AHREUM MAENG, ROBIN J.

TANNER, and DILIP SOMAN*

Does the mere crowdedness of the environment affect people’s

choices and preferences? In six studies, the authors show that social
crowdedness not only leads to greater accessibility of safety-related
constructs but also results in greater preference for safety-oriented
options (e.g., preferring to visit a pharmacy to a convenience store),
being more receptive to prevention- (rather than promotion-) framed
messages, and being more risk averse with real money gambles. In
support of the authors’ underlying avoidance motivation perspective,
these effects are mediated by participants’ net prevention focus and are
attenuated when the crowd in question consists of in-group members.
The authors close by discussing the practical and theoretical implications
of the results.

Keywords: crowding, personal space, social cognition, threat management,

motivation

Online Supplement: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0118

Conservative When Crowded: Social

Crowding and Consumer Choice

Whether shopping for groceries at a local supermarket, edness of the prevailing consumption environment influ-
making investment decisions on a trading floor, or eating at ences consumer decision making. This is the focus of the
a busy restaurant, many important consumption decisions present research.
are made in the physical presence of others. The extent of The effect of social crowdedness on decision making has
this social presence—the level of crowdedness—can vary received little attention in the marketing literature. Although
significantly across domains, time, and geography. For previous research has demonstrated that increased crowded-
example, purchase decisions made in stores vary signifi- ness can reduce shopper satisfaction and precipitate an ear-
cantly in their crowdedness, with almost 30% of annual lier departure from the store (Eroglu, Machleit, and Barr
retail sales occurring during the holiday season, precisely 2005; Hui and Bateson 1991), there is a relative paucity of
when complaints of store crowdedness peak (International research examining how crowdedness might influence con-
Council of Shopping Centers 2006). Seasonality aside, store sumers’ actual choices. In a rare exception, Xu, Shen, and
traffic can vary significantly from day to day (e.g., being Wyer (2012) extend Levav and Zhu’s (2009) work on spa-
higher on weekends) as well as over the course of a particu- tial confinement and variety seeking by revealing that
lar day (e.g., being higher at lunchtime or later in the day). reduced interpersonal distances can threaten consumers’
Given this considerable variation, a question of both theo- perceptions of their own uniqueness, leading them to choose
retical and practical importance is whether and how crowd- more distinctive products as a way of reasserting their indi-
viduality. Although we find this work on individuality com-
pelling, our view is that the cognitive ramifications of being
*Ahreum Maeng is Assistant Professor, KU School of Business, University crowded likely extend significantly beyond these findings.
of Kansas (e-mail: amaeng@ku.edu). Robin J. Tanner is Assistant Professor, In particular, we argue that an important consequence of
Wisconsin School of Business, University of Wisconsin–Madison (e-mail:
rtanner@bus.wisc.edu). Dilip Soman is Corus Professor of Communica-
being socially crowded is the precipitation of a defensive
tion Strategy and Professor of Marketing, Rotman School of Management, state, which results in the adoption of a prevention-oriented
University of Toronto (e-mail: dilip.soman@rotman.utoronto.ca). The regulatory focus.
authors contributed equally to this research. They thank Silu Liu, Christine Perhaps the most germane concept in developing our
Lim, and Yue Zhuo for their outstanding research assistance. Stephen
Nowlis served as associate editor for this article.
research is the notion of personal space. Personal space is
defined as a moveable boundary around the human body,

© 2013, American Marketing Association Journal of Marketing Research

ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) 739 Vol. L (December 2013), 739–752
740 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2013

primarily functioning as a buffer protecting people from of the construct of personal space. Hall (1966, p. 112)
potential threats and overstimulation (Delevoye-Turrell, defines “personal space” as “a small protective sphere or
Vienne, and Coello 2011; Graziano and Cooke 2006; Hall bubble that an organism maintains between itself and oth-
1966). Considerable empirical research has demonstrated ers.” Many researchers have noted the existence of this pro-
that personal space violations induce defensive responses tective space around the human body and have found that
(Felipe and Sommer 1966; Goffman 1963; McDowell 1972; violations elicit defensive responses from victims (Dosey
Sommer and Becker 1969). For example, office workers and Meisels 1969; McDowell 1972). These responses
exhibit more withdrawal behavior in an office with proxi- include flight or withdrawal (Barefoot, Hoople, and McClay
mal workstations (Oldham and Fried 1987), and passengers 1972; Baum, Riess, and O’Hara 1974; Felipe and Sommer
are more likely to experience negative mood and stress on 1966) as well as classic defensive responses such as asocial
rush hour trains when they feel more crowded by other pas- behavior and increased hostility (Griffit and Veitch 1971).
sengers (Evans and Wener 2007). The aim of the current Indeed, recent neurological research has shown that per-
research is to extend this line of study into the consumption sonal proximity activates the amygdala, the structure
domain. In particular, we hypothesize and demonstrate that involved in the “fight or flight” response (Kennedy et al.
socially crowded environments lead to activation of the 2009).
avoidance system, which results in people adopting a more That personal space violations lead to a fight or flight
prevention-focused mindset. This, in turn, results in socially response seems likely to have been evolutionarily adaptive.
crowded people being more likely to choose options that Indeed, throughout history, attacks from other humans have
provide prevention- than neutral-related benefits. been a major threat to human survival (see Neuberg, Ken-
We organize the remainder of the article as follows. We rick, and Schaller 2011), with surprise attacks used to
begin by providing an overview of research on the motiva- impose maximum fatalities on others (Boyer and Bergstrom
tional consequences of social crowding and personal space 2011). As such, it is intuitive that personal space violations
violations. We then present six experiments designed to would activate the human defense system, which some
explore the choice consequences of being socially crowded. researchers believe to have evolved to deal with environ-
These experiments enable us to make the following claims: mental threats to physical survival (Lang, Bradley, and
First, people who are socially crowded are disproportionally Cuthbert 1997). The activation of this defense system mani-
more likely to prefer safety-oriented choice options, to under- fests as specific emotional states such as fear and anxiety
take actual prevention-oriented behaviors, to avoid net present (Gray and McNaughton 2000; McNaughton and Corr
value positive gambles, and to be persuaded by prevention- 2004). Because personal space violations are innately more
framed messages. Second, these behavioral outcomes of likely in crowded settings, the abundant evidence showing
crowding are mediated by an increased prevention focus. that social crowding is sufficient to trigger an avoidance
Third, consistent with our underlying avoidance motivation response is not surprising. For example, being crowded
perspective, these effects are moderated by the composition leads to the typical physiological symptoms of anxiety, such
of the crowd in question and are strengthened or weakened as increased skin conductance, high arousal, and low expe-
depending on whether the crowd is composed of out-group rienced pleasure (Aiello et al. 1977; Schaeffer and Patterson
or in-group members, respectively. We conclude with a gen- 1980; Worchel and Teddlie 1976).
eral discussion highlighting the theoretical contributions Choice Implications of an Avoidance Response
and practical implications of our research.
Substantial empirical evidence has demonstrated that anxi-
CROWDING, DEFENSIVE STATES, AND CHOICES ety and avoidance motivations are associated with strong
Personal Space Violations Lead to an Avoidance Response prevention goals, whereas happiness and approach motiva-
tions are associated with promotion goals (Förster et al.
For the purposes of this research, we define “social 2001; Förster, Higgins, and Idson 1998; Förster, Liberman,
crowding” as a large group of people gathered together such and Higgins 2005). A prevention goal, in turn, can influence
that the likelihood of an individual’s personal space being the valuation of choice options by enhancing relative sensi-
violated is significantly increased. The study of personal tivity toward potential losses and prevention-related bene-
space and spatial perception in social contexts originated fits (e.g., being careful about health) instead of potential
from observational research of the flight initiation distance gains and promotion-related benefits (e.g., maximizing
maintained by animals. Hediger’s (1955) investigation of pleasure). Therefore, prevention-focused people are more
social distance in animal populations indicates that all species likely to seek objects with personal safety connotations
have a certain flight initiation distance below which the pres- because these objects are instrumental in achieving the acti-
ence of others is considered an objective threat. He argues vated prevention goal (Markman and Brendl 2000). Simi-
that, for any species, escape (i.e., securing personal safety) larly, from a regulatory fit perspective, prevention-focused
is biologically an even more urgent survival necessity than people experience regulatory fit when they choose objects
either reproduction or finding nutrition. Furthermore, he with safety implications because these alternatives align
observes that the size of this flight initiation distance does with their goal orientation (i.e., a prevention goal). As such,
not seem to be a simple stimulus-driven reflex but is deter- people may more readily choose these options because it
mined by animals’ spatial cognition systems to construct a feels appropriate to them to choose an option that fits their
boundary of safety around their bodies (Hediger 1955), the regulatory focus (Higgins 2000). The effects of regulatory
penetration of which results in the perception of threat. fit are not narrowly limited to choice effects per se, but they
Subsequent researchers extended this concept of spatial can moderate a variety of marketing-relevant behavioral
boundaries to human social behavior and the development outcomes, such as the perceived persuasiveness of messages
Social Crowding and Consumer Choice 741

