008) and increases the likelihood that a focal customer
will touch a product and purchase the touched product (Zhang
et al., 2014). This is not to say however that in certain circum-
stances an unfriendly salesperson might not be more influential.
For instance, in the context of luxury retail, focal customers had
higher evaluations of and were willing-to-pay more for a product
when they interacted with a condescending and rude salesper-
son (vs. a salesperson who was not rude) if she was associated
with an aspirational brand (i.e., Louis Vuitton, Burberry, Gucci;
Ward and Dahl 2014); the positive effect for an unfriendly sales-
person did not arise for less aspirational retail brands (i.e., Gap,
American Eagle, or H&M). The more positive response towards
an unfriendly salesperson who represented an aspirational brand
occurred because customers have a fundamental need to belong,
and when this need is threatened (i.e., they are treated poorly)
they become motivated to seek social approval and affiliation
with a desirable source (Ward and Dahl 2014). In a separate
investigation, when interacting with an unfriendly salesperson
a focal customer will be more unfriendly at the final stage of
the service encounter (Albrecht et al. 2017). In this instance the
focal customer complies with the normative expectations of how
the interaction should transpire, as signaled by the salesperson’s
demeanor. Retailers need to be cognizant that their demeanor is
highly influential for customers’ subsequent behaviors.
Non-verbal interactions
An active social influence shared between the salesperson
actor and the focal customer can also be realized through subtle
social signals exchanged within the interaction such as shared
 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39 27

Table 1
Literature reviewed: active social influence in the retail context.
Active salesperson influence
Citation Research method Conclusions

Albrecht et al. (2017) Video observation, observation Unfriendly salesperson establishes behavior norm that
results in unfriendly customers.
Ashley and Noble (2014) Interviews, 1 experiment, 2 surveys Salespersons engaging in closing time behaviors can
infringe on customer control which can result in
abandoned purchase.
Blanchard, Carlson, and Hyodo 5 experiments Salesperson that activates norm of reciprocity facilitates
(2016) both compliance to WOM requests and purchase
likelihood.
Chan and Sengupta (2010) 4 experiments Flattery from salesperson positively impacts implicit
customer judgments after a delay.
Jacob et al. 2011 2 field experiments When salesperson mimics the customer the customer
evaluates the salesperson and retailer more favorably.
Jiang et al. (2010) 4 experiments When customer is aware of incidental similarities
shared with salespersons they show more positive
attitudes and purchase intentions.
Kirk, Peck and Swain (2018) 5 experiments Customers that establish psychological ownership over
a product will react negatively to salesperson territorial
infringement (e.g., touching the product).
Main, Dahl, and Darke (2007) 4 experiments Flattery from salesperson leads to sinister attribution
errors by customer, except when the customer is under
cognitive load.
Mattila and Wirtz (2008) Survey A positive salesperson demeanor facilitates customer
impulsive shopping.
Wan and Wyer (2018) 3 experiments, 1 field experiment Positive effects of incidental similarity shared between
the salesperson and customer is mitigated when the
salesperson is unfriendly.
Ward and Dahl (2014) 4 experiments In a luxury retail context, condescending salesperson
behavior leads to increased customer purchase.
Zhang et al. (2014) Video observation A positive salesperson demeanor facilitates customer
product touching and purchase.

Active secondary customer influence

Citation Research method Conclusions

Chebat, Haj-Salem, and Oliveira Survey Customers shopping with friends had higher arousal and
(2014) more positive attitudes towards retailer.
De Vries et al. (2018) 4 experiments, 1 fmri study Thinking about or shopping with close friends or family
members decreased (increased) compulsive
(non-compulsive) shoppers’ urge to shop.
Grewal et al. (2018) 1 field experiment, 1 eye tracking Customers shopping with friends are likely to increase
study their purchase quantity.
Kurt, Inman, and Argo (2011) 1 field experiment, 1 experiment, 1 Customers shopping with friends spent more money
survey when shopping if they were high in agency.
Luo (2008) 2 experiments Impulsive shopping is facilitated by presence of peers
(though not family members).
Martin (2011) Field experiment Incidental touch from one customer to another results in
less favorable evaluations of brands and shorter time
spent in the retailer.
Martin and Nuttall (2017) 3 field experiments Incidental touch on male customers does not affect
brand evaluations (but does negatively impact females),
but does cause shorter time spent in the retailer.
Mead et al. (2011) 4 experiments Being socially rejected in a retail context led customers
to purchase more symbolic group membership products.
Zhang et al. (2014) Video observation Customers interacting with other shoppers in their group
were more likely to touch products and make a purchase.

similarities or incidental behaviors. As one example, when a
salesperson mimics a customer (e.g., copies the gestures that
the customer makes), the focal customer evaluates both the
salesperson and the store more favorably (Jacob et al., 2011).
Another subtle, yet effective, form of social influence is shared
incidental similarities (e.g., having the same birth date, grad-
uating from the same university) between the salesperson and
the focal customer. When a focal customer is aware of inci-
dental similarities s/he shares with a salesperson, the customer
feels more socially connected to the salesperson. In the above
28 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39

Table 2
Future research: active social influence in the retail context.
Active salesperson influence

1 The relationship shared between a customer and a salesperson could be better understood. Does the way in which a relationship
develops matter? Does the motives for a relationship impact the customer? How does knowledge of different relationship motives
impact the customer over time (e.g., how does this affect customer lifetime value)?

2 The impact of multiple salespersons interacting with a customer could be investigated. Do multiple salespersons differ in their
influence versus that of one salesperson? Do different salespersons (i.e., managers and front-line salespersons) exhibit different
forms of influence on the customer?

3 Understanding the potential value of alignment between the salesperson and the retail brand is a research opportunity. Does the
relationship between the salesperson and the brand matter to the customer? How does alignment between the salesperson and the
retailer influence the customer?

4 An opportunity exists to understand how the blending of offline and online salesperson interactions influences the customer. Do
customers see value in blended experiences with the salesperson? Does the ordering of experience matter to the customer?

Active secondary customer influence

1 Identifying how opinions of a secondary customer influences a customer could be explored. What value are opinions of a secondary
customer compared to a salesperson? How can retailers facilitate helpful comments from secondary customers? What is the effect of
non-related comments from secondary customers?

2 Research can better illuminate the role of close others in influencing the customer. How do children and other close family members
influence the customer? How does the presence of a bored spouse impact the customer? How do customers attribute influence when
multiple close others are present in the retail context?

3 Understanding the complexity of multiple sources of influence on the customer is needed. What happens when a salesperson and a
secondary customer both offer opinions to a customer? Does an unsolicited opinion from multiple known and unknown secondary
customers reinforce or disrupt persuasion?

