“Toxic friends”? The farther away, the less stressful: the impact of social distance to a dissociative group on consumer choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to extend and complement research on reference groups by suggesting that two distinct types of dissociative groups – specifically, a near versus distant dissociative group – have differential impacts on consumer choices. While prior research has examined the impact of dissociative groups on consumer evaluations and responses more generally, there has been little attention paid to how different types of dissociative groups may affect consumer choices. The current research attempts to address this research gap by identifying two different types of dissociative groups and exploring how, why and the conditions under which they might exert differential impacts on consumer choices. Design/methodology/approach Four experimental studies test these ideas. Studies 1–2 were conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Studies 3–4 were conducted in a laboratory setting at a large public university. Findings The findings suggest that consumers are less likely to buy a product if it is associated with a near dissociative group as compared to a distant dissociative group; and this effect is driven by construal-level mindsets. In addition, the proposed effect is moderated by group conformity such that for people low in conformity, the proposed effect holds; while for people high in conformity, they would not make a purchase as long as a product is associated with a dissociative group – regardless of whether it is near or distant. Research limitations/implications For experimental control, the studies were conducted in the lab or using online participants, and thus might lack much of the richness of real field settings. Future research could seek to address these issues, perhaps, examining the effects of social distance to a dissociative group on consumer choices in a naturalistic environment. Practical implications This work advances an understanding of how different types of dissociative groups affect consumer behavior, with implications for marketing practices and public policymakers. First, the findings provide important insights into how to expand into a completely new market. Second, this research provides an important implication for launching a successful advertising campaign and designing an effective marketing segmentation strategy. Third, this research also offers important insights into how to pivot marketing strategies during a crisis. Finally, the research draws out the implications for policymakers to develop effective substance abuse prevention programs for children and adolescents. Originality/value To the knowledge, this is the first study to examine different types of dissociative groups and their differential impacts on consumer choices. Further, the current research complements prior research on reference groups by identifying the conditions under which a nearer social distance might lead to greater negative product evaluation. Finally, this research identifies the conditions under which the impact of different types of dissociative groups may vary, opening up new areas for research on why, how and when dissociative groups can affect consumer behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".