when there is congruence between regulatory focus and Method

message frame. For example, prior research has demon- Thirty-four undergraduate students from a North Ameri-
strated that when prevention goals are more active, a loss- can university participated in this study for payment. First,
framed message is more effective than a gain-framed mes- in a supposed picture perception study, participants were
sage (Lee and Aaker 2004). Put differently, people with a presented with one of the two pictures of an outdoor scene
prevention focus are more receptive to a loss-framed mes- (crowded vs. uncrowded; see Figure 1, Panels A and B) and
sage than a gain-framed one because it leads them to experi- were asked to spend a few moments looking at the image
ence greater regulatory fit. before briefly describing how they would feel if they were
In summary, research on personal space violations and in the presented scene. Next, in an ostensibly unrelated
social crowding has essentially converged around the broad study, a questionnaire designed to measure participants’
finding that being crowded induces a defensive/avoidant incidental regulatory focus was administered (developed by
response characterized by stress and anxiety. Furthermore, Sengupta and Zhou [2007], following Higgins et al.’s
research on regulatory focus has suggested that an avoidant [1994] approach), presented as research about concerns in
response is associated with an increased prevention orienta- daily life. Participants were asked to rate the importance of
tion. Thus, we expect that crowded people are more likely 14 issues on a nine-point scale (1 = “totally unimportant,”
to choose options with safety connotations because they feel and 9 = “extremely important”). Seven items captured a
more comfortable choosing an option that fits their current promotion focus (e.g., “being smart,” “making new friends”),
regulatory focus. More specifically, we hypothesize that and the rest measured a prevention focus (e.g., “not making
people in socially crowded environments will be more likely enemies,” “avoiding getting fat”). We summed total scores
to choose options that provide prevention- than neutral-
related benefits. Furthermore, these choice consequences
Figure 1
will be mediated by a measure of people’s net prevention/
PILOT STUDY AND STUDIES 2, 4, AND 5: PRIMING STIMULI
promotion focus.
Research Overview A: Uncrowded Primeab
In the current research, we investigate whether social
crowdedness systematically moderates consumer preference
regarding product/service alternatives. Specifically, we pro-
pose that a prevention-focused mindset invoked by being
crowded leads to an increased affinity for safety-oriented
choice alternatives. Six studies support our conceptualiza-
tion. A pilot study demonstrates that people who imagine
themselves in a crowded (vs. uncrowded) scene subse-
quently display a greater relative prevention focus. Study 1
uses a naturalistic crowding manipulation to demonstrate
that being socially crowded leads to both a greater prefer-
B: Crowded Primeab
ence for safety-related choice options and to increased acces-
sibility to safety-related words. Study 2 provides process
evidence for our conceptualization and reveals that the
effects of crowding on choice are mediated by an increase
in net prevention focus. Study 3 identifies a theoretically
consistent moderator; that is, the link between social crowd-
ing and prevention-oriented choice is attenuated when the
crowd is composed of in-group (vs. out-group) members.
Study 4 uses a real behavioral choice (whether to floss one’s
teeth) to demonstrate that being socially crowded leads to
greater susceptibility to prevention-framed messages.
Finally, extending our investigation to risk tolerance in gen- C: Cluttered Primeb
eral, Study 5 reveals that being crowded results in people
being more conservative when making real money gambles.
PILOT STUDY: SOCIAL CROWDING AND
PREVENTION FOCUS
We designed the pilot study as an initial test to assess
whether social crowdedness has the potential to influence
people’s regulatory focus. To this end, we exposed partici-
pants to a picture of either a crowded or an uncrowded out-
door scene and asked them to imagine how they would feel
if they were in the pictured context. A regulatory focus
questionnaire was subsequently administered as a suppos- aUsed in pilot study, Study 4, and Study 5.
edly unrelated study. bUsed in Study 2.
742 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2013

for both prevention and promotion, with the net differences small laboratory room. Upon arrival, participants were
between them serving as the net regulatory focus measure asked to complete a word search task that was purported to
(Sengupta and Zhou 2007). be a mind-clearing exercise in preparation for the experi-
ment but was actually designed to assess their accessibility
Results and Discussion to safety-related constructs. For this task, a grid of letters
First, given the research linking personal space violations was presented on a sheet of paper (see Figure 2), with ten
with increased anxiety (e.g., Hall 1966), we counted the safety-related words (e.g., “immunity,” “insurance,” “hel-
number of anxiety-oriented words each participant used in met”) and ten neutral words (e.g., “melody,” “speaker,”
describing how they would feel in the pictured scene. As “coffee”) embedded vertically and horizontally. Participants
expected, participants primed with the crowded picture gen- were asked to write down all the words they could find in
erated more anxiety-related words (M = .89, SD = .76) than three minutes.
did participants primed with the uncrowded picture (M = After the word search task, participants completed two
.19, SD = .40; t(32) = –3.30, p < .01). ostensibly unrelated tasks designed to explore their prefer-
Turning to the regulatory focus questionnaire, whereas ence toward making choices with prevention-oriented bene-
participants in both conditions indicated a similar level of fits. These tasks were presented as scenarios in which partici-
promotion focus (MCrowded = 27.22, SD = 4.61 vs. pants indicated their relative preference between two stores
MUncrowded = 29.25, SD = 3.23), participants in the crowded they could visit during a delayed flight (pharmacy vs. con-
condition reported higher prevention scores (M = 42.28, SD =
3.95) than those in the uncrowded condition (M = 34.68, SD =
3.61). To create a single measure of regulatory focus, we Figure 2
subtracted the summed importance scores for the promotion STUDY 1: WORD GRID
items from the equivalent summed prevention item scores
(see Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda 2002), with higher A: Unsolved Word Grid
scores on this index suggesting a greater net prevention
focus (see also Sengupta and Zhou 2007). Using this meas- a a g b c v b i c y c l e x s g y u u
ure, participants in the crowded condition displayed a x x a v h j z n r z p i m m u n i t y
stronger net prevention focus (MCrowded = 15.05, SD = 5.72) r a s u x m n s e c u r i t y c r i t
than did those in the uncrowded condition (MUncrowded = c x i v b h g u a r d x n x v b c d y
5.43, SD = 5.57; t(32) = –4.95, p < .001). Thus, the mere act f i p b v k p r t w r t e k k u b f y
g x k l o g h a i r r y n g h u b k h
of imagining being in a crowded or uncrowded environment
g c v m k f y n v p p p t x d k m x k
was apparently sufficient to substantially alter participants’
g f h h s p a c e h k j y t t u d e r
regulatory focus. With this baseline result established, in the k s q s a g q e g h q r q s k p p y i
next study we explore whether this crowding-induced pre- s x x b f b y q m s d e c s t u f h i
vention focus results in an increased preference for safety- p r o t e c t i o n u y j k k s r t o
oriented choice alternatives. e r y r t v c m t f u b f h h q c z p
a r r a y z v c o f f e e c h f b y t
STUDY 1: SOCIAL CROWDING AND PREFERENCE k v r y p k s o r g a n i s m q u x c
FOR SAFETY-ORIENTED OPTIONS e x r g w m s d c g h s q h e l m e t
Study 1 had two primary goals. First, because the pilot r x u i p e r x y c v v c i l g p u f
study relied on a priming task to manipulate social crowd- s d d d s d e y c f f h x e o f e p r
x p h e k d y z l o c k m l d o r r t
edness, a key objective of Study 1 was to manipulate crowd-
v b h r j p d z e y o d m d y d i o y
ing directly and naturalistically, which we accomplished by
having participants complete tasks in a laboratory room that
B: Answer Key
was either crowded or uncrowded with other research par-
ticipants. Second, because we wanted to explore whether
      
being socially crowded would lead people to adopt a more
       
safety-oriented mindset, we examined whether socially
      
crowded people would exhibit increased accessibility to     
safety-related constructs (Bargh et al. 2001; Förster, Liber-   
man, and Higgins 2005) and show a greater preference for   
safety-oriented products.   

   
Method  


Seventy-three undergraduate students from a North          
American university participated in this study for payment,   
participating in two experimental sessions on the same day.            
In the first session, participants completed a task for an      

unrelated study and were then asked to return for the  
   
prescheduled second session. At this time, participants were     
   
randomly assigned to either a crowded session (ten partici-
      
pants per room) or an uncrowded session (two or three par-   
ticipants per room), with all sessions being held in the same
Social Crowding and Consumer Choice 743