examples, because consumers have a pervasive need to belong
and feel connected to another person (Baumeister and Leary
1995), even subtle similarities can help satisfy this need and in
turn have a positive biasing effect in the focal customer’s atti-
tudes and purchase intentions (Jiang et al. 2010). Noteworthy,
the effectiveness of incidental similarity appears to depend on
the salesperson’s demeanor (Wan and Wyer 2018). When the
salesperson is rude (vs. friendly) to the focal customer, inciden-
tal similarity no longer biases the focal customer’s judgments as
in this instance a feeling of social connection will not arise.
While some subtle social cues can lead to positive outcomes,
research on territoriality also finds that nuanced social signals
imparted by the salesperson can have negative outcomes (Ashley
and Noble 2014; Kirk, Peck and Swain 2018). In particular, con-
sumers are motivated to control the space around them; thus,
when they perceive an infringement of this space or their sense
of control, they will engage in defensive responses. For instance,
when a salesperson or server physically touches an object with
which a focal customer has established psychological owner-
ship (e.g., a customized coffee cup, a sweater, folder design), the
consumer will perceive that a territorial infringement has tran-
spired and will react negatively toward the retailer (Kirk, Peck
and Swain 2018). Front-line employees can also signal territo-
rial infringements when they engage in closing time behaviors
(e.g., turn off an open sign, make announcements about clos-
ing time) when a store is still open (Ashley and Noble 2014).
In this context, consumers perceive that a boundary has been
crossed (i.e., they believe the salesperson is trying to intrude on
the open store space that they believe they control; consumers
believe that a salesperson does not control the retail space until
after closure) and in response to closing cues a consumer will
retaliate by abandoning their purchase. Subtle actions on the
part of the salesperson (i.e., mimicry, incidental similarity, and
territorial infringements) within the social milieu of the retail
context can be powerful influencers on the customer.
Future Research
There are a number of opportunities for future research in
the domain of salesperson-based active influence. To date work
that has been conducted in this area has focused on unknown
salespeople even though in many instances salespeople and cus-
tomers establish relationships over time. For instance, an avid
comic book collector who frequents the same store to purchase
the newest comic book is likely over time to establish a relation-
ship with a salesperson working there. Does the way through
which that relationship develops matter? In this example, a rela-
tionship could develop because of shared interests (i.e., both the
customer and the salesperson are enthusiasts about comic books)
and the discussions that surround them, or alternatively due to
the frequency with which the customer is in the store (e.g., every
week) and the small talk that occurs across an accumulation of
many visits. In both cases a relationship will likely arise between
the focal customer and salesperson actor but the implications of
 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
how this relationship might affect the consumption behavior of
the focal customer might differ. As an example, relationships
built on shared interest might lead to more trust and loyalty
on the part of the customer. Indeed, customer lifetime value
might be directly impacted by the form of the relationship that
is generated though active influence.
To date, the work done in active salesperson social influence
has primarily considered the impact of a single salesperson inter-
acting with a focal customer. However, in the retail context there
are many instances in which multiple salespeople might interact
with the customer. As such it would be interesting to understand
the implications of this form of social influence. A notable excep-
tion to this research gap is work that has explored the type of cues
that a group of salespersons can signal when actively interacting
with a customer (Wang, Hoegg, and Dahl 2018). Specifically,
this research focused on how a sales team’s appearance-based
cues (e.g., how a sales team dresses) and behavior-based cues
(coordinated behavior) can signal the team’s entitativity (i.e., the
degree that a social group is perceived as a single unit; Wang,
Hoegg, and Dahl 2018). In one study, a pair of confederates
acting as salespeople promoting a new food delivery service
either appeared the same (i.e., they wore the same outfits) or
not (i.e., they wore different outfits). After hearing a sales pitch,
participants rated the sales team’s perceived service quality and
satisfaction higher, and were more likely to leave their email for
additional follow-up information when the confederates wore
the same outfits. While this research suggests that the pres-
ence of multiple salespeople can have an interesting impact on
customers it is not clear whether the impact would differ had
only one salesperson been present. Thus, future research could
explore the impact of one versus multiple salespeople on a focal
customer. For example, in retail it is not uncommon for a cus-
tomer to be passed from one salesperson to another (e.g., a sales
associate assists in locating a product in one section but is unfa-
miliar with products in a second; one sales associate assists on
the floor while a second one rings the purchase through). Does
the sequence of moving from one sales associate to another influ-
ence customers’ evaluations of the store or change the total sales
arising from the retail experience? The answer to this question is
not clear as customers might find it difficult to establish a connec-
tion with a specific salesperson when being passed off to another
salesperson, but at the same time multiple touch points might
make customers feel an even greater connection to the retailer.
Research could also explore how differences in power ranking
between multiple salespeople influence customers. Often times
a sales manager is present in the retail environment at the same
time as lower level salespersons. Does the simultaneous pres-
ence and interaction with various levels of management impact
the customer (compared to situations where salespeople are of
equal ranking)? Further, what are the social influence implica-
tions when a sales interaction escalates to involve more senior
management (e.g., when a salesperson needs to bring in the
sales manager to the interaction)? Is there a greater likelihood
of converting a sale when senior management is involved?
Somewhat related, additional research opportunities exist to
shed more insight into our understanding of how the alignment
of the salesperson to the retail brand might influence the cus-
29
tomer. While not a formal secondary actor, the retailer brand
is an entity that couples to the salesperson in the mind of the
customer. How the salesperson represents the retail brand (e.g.,
does the appearance of the salesperson match the brand image,
does the salesperson’s mannerisms reflect the brand) may have
a role in the effectiveness of an active influence attempt. Indeed,
in one study in the Ward and Dahl (2014) paper discussed
above, when the appearance of the salesperson did not match
the environmental positioning of the retail brand the customer
was not effectively influenced in the sales interaction. How ger-
mane is the alignment between the salesperson and the retail
brand to effective social influence? Future research should more
fully explore how the salesperson, as an independent entity, can
effectively or ineffectively represent the retail brand in a sales
experience. What level and type of benefit (e.g., increased like-
lihood of featured brand being purchased) is achieved for the
retailer when a synergy between the salesperson and the retail
brand is achieved?
Finally, an opportunity for research effort is found in
instances where social influence is blended across online/digital
(e.g., social media, texting, etc.) and offline touchpoints (e.g., in-
store interactions). For example, what are the implications for
having both online as well as offline interactions with a salesper-
son? There is research to suggest that the conversation processes
that regulate online versus offline communication differ (Roos
2017). For instance, the degree of formality and the extent to
which an interaction transpires might differ between the two
communication avenues. Given this, does it matter if a customer
first establishes an interaction with the salesperson online and
then moves to offline (or vice versa)? Because first impressions
matter (Rabin and Schrag 1999) it seems reasonable to expect
that the avenue through which the initial interaction was estab-
lished and the form of communication used via that avenue
might have a profound influence on subsequent behaviors. It
is also an open question on whether customers will see signif-
icant value in blended influence? Customers have been shown
to be sensitive to too much interaction with salespeople (e.g.,
Alhouti et al. 2015), and an additional source of salesperson
influence might not be well received by all customer popula-
tions. Investigations that assess concerns over privacy in this
context, identification of the right level of interaction in blended
models, and whether these types of models are successful at
building effective salesperson–customer relationships would be
welcomed.
Secondary Customer-Based Active Social Influence
Other customers in the retail context represent another pow-
erful form of active social influence on the focal customer. These
secondary customers can be known to the focal customer (e.g.,
friends, family members) or unknown entities (e.g., strangers).
Over the past decade the majority of research conducted in this
area has focused on the social influence arising from known
secondary actors. As such, most of the research reviewed here
involves the active impact of family or friends, leaving many
interesting opportunities for future research, some of which we
document at the conclusion of this section, into understanding
30 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
the active social influence of more unknown secondary cus-
tomers.
Known secondary customers
In general, research has shown that the social influence of
known secondary customers (e.g., friends, family members) has
positive outcomes for retailers. This result has been shown to be
robust across a variety of methodologies such as surveys, eye
tracking, and lab and field experiments (e.g., Zhang et al. 2014).
For instance, a series of field studies found that shopping with
friends increased the amount of money some consumers spent. In
particular, customers who are high in agency (i.e., a person tends
to reflect on his or her individuality and emphasize the self and
its separation from others) spent more money when shopping
with a friend as compared to when they shopped alone (Kurt,
Inman, and Argo 2011; see also Luo 2008 who found that impul-
sive shopping can be facilitated by the presence of peers). This
increased spending was the outcome of impression management
efforts as men, who are typically high in agency, are motivated
to show-off their perceived wealth and will do so by spending
more when shopping with a friend. In contrast, customers high in
communion (i.e., a person merges into a larger social relationship
and connection with others) do not change their spending behav-
iors as a function of the presence or absence of friends. Women,
who tend to be high in communion, are also motivated to manage
their impressions when shopping with a friend, but they achieve
their desired impression by behaving more modestly (i.e., not