venience store) and between two free promotional gifts at a crowded, uncrowded, cluttered, or no-image control. The
local store (first aid products vs. a box of cookies). Partici- crowded and uncrowded images were identical to those
pants indicated their preferences for both the store and the used in the pilot study (see Figure 1, Panels A and B), and
product choice on two seven-point rating scales (1 = “defi- the cluttered image showed a highly cluttered office scene
nitely choose convenience store/cookies,” and 7 = “defi- (see Figure 1, Panel C). As in the pilot study, participants in
nitely choose pharmacy/first aid products”). Finally, partici- the three conditions with pictures were asked to imagine
pants were asked to rate how crowded they found the room themselves in the pictured scene and to briefly describe how
to be on a seven-point scale (1 = “not crowded,” and 7 = they would feel. Participants in the control condition pro-
“very crowded”). ceeded straight to the rating tasks. All participants were then
presented with the same store and product rating tasks used
Results and Discussion in Study 1. Finally, participants completed the same regula-
Manipulation check. As we expected, participants in tory focus questionnaire used in the pilot study.
crowded sessions reported that they felt more crowded (M =
4.87, SD = 1.65) than those in uncrowded sessions (M = Results
2.95, SD = 1.49; t(71) = 5.15, p < .001). Thus, the manipu- Safety-oriented preferences. Figure 3 displays the results
lation of perceived crowdedness was successful. for both rating tasks. Two analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
Word search task. Although participants in both condi- revealed an overall main effect of image condition on both
tions found a similar number of non-safety-related words store preference (F(3, 96) = 4.17, p < .01) and product pref-
(MCrowded = 3.7, SD = 1.42 vs. MUncrowded = 4.16, SD = erence (F(3, 96) = 6.33, p < .001). Follow-up planned com-
1.54; p = .2), participants in the crowded room uncovered a parisons revealed that for both tasks, this effect was primar-
greater number of safety-related words (M = 5.86, SD = ily driven by responses of participants who imagined
1.81) than those in the less-crowded room (M = 3.77, SD = themselves in a crowded scene. Specifically, participants in
1.57; F(1,71) = 27.8, p < .001). Therefore, it seems that the crowded condition were more likely to prefer the phar-
safety-related constructs were indeed more accessible to macy to the convenience store (M = 4.56, SD = 1.45) com-
participants in the crowded room. pared with those in the control (M = 3.64, SD = 1.19),
Safety-oriented preferences. Participants in the crowded uncrowded (M = 3.40, SD = 1.26), or cluttered conditions
condition reported that they were more likely to choose to go (M = 3.44, SD = 1.42; t(96) = 3.47, p < .001). Similarly,
to a pharmacy than to a convenience store (M = 4.53, SD = those in the crowded condition were more likely to prefer
1.83) than did those in the uncrowded room (M = 3.63, SD = first aid products to cookies (M = 4.92, SD = 1.52) com-
1.21; F(1,71) = 6.45, p < .02). Similarly, those in the crowded pared with those in the control (M = 3.52, SD = 1.08),
condition indicated a stronger preference for first aid prod- uncrowded (M = 3.44, SD = 1.47), or cluttered conditions
ucts than cookies (M = 4.83, SD = 1.78) compared with (M = 3.56, SD = 1.50; t(96) = 4.34, p < .001). Finally, par-
those in the uncrowded condition (M = 3.51, SD = 1.47; ticipant preferences in both rating tasks showed no signifi-
F(1,71) = 11.98, p < .001). Thus, for both the store choice cant differences between the control, uncrowded, and clut-
and product choice measures, being crowded led partici- tered conditions in both choice tasks (t(72) = –.44, p > .6).
pants to report a stronger preference for the safety-oriented Prevention focus. Whereas we found participants in
option. These data, therefore, build on the pilot study by all conditions to have a similar level of promotion focus
demonstrating that personal preferences are predictably (MControl = 29.56, SD = 7.74; MCrowded = 28.88, SD = 3.17;
influenced by the social crowdedness of the environment. MUncrowded = 28.56, SD = 6.56; MCluttered = 28.64, SD =
In Study 2, we explore whether a prevention focus mediates 4.13), participants in the crowded condition had higher pre-
these effects. vention scores (M = 38.80, SD = 4.83) than those in the con-
trol (M = 28.44, SD = 6.05), uncrowded (M = 27.52, SD =
STUDY 2: MEDIATION BY PREVENTION FOCUS 6.45), or cluttered conditions (M = 28.56, SD = 3.23). In
We designed Study 2 to build on the preceding studies in considering the net position, participants in the crowded
three ways. First and foremost, we wanted to establish condition demonstrated a dramatically stronger net prevention
whether a greater net prevention focus mediates the focus (M = 9.92, SD = 6.24) than did those in the uncrowded
observed effects on safety-oriented choice. Second, we (M = –1.04, SD = 9.28), control (M = –1.12, SD = 11.39),
included a true no-prime control condition to better assess or cluttered conditions (M = –.08, SD = 5.61; t(96) = 5.46,
baseline preferences toward the choice options. Third, p < .001). Notably, the lack of difference between the con-
because a possible (though unlikely) alternative explanation trol and uncrowded conditions (for both the rating tasks and
for the results of the first two studies is that the effects were the prevention focus measure) reveals that the cognitive
caused not by social crowding but by visual clutter (which ramifications of crowdedness are a function of high crowd-
is innately confounded with increased crowdedness), Study edness and that no reciprocal effects exist in an uncrowded
2 includes an additional condition to explore the effect of environment (i.e., uncrowded environments are not associ-
visual clutter. ated with a promotion focus).
Mediation analysis. Drawing on Preacher and Hayes
Method (2004), to better evaluate the underlying mechanism, we
One hundred undergraduate students from a North examined the indirect effect of the level of crowdedness on
American university participated in this study for payment. preferences for both prevention-oriented choice options
As in the pilot study, we used a picture priming technique to through participants’ incidental net prevention focus score.
manipulate perceptions of crowdedness. Specifically, par- Because there are three conditions for crowdedness, we
ticipants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: used two dummy variables to represent uncrowdedness and
744 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2013

Figure 3
STUDY 2: RELATIVE PREFERENCE TOWARD SAFETY-ORIENTED OPTIONS BY CONDITION

5.0 4.92

4.56 Preference for pharmacy (vs. convenience store)

4.5 Preference for first-aid products (vs. cookies)

4.0
Option Preferences

3.64
3.52 3.56
3.5 3.40 3.44 3.44

3.0

2.5

2.0
Crowded Uncrowded Control Clutter
Experimental Conditions

crowdedness in the regressions. Using 5,000 bootstrap sam- tered image has no effect on either the net prevention focus
ples, these analyses revealed significant indirect effects of score or the rating tasks. Indeed, both the incidental regula-
the crowdedness dummy on preferences for both the safety- tory focus score and the preference ratings in the cluttered
oriented choice options through the net prevention score condition were similar to those in the control condition, pro-
with a 95% confidence interval, excluding zero (store pref- viding evidence that effects of social crowding are distinct
erence: –.44 and –.05; product preference: –.54 and –.08). from those of visual clutter. In the next study, we explore an
Specifically, when we included net prevention score in the important potential moderator of this core effect: the com-
regression, the direct effect of the level of crowdedness on position of the crowd.
safety-oriented choices became nonsignificant ( = –.23, t =
–1.09, p > .27). Thus, this analysis shows that the preven- STUDY 3: DOES THE COMPOSITION OF
tion orientation invoked by personal space violation medi- THE CROWD MATTER?
ated the influence of crowdedness on safety-oriented Given early work identifying social distance as an input
choices. For a step-by-step breakdown of the mediation to a broader threat assessment (Hediger 1955) and more
analyses, see Table 1. recent research linking personal space violations with acti-
Discussion vation of the avoidance system (Lang, Bradley, and Cuth-
bert 1997), it is reasonable to question whether a crowd’s
The results of Study 2 support our hypothesis that being composition affects the degree of threat people perceive it
socially crowded leads to a prevention focus, which itself to represent. Indeed, building on Hall’s (1966) initial con-
influences preferences toward choice options with safety ceptualization of spatial violations, Stokols (1972) argues
connotations. These data also rule out an alternative expla- that a person’s response to a crowd is determined not only
nation of the core effect by demonstrating that a purely clut- by the innate spatial restrictions it causes but also by his or
her relationship (if any) with the members of the crowding
Table 1 group. Put simply, “social and personal dimensions ... inter-
STUDY 2: RESULTS OF MEDIATION ANALYSIS act with spatial factors to mediate the experience of crowd-
ing” (Stokols 1972, p. 275). More specifically, Stokols sug-
B t p-Value gests that the restrictive aspects of crowding-induced spatial
Levels of crowding predicting –.7 t(73) = –3.49 p < .001 limitation are rendered less salient when the relationship
store preference with the crowding group is “friendly and cooperative”
Levels of crowding predicting –5.52 t(73) = –4.23 p < .001 (Stokols 1972, p. 275). Consistent with this theorizing, it is
prevention focus
Prevention focus predicting store .04 t(72) = 2.59 p < .01 intuitive to expect that a person would experience more
preference uncertainty when confronted by a crowd of strangers—
Prevention focus and levels of –.23 t(72) = –1.09 p > .27 which would likely result in an assessment of greater poten-
crowding predicting store preference
tial threat—compared with a crowd of known people. In this
Social Crowding and Consumer Choice 745

regard, our first three studies mirror much of the literature Figure 4
on crowding and spatial violations in that our experimental STUDY 3: PRIMING STIMULI
manipulations of crowdedness rely primarily on exposing
participants to crowds of strangers or out-group members. A: Uncrowded Prime
This distinction is important because, in addition to the
intuition that strangers represent a greater threat, prior
research has suggested that people have differing percep-
tions of crowds depending on whether they are composed
of in-group or out-group members. Certainly, a central find-
ing of social identity theory is that people tend to show in-
group favoritism and out-group antagonism (Hogg and
Abrams 1988; Turner, Brown, and Tajfel 1979). For exam-
ple, in a study examining volitional (rather than imposed)
social positioning, Shah, Brazy, and Higgins (2004) find that
participants who were expecting to engage in competition
tended to choose a seat closer to an in-group member (their
teammate) than to an out-group member (a competitor). Of
more direct relevance to our work, Glick, DeMorest, and B: Crowded Prime
Hotze (1988) find that, for people in close proximity, out-
group members produced more anxiety and less compliance
with a small request than did in-group members. Finally,
Schultz-Gambard (1977) observes that high-density groups
could actually be experienced positively when the group is
composed of in-group members. Given these findings, we
hypothesize that a crowding-induced prevention focus (and,
thus, the associated preference for safety-oriented products
observed in our first three studies) will be strengthened
(weakened) for a crowd composed of out-group (in-group)
members.
Method
Participants and design. This study used a 2 (crowded- of either dot underestimators (i.e., in-group members) or dot
ness: crowded vs. uncrowded)  2 (group membership: in- overestimators (i.e., out-group members). To ensure that the
group vs. out-group) design with an additional no-crowd scenario seemed legitimate, participants were told that the
control condition. Four hundred participants from a general pictures were taken at a convention organized by researchers
online subject pool (who passed two attention checks) par- investigating the dot estimation phenomenon and to which
ticipated in this study for payment and were randomly they had invited both over- and underestimators. Partici-
assigned to one of the five conditions. pants were instructed to visualize the scenario in as much
Procedure. Participants first completed a group member- detail as possible and to describe how they would feel if
ship manipulation task (Tajfel et al. 1971) that previous
they were in the scene. Finally, to strengthen the manipula-
research has shown to reliably manipulate perceptions of
tion, participants in the in-group (out-group) conditions
whether a certain group is perceived as in-group or out-
were next asked to describe three ways in which they felt
group. Specifically, participants were told they would be
completing an exercise that would test their ability to similar to (different from) the dot underestimators (overesti-
quickly estimate the total number of dots in different mators) in the picture. Participants in the no-crowd group,
images. They were further told that people can be reliably used as a control condition to measure baseline preferences,
divided into two cognitive categories (i.e., dot overestimators were not presented with a picture and were directed imme-
and dot underestimators), that these two groups are distin- diately to the preference task.
guished by multiple factors (e.g., analytical problem solving Next, in an ostensibly unrelated task, participants com-
ability, degree of cognitive bias, literacy, mathematical ability, pleted the pharmacy versus convenience store rating task
social competence), and that the dot estimation task would from Studies 1 and 2. Participants again indicated their pref-
determine their group classification. Participants were then erence on a seven-point rating scale (1 = “definitely choose
exposed to ten different pictures comprised of multiple dots convenience store,” and 7 = “definitely choose pharmacy”).
for half a second each, after which they were asked to esti- Finally, participants completed a manipulation check ques-
mate the number of dots in each image. After the ten rounds tion designed to confirm that they identified more with
of estimation, all participants were told that they had been underestimators than overestimators. Responses were cap-
classified as dot underestimators, thus instantiating the under- tured on a seven-point scale (1 = “I identify with dot under-
estimator (overestimator) groups as an in-group (out-group). estimators a lot more than I do dot overestimators,” and 7 =
Next, as in the pilot study and Study 2, in a supposed pic- “I identify with dot underestimators a lot less than I do dot
ture perception task, participants were exposed to the overestimators”), with 4 representing neutrality (“I identify
crowded or uncrowded images (see Figure 4). However, in with dot underestimators and dot overestimators to about
this case, both pictured groups were presented as consisting the same degree”).
746 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2013

Results the crowded in-group condition (M = 4.47, SD = 2.35) and

Data cleaning. Due to the typical data quality issues that the control condition (M = 4.63, SD = 2.08; t(151) = –4.57,
arise when using an online panel, we first cleaned the data p > .6), this study provides initial evidence suggesting the
by excluding participants whose completion time indicated possibility that the composition of the crowd can entirely
a lack of attention (vs. an average of 12 minutes). In particu- attenuate the avoidance motivation invoked by a crowd of
lar, we conservatively excluded participants who completed strangers.
the survey too quickly (less than 4 minutes, only achievable Discussion
through speed completion without paying attention) or too
In summary, when crowds are composed of in-group (vs.
slowly (more than 30 minutes, indicating participant dis-
out-group) members, the resulting effect on safety-oriented
traction and/or not completing the study in a single sitting).
choice is reduced. Given that in-group crowds should be
As a result, we excluded 20 participants from the data set,
innately less threatening than out-group crowds, this find-
which resulted in 380 data points for the following analy-
ing provides further support for our core theoretical premise
ses. This exclusion of data points marginally strengthened
that being crowded activates the avoidance system. More-
the effects.
over, from a practical decision-making point of view, Study
Manipulation check. The in-group manipulation seemed
3’s results enable us to make more nuanced predictions
to be successful because participants indicated that they
regarding where the effects of crowding on choice are likely
identified more with dot underestimators (M = 3.33, SD = to be most material. For example, although Study 3’s results
1.36; t(379) = –9.7, p < .001). Moreover, we found no dif- suggest that a person shopping in a packed retail store is
ferences in the manipulation check across the crowding or more likely to make safety-oriented choices, the data also
type of group conditions (both ps > .5). suggest that this effect would be attenuated in the case of a
Safety-oriented preferences. As Figure 5 illustrates, the 2 person making a purchase online when crowded to a similar
(crowdedness: crowded vs. uncrowded)  2 (group member- degree by friends and family at a social event.
ship: in-group vs. out-group) ANOVA with store preference
rating as the dependent variable revealed no main effect of STUDY 4: MESSAGE FRAME AND ACTUAL
crowding or type of crowd. However, we did find a signifi- BEHAVIORAL CHOICE
cant interaction between the two (F(1,300) = 3.89, p < .05). Study 4 has two main objectives. First, recall that prior
Simple effect analyses revealed that this interaction was research has revealed that a prevention focus leads loss-
primarily driven by participants in the crowded conditions framed messages to be more effective than gain-framed
being more likely to choose to go to the pharmacy when the messages (Lee and Aaker 2004). As such, to generalize the
crowd was composed of out-group members (M = 5.26, SD = main result obtained from the first four studies, we wanted
2.03) than in-group members (M = 4.47, SD = 2.35; to examine whether social crowdedness influences the per-
F(1,300) = 4.72, p < .04). In the uncrowded condition, how- suasiveness of promotion-/prevention-framed messages.
ever, the type of group made no statistically discernible differ- Second, because the previous studies relied on product rat-
ence (MOut-group = 4.61, SD = 2.32; MIn-group = 4.84, SD = ings, we wanted to explore the effect of social crowding on
2.32; F(1,300) = .39, p > .5). Finally, in the control condition, actual behavior. Therefore, Study 4 explores whether being
the only (marginally) significant difference we observed crowded (uncrowded) leads people to be more receptive to
was that control participants were less likely to visit the a prevention- (promotion-) framed dental health care mes-
pharmacy (M = 4.63, SD = 2.08) than those in the crowded sage. Furthermore, to assess the general persuasiveness of
out-group condition (M = 5.26, SD = 2.03; t(150) = 1.9, p = the messages, we observed whether participants chose to
.06). Note that because we observed no difference between floss their teeth when subsequently given the opportunity to
do so.
Figure 5
STUDY 3: OPTION PREFERENCES BY CONDITIONS
Method
Two hundred thirteen undergraduate students from a
North American university participated in this study for
5.4 payment. The study was a 2 (message frame: prevention-
5.26 In-group
Out-group oriented vs. promotion-oriented)  2 crowdedness (crowded
5.2
vs. uncrowded) between-subjects design. Participants first
completed a supposed snack-tasting study to ensure they
Option Preferences

5.0
4.84 would be sufficiently motivated to consider flossing later in
4.8 the study. They were told that they had been invited to try a
4.6 4.63 new product from a snack manufacturer so that the com-
4.6 pany could learn the opinions of potential targets. Six dif-
4.47
ferent snacks that easily become stuck between the teeth
4.4
(e.g., caramels, dried fruits, popcorn) were provided, and
4.2
the participants were instructed to taste them and answer a
series of questions (regarding, e.g., texture, sweetness, salti-
4.0 ness). After the snack-tasting task, in an ostensibly unre-
Crowded Uncrowded Control lated task, participants were randomly assigned to one of
Experimental Conditions two prime conditions (crowded vs. uncrowded) and were
presented with the appropriate crowdedness pictures used in
Social Crowding and Consumer Choice 747