spending more). Similar positive effects on purchase attitudes
towards the retailer (Chebat, Haj-Salem, and Oliveira 2014),
purchase quantity (Grewal et al. 2018), higher arousal (Chebat,
Haj-Salem, and Oliveira 2014), and decreased negative affect
(De Vries et al. 2018) also arise when shopping with a friend as
compared to shopping alone.
Although known others can have a positive impact on a cus-
tomer’s journey, there is also evidence to suggest that in some
situations known secondary customers might present threaten-
ing information to the focal customer. One such threatening
situation is when a known social influence rejects the focal cus-
tomer (Mead et al. 2011). Social rejection is threatening to an
individual’s affiliation needs and as such, rejected individuals are
highly motivated to respond. In the retail context, when a social
group rejects (vs. does not reject) a customer, in an effort to
reestablish a sense of connection, rejected customers will pur-
chase more symbolic group membership related products. As
customers use these symbolic products as a means for coping
with social rejection, the purchase frequency of non-symbolic or
self-gift products does not differ as a function of being rejected.
Unknown secondary customers
To date little research has explored the social influence of
unknown secondary customers (i.e., strangers) who actively
interact with focal customers. A noteworthy exception involves
two papers that investigated nonverbal interactions (i.e., inci-
dental touch) shared between customers (Martin 2011; Martin
and Nuttall 2017). This research finds that when a focal cus-
tomer is accidentally touched on the lower back, shoulder, or
upper arm by an unknown secondary customer, the focal cus-
tomer evaluates a target brand less favorably and leaves the store
quicker (Martin 2011). A follow up investigation finds that gen-
der differences exist for incidental touch: while incidental touch
impacts both male and female focal customers’ tendencies to
leave the store quickly, it does not affect male focal customer’s
brand evaluations (Martin and Nuttall 2017).
Future Research
There are a plethora of fruitful research directions to fur-
ther explore secondary customer-based active social influence.
As noted above, while there has been a reasonable amount of
work on how an unknown active salesperson influences a cus-
tomer, the understanding of the impact of an unknown active
secondary customer is less clear. This is surprising given that
customers often interact with one another by engaging in small
talk at the checkout line or by providing opinions in a fitting
room area. Do we value the opinion of an unknown customer
when trying to decide which shirt to buy? Is the likelihood of
purchase increased or decreased when an unknown customer
interacts with a focal customer? Does an unknown customer
that engages in conversation with a customer on topics outside of
the shopping experience influence the focal customer in specific
ways? To illustrate, discussions on how amazing the weather is
or how a looming political crisis is of concern would not neces-
sarily be related to the purchasing context, but still might be a
form of social influence that would be pertinent to subsequent
customer behaviors. Could retailers experiment with facilitat-
ing customer to unknown customer interaction through social
media channels in real-time during shopping experiences? How
would this impact the focal customer? Further, how do the opin-
ions of an unknown customer affect our product evaluations as
compared to the opinion of a salesperson or a known customer?
These are but a few examples of when a secondary customer
might interact with the focal customer and be influential.
Another opportunity worth exploring further is related to the
impact of close others on shopping behaviors. Although Childers
and Rao (1992) defined close others as both friends and family,
research has primarily explored the impact of friends on focal
customers in a retail context. Indeed, less in known about how
specific family members (e.g., children, spouse, parent) are influ-
ential in this space. For instance, children regularly shop with
their parents and yet there is limited work exploring how they
influence the experience (e.g., such as how the composition of
shopping baskets change or how much time is spent in the retail
space). Indeed, it is highly probable, that a mom shopping with
her young children would be likely to either rush a fitting room
experience or forgo the fitting room completely when shopping
for clothing items. The implications of not taking the time to
ensure that a product fits well might lead to purchase regret and
dissatisfaction subsequent to purchase. How does this impact the
retailer (besides the increased probability of returns)? Does the
frazzled mom blame the store on the poorly fitting clothes she has
purchased? Similarly, how does the presence of a spouse change
a shopping experience? If one person enjoys shopping in book-
stores and his/her spouse finds that boring after a short period of
time, how does an uninterested spouse impact the enthusiastic
 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
partner? Conversely does experiencing boredom in a retail space
while waiting for a shopping partner have implications for the
bookstore, in this example, itself? Spousal influence can also be
seen in budgeting and spending, brand preference and choice,
and retail judgments and attributions. How these elements of
influence translate into focal customer reactions and decision
making remains to be investigated. Indeed, future research has
opportunity to provide significant category refinement and a
deeper understanding of the influence of close others in the retail
space.
Finally, while research has to date explored the impact of
salespeople and other customers independently, it is often the
case in a retail environment that these sources of influence inter-
act or compound upon each other. Imagine a scenario where a
customer is considering a new pair of sneakers and seeks the
input from a friend, only then to be joined by the salesper-
son in a three-way conversation. While pondering the purchase,
the friend and the salesperson make both their opinions known,
source other options, and come to a reinforcing conclusion that
they unite in making to the focal customer. How do customers
react to this type of influence scenario? What about situations
where friends seek out salesperson assistance on behalf of the
focal customer (with or without the permission of the customer)?
The dynamic and fluid nature of the social shopping experi-
ence has not been effectively captured by previous research,
and a significant opportunity exists in adding complexity in our
understanding of the full retail social milieu. While no doubt
challenging to operationalize in an experimental context, obser-
vational methods (e.g., Zhang et al. 2014) can give us a start on
identifying potential phenomena worth exploring. More broadly,
understanding social influence beyond simpler dyad interac-
tions that involve multiple actors would add significantly to our
understanding of social influence in the retail context.
Passive Social Influence in the Retail Context
Passive social influence arises from a one-way exchange
where the focal customer is impacted by the mere physical pres-
ence of another person or other people (e.g., a salesperson or
another shopper) with whom they are not interacting, or, through
social information present in the retail environment that signals
or reminds the focal customer of others. To facilitate a syn-
thesized discussion of this research area we have divided our
review of this work into two sections. The first section focuses
on situations in which the customer is the focal recipient of the
social influence and includes situations in which the mere phys-
ical presence of one salesperson or one shopper, or many others,
impacts the customer’s retail journey. The second section dis-
cusses instances in which the customer is an indirect recipient
of social influence that could involve witnessing an exchange
between a salesperson and a secondary shopper or instances
where features in the retail environment itself indirectly convey
social information. See Table 3 for a full summary of articles
reviewed in this section. As with the active social influence sec-
tion after discussing the recent work that has been conducted in
each of the two sections we will provide ideas for future research
to offer suggestions on how to move the domain of work forward
31
(see Table 4 at the end of this section for a summary of the future
research ideas discussed).
Focal Recipient of Passive Influence
In this section we focus on research that has studied the impact
of a passive social presence (i.e., one who does not engage the
focal customer in any form of interaction) whose influence is
directed to the customer. To facilitate our discussion we divide
our review into instances where there is one person who is
directly impacting the customer (i.e., a one-to-one influence
coming from a single salesperson or a single secondary cus-
tomer) and situations where many others influence a customer
(i.e., a many-to-one influence arising from multiple salespeople
or multiple secondary consumers).
One-to-one passive social influence
Across a variety of methodologies and product categories the
mere presence (vs. absence) of a salesperson or secondary cus-
tomer has been shown to positively impact the focal customer’s
satisfaction (Soderlund 2016; He, Chen, and Alden 2012), loy-
alty (Otterbring and Lu 2018), and positive affect (Argo, Dahl,
and Manchanda 2005). In these instances, the mere presence
of another person enables a focal customer to satisfy affilia-
tion related needs. However, the positive impact of the presence
of an inactive social influence is dependent on many factors.
For instance, when impression management concerns are salient
due to the product category being purchased (e.g., embarrassing
products; Otterring and Lu 2018; see also Dahl, Manchanda,
and Argo 2001) or there is a service failure between the focal
customer and a sales associate (He, Chen, and Alden 2012),
the mere presence of another person (i.e., a salesperson or a
secondary shopper) can lead to feelings of embarrassment and
decreased service satisfaction, respectively.
Research in this area has also explored the influential impact
of specific characteristics inherent to the social presence. One
characteristic that has been explored is the physical proximity of
the passive social presence to the focal customer where a close
(vs. far) physical proximity to a focal customer in a retail space
can impact the customer’s product or brand selection (salesper-
son; Esmark and Noble 2018; secondary customer; Argo, Dahl,
and Manchanda 2005), emotions, time spent shopping, willing-
ness to buy, the number of alternatives considered, and shopping
satisfaction (secondary customer; Luck and Benkenstein 2015).
As an illustration, Esmark and Noble (2018) found that a focal
customer was more likely to take a non-expressive product (i.e.,
makeup remover) when a passive salesperson was standing in
close proximity (i.e., 12 in.) due to enhanced feelings of accep-
tance, but an expressive product (i.e., nail polish) when the
salesperson was physically further away (i.e., 10 ft).
A second characteristic that has been investigated is the
attractiveness of the passive social influence. In general, the pres-
ence of a highly attractive female social influence can negatively
impact consumers, especially those for whom self-presentation
concerns are salient (Wan and Wyer 2015) and those who are
low in appearance self-esteem (Dahl, Argo, and Morales 2012).
For instance, an observational study found that when a highly
32 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39