the pilot study and Study 2 (see Figure 1, Panels A and B). room where dental floss, table mirrors, napkins, spring
Participants were again asked to imagine themselves in the water, and a trash bin were provided. The participants who
pictured scene and briefly describe how they would feel. wanted to floss their teeth were guided to the flossing room
Participants then completed another supposedly unrelated (for further information, see the Web Appendix).
study, a message evaluation task, which claimed to be a
study on the persuasiveness of health care messages. They Results
were presented with one of two dental health messages, both Message appeal. We averaged the five message ratings to
of which were described as having been developed by the provide a single message receptivity score (
= .90). A two-
association of dental hygiene to educate college students. way ANOVA with message frame (prevention vs. promo-
The message in the prevention condition was framed in tion) and crowding (crowded vs. uncrowded) as the inde-
terms of preventing loss (i.e., mitigating a health risk: “How pendent variables and the message receptivity evaluation
you can prevent gingivitis”), whereas the message in the pro- score as the dependent variable revealed a main effect
motion condition was framed as promoting a gain (i.e., look- of message framing, with participants in both conditions
ing better: “How you can get brighter smiles”). We adapted evaluating the prevention-framed message as more persua-
both from actual dental educational materials. Specifically, sive (M = 4.69, SD = 1.28) than the promotion-framed mes-
participants assigned to the prevention condition read the sage (M = 4.32, SD = 1.19; F(1,209) = 4.76, p < .03). How-
following message relating to gingivitis prevention: ever, this main effect was qualified by the predicted
two-way interaction (F(1,209) = 4.19, p < .05). Specifi-
Gingivitis is a serious and very common dental condi-
tion, but it is 100 percent preventable.... The condition
cally, for participants in the crowded condition, the preven-
is caused by an overgrowth of bacteria inside the mouth tion-framed message was more persuasive (M = 4.98, SD =
that converts into plaque and leads to bad breath, bleed- 1.30) than the promotion-framed message (M = 4.27, SD =
ing gums, and often sore or swollen gums.... It can cause 1.08; F(1,209) = 9.11, p < .003). However, the simple effect
more serious conditions such as tooth loss, periodontal of message frame was not significant in the uncrowded con-
disease, and even heart disease. You can easily prevent dition (MPrevention = 4.40, SD = 1.20; MPromotion = 4.37, SD =
the condition ... [b]y brushing, flossing, and rinsing 1.30; p > .9). Thus, the interaction was primarily driven by
twice a day at home, using the correct technique. an increase in the persuasiveness of the prevention-framed
Participants assigned to the promotion condition read the message in the crowded condition. For full results, see Table
following message describing the benefits of teeth whitening: 2.
Behavioral choice. Figure 6 presents choice to floss
Everyone loves a bright white smile. Fortunately, there across the crowding and message frame conditions. A logis-
are a variety of procedures and products available today tic regression analysis revealed no main effects of either
that can improve the look of yours.... Whitening one’s crowding or message frame (both ps > .4) but did reveal a
teeth is the process of restoring teeth to their natural
significant interaction between them (2 = 5.6, p < .01).
color. This is done by removing the build-up and dirt
collected on the tooth’s surface.
Consistent with our theorizing, crowded participants were
much more likely to floss when exposed to a prevention-
After reading one of the two messages, participants rated framed message (53.7%) than a promotion-framed message
their receptivity on five dimensions, evaluating whether the (16.4%; 2 = 16.7, p < .001). However, the message frame
message was convincing, appealing, personally relevant, did not seem to influence the decision to floss for
and important and whether they were willing to keep up the uncrowded participants (MPrevention = 27.5%, MPromotion =
suggested behavior (seven-point scales; 1 = “strongly 22.6%; 2 = .3, p > .5).
agree,” and 7 = “strongly disagree”). Finally, after partici-
pants finished the message evaluation task and before they Discussion
left the lab, an experimenter approached each participant The data from Study 4 build on the prior studies by
and offered them a chance to floss their teeth in a separate extending our findings to message persuasiveness and

Table 2
STUDY 4: MESSAGE RATINGS BY CONDITIONS

Tasks Framing Measures Mean Crowded Conditiona Mean Uncrowded Conditiona

Message appeal Loss frame Convincing 5.07 (1.43) 4.69 (1.30)
Appealing 4.7 (1.51) 4.14 (1.36)
Speaking 4.77 (1.56) 4.0 (1.40)
Importance 5.09 (1.59) 4.37 (1.52)
Keeping up 5.26 (1.63) 4.78 (1.58)
Gain frame Convincing 4.42 (1.34) 4.64 (1.35)
Appealing 4.33 (1.35) 4.19 (1.56)
Speaking 4.05 (1.39) 4.08 (1.5)
Importance 4.18 (1.44) 4.28 (1.60)
Keeping up 4.38 (1.21) 4.68 (1.45)
Averaged message appeal Loss frame 4.98 (1.30) 4.40 (1.20)
Gain frame 4.27 (1.08) 4.37 (1.30)
aItems measured on seven-point scales.
Notes: Standard deviations appear in parentheses.
748 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2013

Figure 6 instructed to treat the money as real because there was a

STUDY 4: CHOICE TO FLOSS BY MESSAGE FRAME AND 50% chance that they would receive a gift card containing
CONDITIONS the amount of money they earned at the end of the study.
They were told they would be making ten rounds of invest-
ment decisions and must decide whether to invest or save
60% $1 in each round. When they invested a dollar, the outcome
53.7%
of the investment was determined by the virtual tossing of a
Percentage of Choice to Floss

50% Crowded coin on a large screen in the room. If the toss landed on
Uncrowded heads (50% chance), the participant would lose the dollar
40% invested; if the toss landed on tails (50% chance), the par-
ticipant would be rewarded with $2.50 in his or her account.
30% 27.5% Note that this pattern of outcomes leads the expected value
22.6% of gambling to be greater ($1.25) than not gambling ($1).
20% 16.4%
Participants were further incentivized to maximize their
return by being told that gift cards containing the amount
10% won would be awarded to the 50% with the highest balances
after ten rounds.
0% Results and Discussion
Promotion-Framed Prevention-Framed
Message Framing We first examined the overall rejection rate of the gamble
across all ten rounds and found that whereas participants in
the uncrowded condition kept the dollar in only 22% of the
actual behavior. Not only did self-reported measures indi- rounds on average, those in the crowded condition kept the
cate that the prevention-framed dental health message was dollar in 36% of the rounds (t(54) = –2.17, p < .04). Thus,
better received in the crowded condition, actual flossing crowded participants were more risk averse on average. To
activity revealed that the increased persuasive effect of the better understand this risk aversion, we next explored whether
prevention-framed message in the crowded condition was the outcomes of the previous round (i.e., winning or losing)
sufficient to influence actual downstream health behavior. influenced gambling decisions differently across crowding
conditions. To this end, we counted the total number of
STUDY 5: RISK SENSITIVITY IN AN INVESTMENT investments made following a loss or a win in the previous
GAME round. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed that whereas
The main goal of Study 5 was to generalize our findings uncrowded participants invested in 75% of the rounds
to risk sensitivity. Our experimental work thus far has immediately following a loss, only 49% of crowded partici-
focused on safety-oriented choices and message persuasive- pants did so (p < .04). However, in the rounds following a win,
ness; however, if being socially crowded does precipitate an there was no difference in the propensity to invest between
the uncrowded (95%) and crowded (97%) participants.
avoidant state, it should also result in sensitivity to losses in
general (Florack and Hartmann 2007; Idson, Liberman, and Discussion
Higgins 2000; Levine, Higgins, and Choi 2000). To explore
The results of Study 5 support our hypothesis that a
this, in Study 5, we used a real money sequential gamble
crowding-induced avoidance motivation leads people to
paradigm that played out over ten rounds, which enabled us become more sensitive to risk cues in their environment.
to examine participants’ motivation to gamble contingent on Over ten rounds, we observed not only that crowded partici-
whether they won or lost in the previous round. If crowded pants took part in fewer expected value positive gambles
participants are indeed more sensitive to losses than but also that this reticence was primarily driven by an
uncrowded participants, they should display a greater reti- increased rate of rejection of the gamble in rounds immedi-
cence to gamble following a loss. ately following a loss. This particular pattern is consistent
Method with crowded participants being more sensitive to risk cues
and, thus, overweighting prior losses when making subse-
Fifty-six students at a North American university partici- quent investment decisions. Moreover, Study 5 used actual
pated in this study for extra credit. The study was held in a money gambles, which provides further support for the
regular classroom and conducted using a paper-and-pencil Study 4 finding that the degree of social crowdedness can
survey. As in the pilot study, Study 2, and Study 4, partici- moderate actual important behavioral choices.
pants were randomly assigned to either the crowded or
uncrowded condition and were presented with the crowded GENERAL DISCUSSION
or uncrowded images from Figure 1, Panels A and B. As The current research identifies an important mechanism
before, participants were asked to spend a few moments through which the crowdedness of an environment can
looking at the image and to briefly describe how they would influence consumer decisions made in that environment. Six
feel if they were in it. studies combine to suggest that a higher level of social
Next, in a supposedly unrelated task, participants were crowdedness leads people to adopt a greater prevention
presented with a series of investment decision tasks follow- focus and to display a resultant shift in preference toward
ing a paradigm used by Shiv et al. (2005). Specifically, all conservative choice options. In the pilot study, participants
participants were told they had been given $10 and who imagined themselves in a crowded scene subsequently
Social Crowding and Consumer Choice 749

displayed a significantly stronger prevention focus. Study 1 when is it preferable to emphasize the cost of not adopting
built on this finding by demonstrating that people in a physi- that behavior? Our data suggest that the crowdedness of the
cally crowded (vs. an uncrowded) room displayed both a environment in question can materially inform how we go
greater preference for safety-oriented choice options and an about answering these questions. For example, in the case
increased accessibility of safety-related words. Study 2 com- of the retail industry, Study 4 revealed that different mes-
bined the first two studies by revealing that the prevention sage frames vary in effectiveness depending on the crowd-
focus evoked by imagining being in a crowded environment edness of the environment. As such, in a world in which
mediated participants’ preference toward safety-oriented digital signage enables more sophisticated and dynamic
choice options. Study 3 demonstrated that the composition messaging, it may be in retailers’ interests to alter both their
of the crowd serves as an important moderator of the core promotional strategies (e.g., which deals are highlighted)
effect: we observed much stronger effects when the crowd and messaging on the basis of the store’s crowdedness.
was composed of out-group (vs. in-group) members. Study From a public policy perspective, our data would suggest
4 served both to generalize the obtained effects to the per- that, for example, delivering messages about the harm of
suasiveness of prevention-framed messages and to demon- not eating vegetables (i.e., a prevention focus) would be
strate the potential of social crowding to influence an actual more persuasive to shoppers in crowded stores, whereas
(in this case, health-oriented) behavior. Finally, Study 5 messages focused on the benefits of eating vegetables (i.e.,
revealed that being crowded influences risk aversion in gen- a promotion focus) would be more effective to shoppers in
eral by showing that crowded people were much more sen- less crowded stores. Similarly, whereas a politician at a
sitive to prior round losses in a sequential gamble paradigm. crowded rally might want to frame certain elements of his
or her policy in avoidance terms, the same policy ideas
Theoretical and Practical Implications might be more persuasive if presented with an approach
We believe these findings add a new dimension to frame when giving a television interview (for which the
research on crowding, which has, to date, primarily centered audience is likely to be uncrowded).
on relatively narrow behavioral outcomes such as task per-
formance or social behavior (e.g., Epstein and Karlin 1975; Further Research
Evans and Lepore 1993). Similarly, consumer researchers A particularly promising direction for further research
have thus far shown only that store crowding decreases would be to identify boundary conditions of the effects we
shopping satisfaction (Eroglu, Machleit, and Barr 2005), present here. First, it is possible that the link between social
precipitates an earlier departure from a crowded store (Hui crowding and a defensive state is not universal but cultur-
and Bateson 1991), and can threaten consumers’ sense of ally specific. Hall (1966) argues that the actual size of per-
individuality (Xu, Shen, and Wyer 2012). The current sonal space varies as a function of country of origin such
research builds on these findings by demonstrating a spe- that people from cultures with high population density have
cific way in which an avoidance motivational state induced smaller personal spaces. Thus, it is possible that the effects
by social crowdedness can influence subsequent informa- we observed might be attenuated or even reversed for peo-
tion processing and decision making. ple from highly populated areas.
Our research also adds to the emerging literature stream Second, beyond the in-group/out-group moderation we
on the significant (and automatic) effects that features of the identified, the influence of social crowding on downstream
consumption environment can have on important (and often behaviors might also vary across crowd types and contexts.
automatically determined) consumer behaviors (e.g., Char- Specifically, emerging evidence has documented two func-
trand et al. 2008; Dijksterhuis et al. 2005; Ferraro, Bettman, tionally discrete threat management systems, one commit-
and Chartrand 2009; Mandel and Johnson 2002). More ted to self-protection and the other dedicated to disease
specifically, the current research joins an increasing body of avoidance (for a review, see Neuberg, Kenrick, and Schaller
work chronicling how uniquely social cues, such as behavioral 2011). Although both systems bias behavior in a risk-averse
mimicry (Tanner et al. 2008) or facial familiarity (Tanner manner to minimize threats to the individual, they are func-
and Maeng 2012), can influence consumers. In particular, tionally distinct (being located in different neurobiological
Tanner and Maeng’s (2012) argument that individual faces substrates) and are thought to engage different emotions:
can automatically invoke approach and avoid motivations is fear and anxiety for self-protection and disgust for disease
conceptually related to our underlying proposition that avoidance (Cottrell and Neuberg 2005; LeDoux 1990;
crowds induce an avoidant response. In essence, both find- Oaten, Stevenson, and Case 2009). In this article, we pro-
ings constitute examples of how evolutionarily adaptive posed and evidenced that the mechanism underlying our
outcomes of the primal approach/avoid system can materi- data is related to the self-protection system. However, the
ally affect the behavior of the modern consumer. disease avoidance threat management system may also be
More practically, be it a physician in a ward, a trader on a activated by crowding, because crowded environments are
trading floor, or a voter at a political rally, many risk-sensitive disproportionally likely to be contaminated. Given that
decisions are made in environments that can vary consider- research has also shown fear and disgust to have different
ably in their crowdedness. As such, we believe our research cognitive consequences (Yartz and Hawk 2002), it is possi-
has potentially significant implications for both marketing ble that variation in the specific type of threat that different
practitioners and public policy makers desirous of moderat- types of crowds are perceived to represent might actually
ing specific behaviors. For example, are there particular lead to very different outcomes for choice and decision
advantages to emphasizing one set of product features over making.
another? When is it better to promote healthy behaviors by Third, further research could explore the degree of
emphasizing the benefits of adopting healthy actions, and crowding required to invoke the effects identified here and
750 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2013

examine whether a relationship (linear or otherwise) exists Baum, Andrew, Marc Riess, and John O’Hara (1974), “Architec-
between the size (and/or density) of the crowd and the level tural Variants of Reaction to Spatial Invasion,” Environment and
of avoidance response that results. Although this topic is Behavior, 6 (1), 91–100.
outside the scope of the current research, we note that Boyer, Pascal and Brian Bergstrom (2011), “Threat-Detection in
whereas the images we used to prime crowdedness featured Child Development: An Evolutionary Perspective,” Neuro-
science and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35 (4), 1034–41.
a very large outdoor crowd, the natural crowdedness
Chartrand, Tanya L., Joel Huber, Baba Shiv, and Robin J. Tanner
manipulation used in Study 1 relied on only ten people in a (2008), “Nonconscious Goals and Consumer Choice,” Journal
small room. As such, these data are indicative of the possi- of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 189–201.
bility that the effects we identify can occur in response to Cottrell, Catherine A. and Steven L. Neuberg (2005), “Different
various levels of crowdedness. Emotional Reactions to Different Groups: A Sociofunctional
Fourth, researchers might fruitfully examine other Threat-Based Approach to ‘Prejudice,’” Journal of Personality
aspects of social crowding, such as the potential for and Social Psychology, 88 (5), 770–89.
unintended physical contact to occur. For example, it would Delevoye-Turrell, Yvonne, Cyril Vienne, and Yann Coello (2011),
be worthwhile to contrast our Study 5 finding that crowding “Space Boundaries in Schizophrenia: Voluntary Action for
attenuates financial risk taking with recent research demon- Improved Judgments of Social Distances,” Social Psychology,
strating that physical contact can actually result in the oppo- 42 (3), 193–204.
site effect (Levav and Argo 2010). Certainly, given that a Dijksterhuis, Ap, Pamela K. Smith, Rich B. van Baaren, and
Daniël H.J. Wigboldus (2005), “The Unconscious Consumer:
direct consequence of a more crowded environment is
Effects of Environment on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of
increased probability of physical contact, these results may Consumer Psychology, 15 (3), 193–202.
initially seem to be potentially in opposition. However, con- Dosey, Michael A. and Murray Meisels (1969), “Personal Space
sistent with emerging research identifying the differing cog- and Self-Protection,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
nitive consequences of deliberate and accidental touch chology, 11 (2), 93–97.
(Gustafsson et al. 2013), a likely resolution could be found Epstein, Yakov M. and Robert A. Karlin (1975), “Effects of Acute
in the type of physical contact that occurs. Specifically, Experimental Crowding,” Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
Levav and Argo (2010) examine the effect of a light, com- ogy, 5 (1), 34–53.
forting pat on the shoulder, which is clearly different from Eroglu, Sevgin A., Karen Machleit, and Terri Feldman Barr
the accidental jostling type of contact that can occur in (2005), “Perceived Retail Crowding and Shopping Satisfaction:
socially crowded environments. Whereas the former is an The Role of Shopping Values,” Journal of Business Research,
accepted social expression of comfort and reassurance that 58 (8), 1146–53.
invokes feelings of security (Levav and Argo 2010), the lat- Evans, Gary W. and Stephen J. Lepore (1993), “Household
Crowding and Social Support: A Quasiexperimental Analysis,”
ter is unlikely to carry such positive connotations. That
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (2), 308–316.
stated, we nonetheless find the contrast between the two ——— and Richard E. Wener (2007), “Crowding and Personal
interesting because it highlights a potential example of how Space Invasion on the Train: Please Don’t Make Me Sit in the
two notionally closely related social stimuli can actually Middle,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (1), 90–94.
lead to different downstream consequences. Felipe, Nancy J. and Robert Sommer (1966), “Invasions of Per-
sonal Space,” Social Problems, 14 (2), 206–214.
Conclusion Ferraro, Rosellina, James R. Bettman, and Tanya L. Chartrand
Despite the knowledge that the level of social crowded- (2009), “The Power of Strangers: The Effect of Incidental Con-
ness varies significantly in domains in which people make sumer Brand Encounters on Brand Choice,” Journal of Con-
consequential decisions, few studies have examined how sumer Research, 35 (5), 729–41.
being crowded might influence these decisions. Building on Florack, Arnd and Juliane Hartmann (2007), “Regulatory Focus
research suggesting that personal space violations lead to an and Investment Decisions in Small Groups,” Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 43 (4), 626–32.
avoidance response (e.g., Dosey and Meisels 1969;
Förster, Jens, Heidi Grant, Lorraine Chen Idson, and E. Tory Hig-
McDowell 1972), this article reveals that being crowded gins (2001), “Success/Failure Feedback, Expectancies, and
leads to increased preference for safety-oriented products as Approach/Avoidance Motivation: How Regulatory Focus Mod-
well as to a reduced tolerance for risk in general. Therefore, erates Classic Relations,” Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
this research contributes to an increasing body of work sug- chology, 37 (3), 253–60.
gesting that environmental cues in general, and social cues ———, E. Tory Higgins, and Lorraine Chen Idson (1998),
in particular, can significantly influence downstream con- “Approach and Avoidance Strength During Goal Attainment:
sumer behavior. Regulatory Focus and the ‘Goal Looms Larger’ Effect,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (5), 1115–31.
REFERENCES ———, Nira Liberman, and E. Tory Higgins (2005), “Accessibility
Aiello, John R., Donna T. DeRisi, Yakov M. Epstein, and Robert from Active and Fulfilled Goals,” Journal of Experimental
A. Karlin (1977), “Crowding and the Role of Interpersonal Dis- Social Psychology, 41 (3), 220–39.
tance Preference,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 40 (3), 271–82. Glick, Peter, Judith A. DeMorest, and Carla A. Hotze (1988),
Barefoot, John C., Howard Hoople, and David McClay (1972), “Keeping Your Distance: Group Membership, Personal Space,
“Avoidance of an Act Which Would Violate Personal Space,” and Requests for Small Favors,” Journal of Applied Social Psy-
Psychonomic Science, 28 (4), 205–206. chology, 18 (4), 315–30.
Bargh, John A., Peter M. Gollwitzer, Annette Lee-Chai, Kimberly Goffman, Erving (1963), “Embarrassment and Social Organiza-
Barndollar, and Roman Trötschel (2001), “The Automated Will: tion,” in Personality and Social Systems, Neil J. Smelser and
Nonconscious Activation and Pursuit of Behavioral Goals,” William T. Smelser, eds. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 1014–27. 541–48.
Social Crowding and Consumer Choice 751