Table 3
Literature reviewed: passive social influence in the retail context.
Focal recipient
Citation Research method Conclusions

Argo, Dahl, and Manchanda (2005) 2 field experiments
Byun and Mann (2011) Survey
Dahl, Argo, and Morales (2012) 1 experiment, 2 field experiments
Dahm et al. (2018) 3 experiments, 2 field studies
Esmark and Noble (2018) 3 experiments, 1 field experiment
Esmark, Noble, and Breazeale (2018) 3 experiments, 1 field experiment
He, Chen, and Alden (2012) 2 experiments
Huang, Huang, and Wyer (2018) 10 experiments, 1 field experiment
Kwon, Ha, and Im (2016) Survey
Luck and Benkenstein (2015) 1 experiment
Mattila and Wirtz (2008) 1 field study
Otterbring and Lu (2018) 2 experiments
Puzakova and Kwak (2017) 4 experiments
Soderlund (2016) 2 experiments, 1 field experiment
Uhrich 2011 1 experiment
Uhrich and Luck (2012) Interviews, ethnography, focus
groups
Uhrich and Tombs (2014) 1 experiment, 1 field experiment
van Rompay et al. (2012) 1 experiment, 1 field experiment
Wan and Wyer (2015) 4 experiments, 1 field experiment
Zhang et al. (2014) Video observation
The mere presence of another customer results in positive customer
affect. This effect dissipates when the number of other customers
grows large.
Crowding shown to positively impact excitement and hedonic value
when crowding leads to feelings of competition.
Customers with low appearance self-esteem are susceptible to
negative comparisons with other attractive customers (though not
with attractive salespersons).
The number of people in a line-up behind a customer increases the
social pressure felt by the customer. The longer the time spent in
line (with line-up) the greater the social pressure.
The mere presence of a salesperson influences a customer’s
purchase of expressive goods. When a salesperson is in close
proximity the customer is likely to buy non-expressive goods.
When customers perceive they are being watched by a salesperson
they experience loss of control and are more likely to abandon the
retailer and not make a purchase.
Mere presence of another customer that observes a
customer-salesperson interaction enhances the valence of the
interaction experience (i.e., positive experience becomes more
positive, negative more negative).
Crowding positively impacts a customer’s brand attachment.
When other shoppers are perceived to be similar to the customer the
customer’s satisfaction with the mall increases.
The mere presence of another customer negatively impacts a
customer’s willingness to purchase and shopping satisfaction.
Higher perceptions of crowding is correlated with impulsive
shopping behavior.
The mere presence of another customer or salesperson has a
positive impact on a customer’s retail loyalty if impression
management concerns are not salient.
Customers who feel crowded are motivated to avoid additional
social interaction.
The mere presence of another customer or salesperson has a
positive impact on a customer’s satisfaction if impression
management concerns are not salient.
A curvilinear effect of crowding density is identified. Intermediate
levels of density provides customer control and leads to positive
emotions and favorable behavioral intentions.
The presence of other customers reduces a customer’s concerns
over salespersons and results in more time spent in the store.
The presence of other customers reduces a customer’s concern over
evaluation from the salesperson (but only with a small number of
additional shoppers).
The impact of crowding is moderated by a customer’s need for
affiliation. Those with a low need experience less pleasure and
spend less. Those with a high need spend more.
Highly attractive salespersons are a deterrent to customers entering
the store (due to impression management concerns).
Crowding negatively impacts buying intentions.

Indirect social information

Citation Research method Conclusions

Argo and Dahl (2018) 5 experiments, 1 field experiment Customers low in appearance self-esteem are negatively impacted
by mannequin displays.
Argo, Dahl, and Morales (2006) 3 field experiments Social cues that indicate other customers have used/tried on
merchandise lead to negative product evaluations.
Argo and Main (2008) 2 experiments, 2 field experiments Observing another customer redeem a coupon leads to attributions
that other customers are also cheap.
 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39 33

Table 3 (Continued)
Indirect social information
Citation Research method Conclusions

Castro, Morales, and Nowlis (2013)
Giebelhausen, Robinson, and Cronin
(2011)
O’Guinn, Tanner, and Maeng (2015)
Lin, Dahl, and Argo (2013)
Schroll, Schnurr, and Grewal (2018)
van Doorn et al. (2017)
White et al. (2016)
4 experiments, 1 field experiment Disorganized shelf displays signal a social residue that acts as a
negative influence on customer purchase intentions.
4 experiments The number of people in a line-up is a signal of quality for the
retailer if the retailer is unknown to the customer.
7 experiments Crowding can signal status. As crowding density increases the
retailer and shoppers are perceived to be lower in status.
4 experiments Observing norm violations of another customer that are not
punished by the salesperson leads to punishing behaviors invoked
by the observing customer.
6 experiments, 2 field experiments Handwriting on a package can influence product preferences as it
signals human touch.
Conceptual Robots acting as service providers influence perceptions of warmth
and competence.
6 experiments Superficial damage in packaging can act as a social contamination
cue that negatively shapes attitudes and purchase intentions.

Table 4
Future research: passive social influence in the retail context.
Focal recipient of passive influence

1 An opportunity for future research lies in better understanding how personal characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, appearance, etc.) of the
social influence impacts the customer. Would stereotypes of a specific ethnicity interact with the type of products a retailer sells (in
influencing the focal customer)? Likewise, does the body shape of a passive social influence have an effect on the focal customer?
How?

2 The activities and behaviors undertaken by a passive other might also play a role in influencing the customer. For example, does
repeated interaction with a passive customer (e.g., in the dressing room) create an impactful social influence? Do the non-selling
activities of salespeople (e.g., restocking, merchandising, shelf-facing) differentially impact in-store customers?

3 Future research could investigate how multiple salespersons influence customers. What is the outcome on the customer when an
increasing number of salespeople fail to interact? What is the impact of the shared characteristics of the sales group?

Indirect social information as passive influence

1 A customer’s observation of passive and active interactions of others is an under-researched area in the literature. What are the
implications of an observing customer witnessing an altercation shared between another customer and a salesperson? What happens
when a customer sees another customer fall prey to a salesperson’s sales tactics? How do observations impact a focal customer’s
attitudes and purchase intentions towards the retailer?

2 Changes in technology facilitate another research direction centered in better understanding non-human social influence in the retail
context. How will customers react to new technological approaches in the retail atmosphere? Will salesperson avatars cultivate
effective connections with customers?

3 Expanding the notion of social residue provides a number of interesting research opportunities. Does user-generated-content (e.g.,
digital word-of-mouth) left in the retail establishment play an important influencing role in shaping subsequent customer attitudes
and opinions? In what ways can bespoked social residue have a significant impact on the customer?

4 What is the appropriate scope and definition of social cues in the retail context? Should the notion of social cues from former
customers be broadened to any social actor that has interacted in the retail space? What are the implications of a broader definition?
How far should retailers go to exploit opportunities for social cues to manifest and influence the customer in the sales context?

attractive (vs. average attractive) female salesperson was in a
window display, fewer male customers entered the store due to
impression management concerns (Wan and Wyer 2015). As a
second example, in a retail context where social comparisons
are likely to arise (e.g., people wearing the same product), the
presence of a highly attractive salesperson as compared to a
highly attractive secondary shopper had a differential impact on
a focal customer who was low in appearance self-esteem (i.e.,
was unsatisfied with her appearance). When the focal customer
was low (vs. high) in appearance self-esteem and the source
of comparison information was a highly attractive shopper who
was trying on the same product, the social comparison conveyed
threatening information for the focal consumer who in response
evaluated the target product more negatively. In contrast, when a
34 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
highly attractive salesperson was the source of the social infor-
mation, she was perceived as an irrelevant comparison target
(i.e., she was completing a different consumption role) and as a
result did not create a social threat or negatively impact product
evaluations for a focal consumer regardless of her appearance
self-esteem.
A final characteristic that has been shown to have implica-
tions for a focal consumer is the actions of the social influence.
In the retail context, sales associates often watch shoppers to
dissuade shoplifting behaviors. However, when customers per-
ceive they are being watched by a salesperson, they experience
a sense of lost control over their privacy (Esmark, Noble, and
Breazeale 2018). Consistent with reactance theory, watched con-
sumers will attempt to regain this lost control over their privacy.
In the absence of alternative means to reassert freedom, con-
sumers will abandon the area in which they were feeling watched
and purchase likelihood will decrease.
Many-to-one passive social influence
A many-to-one social influence arises when a single customer
is exposed to the mere physical presence of many other shop-
pers or salespeople. We have opted not to refer to the “many”
as a group given that a group might imply some form of bond
amongst the many while in the context of passive social influ-
ences such a bond often does not exist. Thus, in our review many
other shoppers or salespeople can include groups of other indi-
viduals who are purposefully shopping or working together, all
located in the same vicinity but not associated with one another,
or dispersed throughout a retail establishment. While little to
no research has focused on the passive social influence of many
salespeople on a focal customer, a significant amount of work
has focused on the implications of many secondary customers as
an influencing social presence. Indeed, understanding the impact
of many passive secondary customers on a focal customer is the
research topic that has undoubtedly received the most attention
from academic researchers in recent years. It encompasses work
that explores how other customers influence a focal customer’s
perceptions and use of social density (i.e., crowds of customers;
e.g., Mattila and Wirtz 2008; Puzakova and Kwak 2017) and the
creation and impact of lineups (e.g., Dahm et al., 2018).
Retail crowding, also referred to as social density, has
long been of interest to marketing researchers. Initial efforts
into examining the implications of retail crowding primarily
revealed negative outcomes on customers’ emotions (e.g., Hui
and Bateson 1991), behaviors (e.g., Eroglu and Harrell 1986; Hui
and Bateson 1991), and satisfaction (e.g., Eroglu and Machleit
1990). A large part of the early work in this area examined
crowding through an arousal lens, such that when customers
are crowded they will become aroused, and this arousal was
argued to primarily have negative downstream implications.
More recent research in this area has expanded our understand-
ing of crowding by demonstrating that crowding and social
density can have both negative (e.g., crowding can decrease
buying intentions [Zhang et al. 2014] and increase desires to
avoid social interaction [Puzakova and Kwak 2017]) as well as
positive (e.g., crowding can increase satisfaction [Kwon,Ha,and
Im 2016], impulse shopping [Mattila and Wirtz 2008], and
brand attachment [Huang,Huang,and Wyer 2018]) implications.
Moreover, the effect of crowding is not necessarily linear. Using
scenarios and photographs of a bookstore with varying levels
of density, Uhrich (2011) demonstrated a curvilinear effect of
density in a retail setting due to varying perceptions of control.
Noteworthy, intermediate levels of customer density resulted in
the highest perception of control (compared to low or very high
levels) and this lead to positive emotions and favorable behav-
ioral intentions. This latter finding replicates that of earlier work
(Argo, Dahl, and Manchanda 2005) which also found a curvilin-
ear effect for the impact of the number of people in a shopping
aisle on customer affect.
Survey research providing more nuanced perspectives of
crowding suggests that its implications might be individual spe-
cific. In a large-scale online survey, the mere presence of other
shoppers was positively related to a focal customer’s satisfaction
with a mall when the other shoppers within the mall were per-
ceived to be similar to the customer (Kwon, Ha, and Im 2016).
The presence of similar (vs. dissimilar) others created both feel-
ings of excitement and a shopping experience that exceeded
the focal customer’s expectations (i.e., positive disconfirmation).
Similarly, using mall intercepts and a survey methodology Byun
and Mann (2011) found that crowding was positively related to
excitement and hedonic shopping value when the context of
crowding led to feelings of competition. Beyond survey inves-
tigations, experimental evidence also suggests that the impact
of social density (aka crowding) on a focal customer depends
on each focal customer’s personal need for affiliation and social
connection (van Rompay et al. 2012). Focal customers who are
high in need for affiliation spend more money in a store, whereas
those low in the need spend less when the social density is high
(as compared to low). The different spending behaviors arise
because customers high in need for affiliation are influenced by
impression management motives (they want to look good in the
eyes of a social presence) and thus they use spending to achieve
this objective. Conversely, impression management motives are
less salient for customers low in the need of affiliation.
Social density can also be used in strategic ways in the retail
environment. For instance, a focal customer can use the pres-
ence of other shoppers to alleviate evaluative concerns related
to a salesperson; when there are other shoppers present in the
retail space this allows for a diffusion of the salesperson’s atten-
tion from a focal customer (Uhrich and Tombs 2014). Stated
differently, the presence of other shoppers can decrease the
unwanted attention a focal customer believes s/he will receive
from a salesperson. Importantly, this decrease in evaluative con-
cern translates into spending more time browsing within the
store (see also Uhrich and Luck 2012).
Similar to crowds, lineups (i.e., queues) can also have both
a positive and negative impact on the focal customer. One
investigation exploring the influence of a lineup behind a focal
customer who was using an outdoor ATM found that as the
length of the queue behind the individual increased so too did
feelings of social pressure for the focal customer (Dahm et al.
2018). In this context, the presence of several other people wait-
ing to use the ATM imposed a pressure to hurry. The research
also demonstrated that the social pressure the focal customer
 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
experienced was influenced by the amount of time s/he had pre-
viously waited in the lineup. When the wait time was short (i.e.,
there were fewer people in front) the focal customer experienced
more social pressure from the lineup of people behind. Finally,
we would be remiss not to mention an older article on queue
length that found when a focal customer was a part of the queue
(i.e., was not the one at the front using the service), the cus-
tomer was positively impacted by the number of people behind
him/her in the queue (Zhou and Soman 2003). The longer the
length of the queue behind the focal customer, the more people
who were worse off and this made the focal customer feel better.
Taking these findings together, the impact of queue length on a
focal customer depends on where the customer is within the line
(in the middle, at the front), and the length of the queue when
s/he joins it. Given this, the management of queue length, by the
retailer, is of critical importance in ensuring positive customer
experiences.
Future Research
While past work on one-to-one passive social influence has
focused on the impact of the attractiveness of the passive other
there are a number of other characteristics of social influence
that could be explored. For instance, does the race, ethnicity, or
appearance of the social influence affect customers’ evaluations
of the store based on the stereotypes they derive? Would a focal
customer’s expectations of a technology store change if the sales-
person working there appeared Asian as opposed to Hispanic,
or an athletic retailer be evaluated differently if the salesper-
son was African American as opposed to Indian? While all of
these groups might be equally experienced in the retail context
in question, pre-existing stereotypes associated with the group
might inadvertently impact a focal customer’s reactions to the
retail experience. Similarly, future research could also extend
past work that explored how another customer’s body shape
influences consumption in a retail context (e.g., McFerran et al.,
2010) and the products a salesperson recommends to a focal
customer based on the customer’s body size (Vallen et al. 2018)
to determine whether this would also be an influencing factor
for salespeople. For example, if the retailer was selling fitness
equipment, is it detrimental if the salesperson does not appear
to be in shape? How do personal characteristics of a passive
other, beyond attractiveness, influence a customer’s purchase
behaviors?
Similarly, future research could also examine the impact
of pertinent individual activities of the secondary customer or
salesperson on the focal customer. One aspect of activity that
might be specifically relevant to examine is the potential for
repeated interaction between a secondary customer and a focal
customer in a retail environment. Indeed, customers often spend
an extended period of time in a retail context, and it is possible
that customers will repeatedly “bump” into each other during
the shopping experience. For example, customers might notice
one another across different retail outlets in a mall, both fre-
quenting the same type of shoe retailer. Alternately, customers
often see each other repetitively in a dressing room environment
as they try-on different clothing outfits. How would repetitive
35
interactions with an unknown secondary shopper impact the