Gray, Jeffrey A. and Neil McNaughton (2000), The Neuropsychol- Lockwood, Penelope, Christian H. Jordan, and Ziva Kunda (2002),
ogy of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Function of the Septo- “Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory
Hippocampal System, 2d ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us,” Journal of Per-
Press. sonality and Social Psychology, 83 (4), 854–64.
Graziano, Michael S.A. and Dylan F. Cooke (2006), “Parieto- Mandel, Naomi and Eric J. Johnson (2002), “When Web Pages
Frontal Interactions, Personal Space, and Defensive Behavior,” Influence Choice: Effects of Visual Primes on Experts and
Neuropsychologia, 44 (6), 845–59. Novices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 235–45.
Griffit, William and Russell Veitch (1971), “Hot and Crowded: Markman, Arthur B. and C. Miguel Brendl (2000), “The Influence
Influences of Population Density and Temperature on Interper- of Goals on Value and Choice,” in Psychology of Learning and
sonal Affective Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 39, Douglas
Psychology, 17 (1), 92–98. L. Medin, ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 97–128.
Gustafsson, Anders, Tobias Otterbring, Joann Peck, and Andrea McDowell, Kenneth V. (1972), “Violations of Personal Space,”
Webb (2013), “A Bump and an Apology: Can Intentional Touch Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 4 (3), 210–17.
Repair Accidental Interpersonal Touch?” working paper, Karl- McNaughton, Neil and Philip J. Corr (2004), “A Two-Dimensional
stad University. Neuropsychology of Defense: Fear/Anxiety and Defensive Dis-
Hall, Edward T. (1966), The Hidden Dimension. New York: tance,” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28 (3),
Anchor Books. 285–305.
Hediger, Heini (1955), Studies of the Psychology and Behavior of Neuberg, Steven L., Douglas T. Kenrick, and Mark Schaller
Captive Animals in Zoos and Circuses. Oxford, UK: Criterion (2011), “Human Threat Management Systems: Self-Protection
Books. and Disease Avoidance,” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Higgins, E. Tory (2000), “Making a Good Decision: Value from Reviews, 35 (4), 1042–51.
Fit,” American Psychologist, 55 (11), 1217–30. Oaten, Megan, Richard J. Stevenson, and Trevor I. Case (2009),
———, Christopher J.R. Roney, Ellen Crowe, and Charles Hymes “Disgust as a Disease-Avoidance Mechanism,” Psychological
(1994), “Ideal Versus Ought Predilections for Approach and Bulletin, 135 (2), 303–321.
Avoidance Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems,” Journal of Per- Oldham, Greg R. and Yitzhak Fried (1987), “Employee Reactions
sonality and Social Psychology, 66 (2), 276–86. to Workspace Characteristics,” Journal of Applied Psychology,
Hogg, Michael A. and Dominic Abrams (1988), Social Identifica- 72 (1), 75–80.
Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2004), “SPSS and
tions: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group
SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Medi-
Processes. Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances, Routledge.
ation Models,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Hui, Michael K. and John E. Bateson (1991), “Perceived Control and
Computers, 36 (4), 717–31.
the Effects of Crowding and Consumer Choice on the Service
Schaeffer, Gerald H. and Miles L. Patterson (1980), “Intimacy,
Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (2), 174–84.
Arousal, and Small Group Crowding,” Journal of Personality
Idson, Lorraine Chen, Nira Liberman, and E. Tory Higgins (2000),
and Social Psychology, 38 (2), 283–90.
“Distinguishing Gains from Nonlosses and Losses from Non-
Schultz-Gambard, Jürgen (1977), “Social Determinants of Crowd-
gains: A Regulatory Focus Perspective on Hedonic Intensity,”
ing,” in Human Consequences of Crowding, Mehmet R.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36 (3), 252–74. Gürkaynak and William A. LeCompte, eds. New York: Plenum
International Council of Shopping Centers (2006), “Holiday Watch Press, 161–67.
Media Guide: 2006 Holiday Facts and Figures,” (accessed Sengupta, Jaideep and Rongrong Zhou (2007), “Understanding
August 15, 2013), [available at http://holiday.icsc.org/2006/ Impulsive Eaters’ Choice Behaviors: The Motivational Influ-
hw06_fullguide.pdf]. ences of Regulatory Focus,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44
Kennedy, Daniel P., Jan Gläscher, J. Michael Tyszka, and Ralph (May), 297–308.
Adolphs (2009), “Personal Space Regulation by the Human Shah, James Y., Paige C. Brazy, and E. Tory Higgins (2004), “Pro-
Amygdala,” Nature Neuroscience, 12 (10), 1226–27. moting Us or Preventing Them: Regulatory Focus and Manifes-
Lang, Peter J., Margaret M. Bradley, and Bruce N. Cuthbert tations of Intergroup Bias,” Personality and Social Psychology
(1997), “Motivated Attention: Affect, Activation, and Action,” Bulletin, 30 (4), 433–46.
in Attention and Orienting: Sensory and Motivational Pro- Shiv, Baba, George Loewenstein, Antoine Bechara, Hanna Dama-
cesses, Peter J. Lang, Robert F. Simons, and Marie Balaban, eds. sio, and Antonio R. Damasio (2005), “Investment Behavior and
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 97–135. the Negative Side of Emotion,” Psychological Science, 16 (6),
LeDoux, Joseph E. (1990), “Fear Pathways in the Brain: Implica- 435–39.
tions for a Theory of the Emotional Brain,” in Fear and Sommer, Robert and Franklin D. Becker (1969), “Territorial
Defense, Paul F. Brain, Stefano Parmigiani, Robert Blanchard, Defense and the Good Neighbor,” Journal of Personality and
and Danillo Mainardi, eds. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Social Psychology, 11 (2), 85–92.
Publishers, 163–77. Stokols, Daniel (1972), “On the Distinction Between Density and
Lee, Angela Y. and Jennifer L. Aaker (2004), “Bringing the Frame Crowding: Some Implications for Future Research,” Psycho-
into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Flu- logical Review, 79 (3), 275–77.
ency and Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Tajfel, Henri, M.G. Billig, R.P. Bundy, and Claude Flament
chology, 86 (2), 205–218. (1971), “Social Categorization and Intergroup Behavior,” Euro-
Levav, Jonathan and Jennifer J. Argo (2010), “Physical Contact pean Journal of Social Psychology, 1 (2), 149–78.
and Financial Risk Taking,” Psychological Science, 21 (6), Tanner, Robin J., Rosellina Ferraro, Tanya L. Chartrand, James R.
804–810. Bettman, and Rick Van Baaren (2008), “Of Chameleons and
——— and Rui (Juliet) Zhu (2009), “Seeking Freedom Through Consumption: The Impact of Mimicry on Choice and Prefer-
Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (4), 600–610. ences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 754–66.
Levine, John M., E. Tory Higgins, and Hoon-Seok Choi (2000), ——— and Ahreum Maeng (2012), “A Tiger and a President:
“Development of Strategic Norms in Groups,” Organizational Imperceptible Celebrity Facial Cues Influence Trust and Prefer-
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (1), 88–101. ence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 769–83.
752 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, DECEMBER 2013