focal customer’s journey? As a second example, salespeople
are charged with a variety of activities in their employment.
As mentioned earlier, when sales associates engage in store
closing activities too soon, this has a negative impact on cus-
tomer behavior (Ashley and Noble 2014). However, there are
many other types of activities, not related to closing, that sales
associates may complete in daily retail operations such as mer-
chandising, conducting inventory, and shelf-facing. Does the
activity level differentially impact an in-store customer? The
dynamic nature of the retail environment where secondary cus-
tomers and salespeople are independently pursuing their own
goals creates interesting social influence scenarios that could
impact downstream customer measures (e.g., purchase intent,
service satisfaction).
Perhaps the most apparent gap in the many-to-one passive
influence literature that would warrant future research is an
exploration into the impact of numerous salespeople in the retail
context that do not interact with the focal customer. To our
knowledge, the impact of more than one non-interacting sales-
person has not been studied, and there are several questions
that could be asked here. What is the impact on the customer
when an increasing number of salespeople fail to interact? Do
the behaviors of a non-interacting group of salespeople matter
(e.g., salespeople chatting amongst themselves vs. working inde-
pendently on different tasks)? What is the impact of the shared
characteristics of the sales group? For example, how does a sales
group sharing the same ethnicity, age cohort, or gender influ-
ence a focal customer? Work referred to earlier in this review
(i.e., Wang, Hoegg, and Dahl 2018) on entitativity that studied
an interacting group of salespeople points to the validity and
importance of these types of research questions.
Indirect Social Information as Passive Influence
Social influence can arise from indirect forms of social
information that include: witnessing social interactions between
others that are not directly related to the self (i.e., an active inter-
action between a salesperson and a secondary customer: Lin,
Dahl, and Argo 2013; an inactive interaction between two other
customers: Argo and Main 2008), and through using social cues
present in the environment (e.g., the number of people in a store:
O’Guinn, Tanner, and Maeng 2015; mannequins: Argo and Dahl
2018) as information.
Witnessing a social interaction
Research has recently studied the impact of a focal customer
witnessing an active interaction between a salesperson and a
secondary customer in a situation in which the secondary cus-
tomer violates a social norm and the salesperson does or does
not respond (Lin, Dahl, and Argo 2013). In this instance, a sales-
person’s reactions to a secondary customer’s norm violation has
implications for the focal customer: if the focal customer wit-
nesses that a salesperson does not restore social order after a
secondary shopper disrupts a social norm, the focal customer
will take on the responsibility of restoring the order him/herself
and will punish the secondary shopper (Lin, Dahl, and Argo
36 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
2013). In one study, two participants, one of which was a con-
federate, were tasked with evaluating a sweater that was in a
neatly folded pile on a display table. When the secondary cus-
tomer made a mess of the sweater display and the salesperson
did not make a comment (i.e., the salesperson did not punish the
customer), the focal customer restored social order by not help-
ing the confederate in a subsequent task. When the salesperson
scolded the secondary customer for violating the social norm,
the focal customer was as willing to help the secondary customer
as compared to when the norm violation had not happened in
the first place, as social order had previously been restored.
In the retail context, a focal customer might also witness
inactive social influence shared between other shoppers. One
instance when this has been found to happen is in the context
of coupon redemption. Generally speaking, observers perceive
individuals redeeming a low value coupon as cheap (Ashworth,
Darke, and Schaller 2005; Brumbaugh and Rosa 2009). More
relevant to this review is research that has found that a coupon
redeemer’s behaviors can have implications for another shopper
in close proximity (Argo and Main 2008). Specifically, when a
customer redeems a low value coupon, a secondary shopper who
is simply located in close proximity to the coupon redeemer is
also perceived to be cheap by an observing customer. This cheap
stigma transfers from the coupon redeeming customer to another
shopper due to contagion (Argo and Main 2008).
Social cues
A final category of work that merits discussion in this review
concerns social cues found in the retail context that provide an
indirect influence on the customer. In this instance, an actual
social presence may or may not exist and social influence can,
in certain circumstances, be inferred by the focal customer or
defined by the retailer. To date, the work in this area has focused
on the signals conveyed through the number of people who com-
prise a social influence, the residue cue of consumption behavior
and the role of non-human social influencers employed by the
retailer as potential social influencers. We examine these social
cue avenues below.
Social density not only impacts a customer who is in a given
retail space, as previously discussed, but can also signal infor-
mation to a customer outside the space (O’Guinn, Tanner, and
Maeng 2015). In particular, as the social density of a retailer
increases (i.e., the number of secondary shoppers in a given
space goes up), a focal customer outside the space will infer
that the retailer, as well as the shoppers within the space, are
lower in status. Importantly, this inference also impacts product
valuations wherein products sold in more dense environments
are estimated to have lower prices. In a similar way, the num-
ber of people in a lineup (i.e., a queue) can also signal quality
for the retailer. Interestingly however, the number of people
in a lineup and within a space lead to opposite inferences. In
the case of a lineup, longer queues signal that the retailer is
MORE desirable (i.e., entrance to the retailer must be worth
the wait if lots of people will wait; Giebelhausen, Robinson,
and Cronin 2011). Moreover, entering into a quality signaling
lineup has been found to increase both purchase intentions and
actual experienced satisfaction when the retailer is unknown and
when quality is a motivating factor. When the retailer is known,
and thus a focal customer has knowledge about the provider’s
quality, or when convenience is important (as compared to qual-
ity) more customers in a lineup is no longer used as a quality
signal (Giebelhausen, Robinson, and Cronin 2011).
The retail environment is an active context where customers
interact with employees, store displays, and products. As such,
evidence of their interactions (i.e., social residue cues) are often
available to other customers in the form of messy store displays
or disrupted packaging, for example. Research has established
that these social residue cues of consumption behavior can shape
a focal customer’s attitudes and intentions (e.g., Argo, Dahl, and
Morales 2006, 2008; Castro, Morales, and Nowlis 2013; White
et al., 2016). As one example, social cues (e.g., the proximity
of an article of clothing to the fitting room) that enhance the
salience that other customers have previously touched merchan-
dise results in a contagion effect that negatively impacts other
focal customers (i.e., they become disgusted) and their evalua-
tions of the product decrease (Argo, Dahl, and Morales 2006).
As a second example, superficial imperfections in the packaging
of consumer goods can act as a socialized contamination cue
that similarly negatively shapes the subsequent attitudes and
behaviors of other focal customers (White et al. 2016). Cues
can arise not only from the actions of other customers, but also
from the company. For instance, handwriting that appears on a
package can influence product preferences as it signals a human
touch (Schroll, Schnurr, and Grewal 2018). Such perceptions in
turn create heightened feelings of connectedness and positively
impact product preferences.
Finally, in the retail space, a firm has a number of ways in
which to convey direct non-human social cues to customers (e.g.,
through video representations, mannequins, online avatars).
While traditionally little research attention has been directed
towards these non-human influencers, more recently research
has started to examine how these in-store efforts by retailers
are having an impact. For instance, work by Argo and Dahl
(2018) finds that mannequins (i.e., three-dimensional dolls that
display fashion related information to customers in an inanimate
yet social way) provide customers with valuable social informa-
tion as they make salient society’s current standards as to what
is considered beautiful. Importantly, this social information is
threatening to customers who do not feel good about the way
they look such as customers who are low in appearance self-
esteem (Argo and Dahl 2018). Because people are motivated
to hold positive self-views (Steele 1988), when customers low
in appearance self-esteem are threatened by the appearance of
a mannequin, they derogate the product that the mannequin is
displaying. Interestingly, the threat to this group of customers
can be alleviated when the mannequin is incomplete (i.e., does
not have a head) or is flawed (i.e., is missing a wig or has a
mark on her face). Similar to mannequins, which are not a real
human being, automated social presences (i.e., technology that
increases the sense of a social presence) such as robots function-
ing as service providers are also proposed to impact a variety
of consumer outcomes such as satisfaction, loyalty, and engage-
ment due to their ability to influence perceptions of competence
and warmth (van Doorn et al. 2017).
 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
Future Research
The potential for understanding the social influence derived
from the observation of other actors in the retail space is a rich
area for new research as there are many instances in which a
customer observes both active and passive interactions of oth-
ers. For instance, although He, Chen, and Alden (2012) explored
the impact of a secondary shopper witnessing an unfavorable
exchange between a focal customer and a salesperson, it is
unclear what would happen if the conflict was witnessed from the
perspective of the focal customer (e.g., a focal customer observes
conflict arising between a salesperson and a secondary customer
at the cash register). It would be interesting to determine the
implications of this negative interaction on an observer’s percep-
tions of the salesperson and the retailer. Are these perceptions
determined based on the source of the conflict? If a shopper
were returning a product that had clearly been used or was far
beyond the store’s return policy guidelines and this created con-
flict when the salesperson refused to accept the exchange, would
this lead an observing customer to sympathize with the store and
have positive evaluations? What happens if the conflict arises
because of issues within the store such as incorrectly priced
merchandise, ambiguity over sales items, or rude employees? In
these instances, it is possible that the observing customer might
react more negatively to how the shopper is being treated as they
might tend to stand united with the other customer against the
salesperson. Understanding the implications of observing con-
flict would be an interesting route for future research to pursue.
As a second direction, a focal customer might also observe a
shopper fall prey to a salesperson’s persuasion tactics. In this
instance, what would the focal customer do? When would s/he
intervene, avoid interacting with the salesperson him/herself to
avoid being persuaded as well, or not care and continue shop-
ping as before? The answer is not clear, and thus future research
could explore when each outcome is likely to arise. Importantly,
very little research has explored the downstream implications of
these types of social observations. How does this form of social
influence impact purchase intentions in the moment, long-term
attitudes towards the retailer, and likelihood for other behaviors
like positive word-of-mouth transmission?
While mannequins have been utilized by retailers as a passive
persuasion cue for more than a century, more recent techno-
logical advances have made it possible for retailers to utilize
other forms of quasi-human influencers in the retail environ-
ment. Given this, one obvious direction for future research is
to investigate other avenues of retailer driven non-human social
influencers. TwentyBN is an example of one company that is
looking to convince retailers to utilize their digital avatar “Mil-
lie” in the store as an active social influencer (Bloomberg 2018).
The use of digital technology to fully service customers in their
retail experience provides an alternate experience to the more
traditional social interactions shared with salespeople. How will
focal customers react to these new approaches? Will the nov-
elty effect of the initial introduction of digital avatars lead to a
boon for social influence in this context? Will avatars be able
to cultivate connection with customers and will they provide an
effective means of persuasion for the retailer? The digital trans-
37
formation of the marketplace will provide a number of new and
interesting “social” phenomena for researchers to explore.
In parallel, the types of social cues provided by other cus-
tomers in the retail context is also evolving. While the impact
of physical residue as a social cue has been identified, retailers
are now facilitating social influence from customers in the form
of word-of-mouth digital based residue. Specifically, the abil-
ity to foster user-generated-content (UGC) from customers that
can be purposed in “UGC galleries” has been identified as an
important influencing tactic for retailers (Kelleher 2018). Doc-
umenting testimonials through text and video and then sharing
this word-of-mouth through digital and in-store display (with
focal customers) is a novel persuasion technique that is thought
to enhance customer experience, trust, and connection to the
retailer. This trend provides a number of interesting research
directions. In particular, do testimonials provided in-store prove
to be more effective than testimonial advertising executed in
more traditional communication vehicles? Does the ability to
personalize UGC to a specific focal customer (e.g., match the
demographics of the UGC customer with the focal customer)
offer additional advantages to the persuasion effort? Are there
any downsides on the bespoking of customer word-of-mouth to
new target focal customers? How the retailer leverages a past
customer to influence a new customer is an interesting research
vertical that is likely to draw more interest and attention moving
forward.
Finally, future research should also work to better define
the scope of social cues in the retail context. In this review
we identified passive social cues to be either inferred by the
focal customer or defined by the retailer and we linked the per-
suasive phenomenon to the consumption residue of a former
customer or to a non-human actor in the retail space. What other
forms of social cues are impactful in the retail context? Should
the notion of social cues from former customers be broadened
to any social actor that has interacted in the retail space? For
example, do former employees of the retail entity have poten-
tial to impact subsequent focal customers? In another vein, does
any action committed by a customer (e.g., type or quantity of
purchase, customer impact on employee demeanor) have down-
stream social effects on later customers? Finally, while it is clear
that retailers will exploit opportunities provided through digital
technology to produce more effective social influence, is there
an opportunity for focal customers to meet these new influence
tactics with effective persuasion knowledge such that they see
only benefits instead of manipulation from the retailer’s efforts?
Conclusion
The central goal of this article was to provide an effective
accounting of how social influence in the retail context has
been studied by marketing academic researchers over the last
decade. We have centered our discussion on identifying how
active and passive social influence from both salespeople and
other customers can impact the focal customer in the retail con-
text. Importantly, we identify numerous opportunities for new
research efforts at the conclusion of each specific discussion in
our review. It is clear that the role of social influence in the retail
38 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
context is still nascent in its documentation. Indeed, changes to
the retail context that have derived from cultural, technological,
and economic factors will continue to provide new and exciting
opportunities for increased understanding and discovery.
References
Albrecht, Kathrin (2016), “Understanding the Effects of the Presence of Oth-
ers in the Service Environment: A Literature Review,” Journal of Business
Market Management, 1, 541–63.
Albrecht, Arne K., Gianfranco Walsh, Simon Walsh, Simon Brach, Dwayne D.
Gremler and Ericavan Herpen (2017), “The Influence of Service Employ-
ees and Other Customers on Customer Unfriendliness: A Social Norms
Perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (6), 827–47.
Alhouti, Sarah, Erin Adamson Gillespie, Woojung Chang and Lenita Davis
(2015), “The Thin Line between Love and Hate of Attention: The Customer
Shopping Experience,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23 (4),
415–33.
Argo, Jennifer J. and Darren W. Dahl (2018), “Standards of Beauty: The Impact
of Mannequins in the Retail Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44
(5), 974–90.
Argo, Jennifer J., Darren W. Dahl and Andrea C. Morales (2006), “Consumer
Contamination: How Consumers React to Products Touched by Others,”
Journal of Marketing, 70 (2), 81–94.
, and
(2008), “Positive Consumer Contamination: Responses to Attractive Others
in a Retail Context,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 690–701.
Argo, Jennifer J., Darren W. Dahl and Rajesh V. Manchanda (2005), “The Influ-
ence of a Mere Social Presence in a Retail Context,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 32 (2), 207–12.
Argo, Jennifer J. and Kelley J. Main (2008), “Stigma-by-Association in Coupon
Redemption: Looking Cheap Because of Others,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 35 (4), 559–72.
Ashley, Christy and Stephanie M. Noble (2014), “It’s Closing Time: Territorial
Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front Line Employees,” Journal
of Retailing, 90 (1), 74–92.
Ashworth, Laurence, Peter R. Darke and Mark Schaller (2005), “No One Wants
to Look Cheap: Trade-Offs Between Social Disincentives and the Economic
and Psychological Incentives to Redeem Coupons,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15 (4), 295–306.
Baker, Julie, Michael Levy and Dhruv Grewal (1992), “An Experimental
Approach to Making Retail Store Environmental Decisions,” Journal of
Retailing, 68 (Winter), 445–60.
Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary (1995), “The Need to Belong: Desire for
Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation,” Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical
Surroundings and Employee Responses,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (April),
69–82.
(1992), “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Sur-
roundings on Customers and Employees,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (April),
57–71.
Blanchard, Simon J., Kurt A. Carlson and Jamie D. Hyodo (2016), “The Favor
Request Effect: Requesting a Favor from Consumers to Seal the Deal,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (6), 985–1001.
Bloomberg (2018), https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2018/12/18/life-
size-digital-avatars-could-help-retailers-better-connect-with-customers/.
Brumbaugh, Anne M. and Jose Antonio Rosa (2009), “Perceived Discrimination,
Cashier Metaperceptions, Embarrassment, and Confidence as Influencers of
Coupon Use: An Ethnoracial-Socioeconomic Analysis,” Journal of Retail-
ing, 85 (3), 347–62.
Buckley, P.G. (1991), “An S–O–R Model of the Purchase of an Item in a Store,”
Advances in Consumer Research, 18 (1), 491–9.
Byun, Sang-Eun and Manveer Mann (2011), “The Influence of Others: The
Impact of Perceived Human Crowding on Perceived Competition, Emotions,
and Hedonic Shopping Value,” Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 29 (4),
284–97.
Campbell, Margaret C. and Amna Kirmani (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Per-
suasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on
Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1),
118–33.
Castro, Iana A., Andrea C. Morales and Stephen M. Nowlis (2013), “Influence
of Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity on Consumer
Purchase,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (July), 118–33.
Chan, Elaine and Jaideep Sengupta (2010), “Insincere Flattery Actually Works:
A Dual Attitudes Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (1),
122–33.
Chebat, Jean-Charles, Narjes Haj-Salem and Sandra Oliveira (2014), “Why
Shopping Pals Make Malls Different?,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 21 (2), 77–85.
Childers, Terry L. and Akshay R. Rao (1992), “The Influence of Familial and
Peer-Based Reference Groups on Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 19 (2), 198–211.
Cialdini, Robert B. (1984), The Psychology of Persuasion, New York: Quill
William Morrow.
Dahl, Darren W., Jennifer J. Argo and Andrea C. Morales (2012), “Social
Information in the Retail Environment: The Importance of Consump-
tion Alignment, Referent Identity, and Self-Esteem,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 38 (5), 860–71.
Dahl, Darren W., Rajesh V. Manchanda and Jennifer J. Argo (2001), “Embar-
rassment in Consumer Purchase: The Roles of Social Presence and Purchase
Familiarity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 473–81.
Dahm, Martin, Daniel Wentzel, Walter Herzog and Annika Wiecek (2018),
“Breathing Down Your Neck!: The Impact of Queues on Customers Using
a Retail Service,” Journal of Retailing, 94 (2), 217–30.
DeCarlo, Thomas E. (2005), “The Effects of Sales Message and Suspicion of
Ulterior Motives on Salesperson Motivation,” Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, 15 (3), 238–49.
De Vries, Eline L.E., Rob M. Fennis, Tammo H.A. Bijmolt, Gert J. Ter Horst
and Jan-Bernard C. Marsman (2018), “Friends with Benefits: Behavioral
and fMRI studies on the Effect of Friendship Reminders on Self-Control
for Compulsive and Non-Compulsive Buyers,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 35 (2), 336–58.
Donovan, Robert J. and John R. Rossiter (1982), “Store Atmosphere: An Envi-
ronmental Psychology Approach,” Journal of Retailing, 58 (Spring), 34–57.
Eroglu, Sevgin A. and Gilbert D. Harrell (1986), “Retail Crowding: Theoretical
and Strategic Implications,” Journal of Retailing, 62 (4), 346–63.
Eroglu, Sevgin A. and Karen A. Machleit (1990), “An Empirical Study of Retail
Crowding: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Retailing, 66 (2),
201–21.
Esmark, Carol L. and Stephanie M. Noble (2018), “Retail Space Invaders: When
Employees’ Invasion of Customer Space Increases Purchase Intentions,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (3), 477–96.
Esmark, Carol L., Stephanie M. Noble and Michael J. Breazeale (2018), “I’ll
be Watching You: Shoppers’ Reactions to Perceptions of Being Watched by
Employees,” Journal of Retailing, 93 (3), 336–49.
Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model:
How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (1), 1–31.
Giebelhausen, Michael D., Stacey G. Robinson and J. Joseph Cronin Jr (2011),
“Worth Waiting For: Increasing Satisfaction by Making Consumers Wait,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (6), 889–905.
Grewal, Dhruv, Carl-Philip Ahlbom, Lauren Beitelspacher, Stephanie M. Nobel
and Jes Nordfalt (2018), “In-Store Mobile Phone Use and Customer Shop-
ping Behavior: Evidence From the Field,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (July),
102–26.
Grewal, Dhruv and Julie Baker (1994), “The Influence of Store Environment on
Quality Inferences and Store Image,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 22 (4), 328–39.
He, Yi, Qimei Chen and Dana L. Alden (2012), “Consumption in the Public
Eye: The Influence of Social Presence on Service Experience,” Journal of
Business Research, 65 (3), 302–10.
Huang, Xun (Irene), Zhongqiang (Tak) Huang and Robert S. Wyer Jr (2018),
“The Influence of Social Crowding on Brand Attachment,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 44 (5), 1068–84.
 J.J. Argo, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 25–39
Hui, Michael K. and John E. Bateson (1991), “Perceived Control and the Effects
of Crowding and Consumer Choice on the Service Experience,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 18 (2), 174–84.
Jacob, Celine, Nicolas Gueguen, Angelique Martin and Gaelle Boulbry (2011),
“Retail Salespeople’s Mimicry of Customers: Effects on Consumer Behav-
ior,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18 (5), 381–8.
Jiang, Lan, Jo Andrea Hoegg, Darren W. Dahl and Amitava Chattopadhyay
(2010), “The Persuasive Role of Incidental Similarity on Attitudes and Pur-
chase Intentions in a Sales Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5),
778–91.
Kelleher, Morgan (2018), https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicatio-
nscouncil/2018/01/23/the-future-of-brick-and-mortar-enhancing-the-
customer-experience/#63b7e6a63ce3.
Kirk, Colleen P., Joann Peck and Scott D. Swain (2018), “Property Lines
in the Mind: Consumers’ Psychological Ownership and Their Territorial
Responses,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (1), 148–68.
Kotler, Philip (1973), “Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool,” Journal of Retailing,
49 (Winter), 48–64.
Kwon, Hyorkjin, Sejin Ha and Hyunjoo Im (2016), “The Impact of Perceived
Similarity to Other Customers on Shopping Mall Satisfaction,” Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 28 (January), 304–9.
Kurt, Didem, J. Jeffrey Inman and Jennifer J. Argo (2011), “How Shopping with
Friends Promotes Consumer Spending,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48
(4), 741–54.
Lin, Lily, Darren W. Dahl and Jennifer J. Argo (2013), “Do the Crime, Always
do the Time? Insights into Consumer-to-Consumer Punishment Decisions,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 64–77.
Luck, Michael and Martin Benkenstein (2015), “Consumers Between Super-
market Shelves: The Influence of Inter-personal Distance on Consumer
Behavior,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26 (September),
104–14.
Luo, Xueming (2008), “How Does Shopping With Others Influence Impulsive
Purchasing,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (4), 288–94.
Main, Kelley, Darren W. Dahl and Peter R. Darke (2007), “Deliberative and
Automatic Bases of Suspicion: Empirical Evidence of the Sinister Attribu-
tion Error,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (1), 59–69.
Martin, Brett A.S. (2011), “A Stranger’s Touch: Effects of Accidental Touch on
Consumer Evaluations and Shopping Time,” Journal of Consumer Research,
39 (1), 174–84.
Martin, Brett A.S. and Peter Nuttall (2017), “Tense from Touch: Examining
Accidental Interpersonal Touch Between Consumers,” Psychology & Mar-
keting, 34 (10), 946–55.
Mattila, Anna S. and Jochen Wirtz (2008), “The Role of Store Environmental
Stimulation and Social Factors on Impulse Purchasing,” Journal of Services
Marketing, 22 (7), 562–7.
McFerran, Brent, Darren W. Dahl, Gavan J. Fitzsimons and Andrea C. Morales
(2010), “I’ll have what She is Having: Effect of Social Influence and Body
Type on the Food Choices of Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36
(6), 915–29.
Mead, Nicole L., Roy F. Baumeister, Tyler F. Stillman, Catherine D. Rawn
and Kathleen Vohs (2011), “Social Exclusion Causes People to Spend and
Consume Strategically in the Service of Affiliation,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 37 (5), 902–19.
O’Guinn, Thomas C., Robin J. Tanner and Ahreum Maeng (2015), “Turning
to Space: Social Density, Social Class, and the Value of Things in Stores,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 196–213.
Otterbring, Tobias and Chaoren Lu (2018), “Clothes, Condoms, and Customer
Satisfaction: The Effect of Employee Mere Presence on Customer Satisfac-
tion Depends on the Shopping Situation,” Psychology & Marketing, 35 (6),
454–62.
Puzakova, Marina and Hyokjin Kwak (2017), “Should Anthropomorphized
Brands Engage Customers? The Impact of Social Crowding on Brand Pref-
erences,” Journal of Marketing, 81 (6), 99–115.
Rabin, Matthew and Joel L. Schrag (1999), “First Impressions Matter: A Model
of Confirmatory Bias,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, (February),
37–82.
39
Roos, Carla A. (2017), Differences between Online and Offline Communication,
Master’s Thesis at University of Groningen.1–64
Schroll, Roland, Benedikt Schnurr and Dhruv Grewal (2018), “Humanizing
Products with Handwritten Typefaces,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45,
648–72.
Soderlund, Magnus (2016), “Employee Mere Presence and Its Impact on Cus-
tomer Satisfaction,” Psychology & Marketing, 33 (6), 449–64.
Steele, Claude M. (1988), “The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining
the Integrity of the Self,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21,
261–302.
Sujan, Mita, James R. Bettman and Harish Sujan (1986), “Effects of Consumer
Expectations on Information Processing in Selling Encounters,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 23 (4), 346–53.
Tombs, Alastair and Janet R. McColl-Kennedy (2003), “Social-Servicescape
Conceptual Model,” Marketing Theory, 3 (4), 447–75.
Uhrich, Sebastian (2011), “Explaining Non-Linear Customer Density Effects
on Shopper’s Emotions and Behavioral Intentions in a Retail Context: The
Mediating Role of Perceived Control,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 18 (5), 405–13.
Uhrich, Sebastian and Michael Luck (2012), “Not too Many But Also Not too
Few: Exploring the Explanatory Mechanisms for the Negative Effects of
Low Customer Density in Retail Settings,” Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal, 15 (3), 290–308.
Uhrich, Sebastian and Alastair Tombs (2014), “Retail Customers’ Self-
Awareness: The Deindividuation Effects of Others,” Journal of Business
Research, 67 (7), 1439–46.
Vallen, Beth, Karthik Sridhar, Dan Rubin, Veronika Ilyuk, Lauren G. Block and
Jennifer J. Argo (2018), “Shape- and Trait-Congruency: Using Appearance-
Based Cues as a Basis for Product Recommendations,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 29, 271–84.
van Doorn, Jenny, Martin Mende, Stephanie M. Noble, John Hulland, Amy L.
Ostrom, Dhruv Grewal and J. Andrew Petersen (2017), “Domo Arigato Mr.
Roboto: Emergence of Automated Social Presence in Organizational Front-
lines and Customers’ Service Experiences,” Journal of Service Research, 20
(1), 43–58.
van Rompay, Thomas J.L., Janna Krooshoop, Joost W.M. Verhoeven and Ad T.H.
Pruyn (2012), “With or Without You: Interactive Effects of Retail Density
and Need for Affiliation on Shopping Pleasure and Spending,” Journal of
Business Research, 65 (8), 1126–31.
Wan, Lisa C. and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2015), “Consumer Reactions to Attractive
Service Providers: Approach or Avoid?,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42
(4), 578–95.
and (2018), “The Influence of
Incidental Similarity on Observers’ Causal Attributions and Reactions to
a Service Failure,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 1350–68.
Wang, Chen, Hoegg Jo Andrea and Darren W. Dahl (2018), “The Impact of a
Sales Team’s Perceived Entitativity on Customer Satisfaction,” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (2), 190–211.
Ward, Morgan K. and Darren W. Dahl (2014), “Should the Devil Sell Prada?
Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring Consumers’ Desire for the Brand,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 590–609.
White, Katherine, Lily Lin, Darren W. Dahl and Robin J.B. Ritchie (2016),
“When Do Consumers Avoid Imperfections? Superficial Packaging Damage
as a Contamination Cue,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (1), 110–23.
Yan, Ruoh-Nan and Sherry Lotz (2009), “Taxonomy of the Influence of
Other Customers in Consumer Complaint Behavior: A Social-Psychological
Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Com-
plaining, 22, 107–26.
Zhang, Xiaoling, Shibo Li, Raymond R. Burke and Alex Leykin (2014), “An
Examination of Social Influence on Shopper Behavior Using Video Tracking
Data,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 24–41.
Zhou, Rongrong and Dilip Soman (2003), “Looking Back: Exploring the Psy-
chology of Queuing and the Effect of the Number of People Behind,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 517–30.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.