Turner, John C., Rupert J. Brown, and Henri Tajfel (1979), “Social Xu, Jing, Hao Shen, and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2012), “Does the Dis-
Comparison and Group Interest in Ingroup Favouritism,” Euro- tance Between Us Matter? Influences of Physical Proximity to
pean Journal of Social Psychology, 9 (2), 187–204. Others on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, 22 (3), 418–23.
Worchel, Stephen and Charles Teddlie (1976), “The Experience of Yartz, Andrew R. and Larry W. Hawk (2002), “Addressing the
Crowding: A Two-Factor Theory,” Journal of Personality and Specificity of Affective Startle Modulation: Fear Versus Dis-
Social Psychology, 34 (1), 30–40. gust,” Biological Psychology, 59 (1), 55–68.
 Conservative When Crowded: Social Crowding and Consumer Choice

Ahreum Maeng, Robin J. Tanner, and Dilip Soman

WEB APPENDIX A

PILOT TEST

Manipulation Check

Group Statistics
crowding N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
uncrowded 16 .1875 .40311 .10078
anxiety
crowded 18 .8889 .75840 .17876

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
 t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances -3.304 32 .002 -.70139 .21229 -1.13380 -.26898
assumed
anxiety
Equal variances -3.418 26.491 .002 -.70139 .20521 -1.12282 -.27996
not assumed
Mean Regulatory Focus Scores by Conditions

Group Statistics
crowding N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
uncrowded 16 29.2500 3.23522 .80881
promotion
crowded 18 27.2222 4.60889 1.08632
uncrowded 16 34.6875 3.60959 .90240
prevention
crowded 18 42.2778 3.95274 .93167

Net-prevention Score

Group Statistics
crowding N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
uncrowded 16 5.4375 5.57337 1.39334
Net-prevention
crowded 18 15.0556 5.72376 1.34910

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances -4.951 32 .000 -9.61806 1.94259 -13.57498 -5.66113
Net-prevention
assumed
Equal variances -4.959 31.714 .000 -9.61806 1.93946 -13.56999 -5.66612
not assumed
STUDY 1

Manipulation Check

Descriptives
Feeling crowded
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
crowded 30 4.8667 1.65536 .30223 4.2485 5.4848 1.00 7.00
uncrowded 43 2.9535 1.49529 .22803 2.4933 3.4137 1.00 7.00
Total 73 3.7397 1.81833 .21282 3.3155 4.1640 1.00 7.00

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances 5.147 71 .000 1.91318 .37173 1.17197 2.65439
Feeling assumed
crowded Equal variances 5.053 58.357 .000 1.91318 .37860 1.15543 2.67093
not assumed
Number of Safety-related-words Identified

Descriptives
safetyW
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
crowded 30 5.8667 1.81437 .33126 5.1892 6.5442 3.00 8.00
uncrowded 43 3.7674 1.57113 .23959 3.2839 4.2510 2.00 8.00
Total 73 4.6301 1.96148 .22957 4.1725 5.0878 2.00 8.00

ANOVA
safetyW
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 77.873 1 77.873 27.764 .000
Within Groups 199.141 71 2.805

Total 277.014 72

Number of Other words Identified

Descriptives
otherW
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
crowded 30 3.7000 1.41787 .25887 3.1706 4.2294 2.00 7.00
uncrowded 43 4.1628 1.54196 .23515 3.6882 4.6373 2.00 8.00
Total 73 3.9726 1.49975 .17553 3.6227 4.3225 2.00 8.00

ANOVA
otherW
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 3.785 1 3.785 1.699 .197
Within Groups 158.160 71 2.228

Total 161.945 72

Preferences for Safety-related Products

Descriptives
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimu Maxim
Mean m um
Lower Bound Upper Bound
crowded 30 4.5333 1.83328 .33471 3.8488 5.2179 1.00 7.00
Pharma
uncrowded 43 3.6279 1.21544 .18535 3.2538 4.0020 2.00 6.00
cy
Total 73 4.0000 1.55456 .18195 3.6373 4.3627 1.00 7.00
crowded 30 4.8333 1.78274 .32548 4.1676 5.4990 1.00 7.00
First-aid
uncrowded 43 3.5116 1.46989 .22416 3.0593 3.9640 1.00 7.00
 Total 73 4.0548 1.72313 .20168 3.6528 4.4568 1.00 7.00

ANOVA
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 14.487 1 14.487 6.448 .013
Pharma Within Groups 159.513 71 2.247
cy
Total 174.000 72

Between Groups 30.870 1 30.870 11.983 .001

182.911 71 2.576
First-aid Within Groups
Total 213.781 72
STUDY 2

Preferences for Safety-oriented Options

Descriptives
N Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Deviation Mean
Lower Upper Bound
Bound
crowd 25 4.5600 1.44568 .28914 3.9633 5.1567 2.00 7.00
sparse 25 3.4000 1.25831 .25166 2.8806 3.9194 1.00 6.00
Pharmacy nopic 25 3.6400 1.18603 .23721 3.1504 4.1296 2.00 7.00
clutter 25 3.4400 1.41657 .28331 2.8553 4.0247 1.00 6.00
Total 100 3.7600 1.39349 .13935 3.4835 4.0365 1.00 7.00
crowd 25 4.9200 1.52534 .30507 4.2904 5.5496 1.00 7.00
sparse 25 3.4400 1.47422 .29484 2.8315 4.0485 1.00 7.00
First-aid nopic 25 3.5200 1.08474 .21695 3.0722 3.9678 1.00 5.00
clutter 25 3.5600 1.50222 .30044 2.9399 4.1801 1.00 6.00
Total 100 3.8600 1.51771 .15177 3.5589 4.1611 1.00 7.00

ANOVA
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between (Combined) 22.160 3 7.387 4.169 .008
Pharmacy
Groups Linear Term Contrast 12.168 1 12.168 6.868 .010
 Deviation 9.992 2 4.996 2.820 .065
Within Groups 170.080 96 1.772

Total 192.240 99

(Combined) 37.640 3 12.547 6.326 .001

Between
Contrast 20.000 1 20.000 10.084 .002
Groups Linear Term
Deviation 17.640 2 8.820 4.447 .014
First-aid
Within Groups 190.400 96 1.983

Total 228.040 99

Contrast Coefficients
Contrast conditions
crowd sparse nopic clutter
1 3 -1 -1 -1
2 -1 3 -1 -1
3 -1 -1 3 -1
4 -1 -1 -1 3

Contrast Tests
Contrast Value of Std. Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Contrast
pharmacy Assume equal variances 1 3.2000 .92217 3.470 96 .001
 2 -1.4400 .92217 -1.562 96 .122
3 -.4800 .92217 -.521 96 .604
4 -1.2800 .92217 -1.388 96 .168
1 3.2000 .97584 3.279 37.541 .002
Does not assume equal 2 -1.4400 .88889 -1.620 43.876 .112
variances 3 -.4800 .85650 -.560 47.159 .578
4 -1.2800 .96208 -1.330 38.359 .191
1 4.2400 .97570 4.346 96 .000
2 -1.6800 .97570 -1.722 96 .088
Assume equal variances
3 -1.3600 .97570 -1.394 96 .167
4 -1.2000 .97570 -1.230 96 .222
First-aid
1 4.2400 1.03047 4.115 37.612 .000
Does not assume equal 2 -1.6800 1.00638 -1.669 39.004 .103
variances 3 -1.3600 .83299 -1.633 56.696 .108
4 -1.2000 1.01954 -1.177 38.223 .246

Mean Regulatory Scores by Conditions

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: promotion
condition Mean Std. N
Deviation
crowded 28.8800 3.16649 25
messyroom 28.6400 4.13199 25
NoPhoto 29.5600 7.74102 25
uncrowded 28.5600 6.55795 25
Total 28.9100 5.62838 100
 Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: prevention
condition Mean Std. N
Deviation
crowded 38.8000 4.83046 25
messyroom 28.5600 3.22852 25
NoPhoto 28.4400 6.04897 25
uncrowded 27.5200 6.44929 25
Total 30.8300 6.97768 100
Net-Prevention Score (Prevention-Promotion)
Descriptives
Net-prevention Score
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
crowd 25 9.9200 6.23779 1.24756 7.3452 12.4948 -4.00 21.00
sparse 25 -1.0400 9.28475 1.85695 -4.8726 2.7926 -23.00 27.00
nopic 25 -1.1200 11.38830 2.27766 -5.8209 3.5809 -42.00 14.00
clutter 25 -.0800 5.61189 1.12238 -2.3965 2.2365 -8.00 14.00
Total 100 1.9200 9.54593 .95459 .0259 3.8141 -42.00 27.00

ANOVA
Net-prevention score
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
(Combined) 2150.080 3 716.693 10.013 .000
Between Groups Contrast 1131.008 1 1131.008 15.802 .000
Linear Term
Deviation 1019.072 2 509.536 7.119 .001
Within Groups 6871.280 96 71.576

Total 9021.360 99

Contrast Coefficients
Contrast condi
 crowd sparse nopic clutter
1 3 -1 -1 -1
2 -1 3 -1 -1
3 -1 -1 3 -1
4 -1 -1 -1 3

Contrast Tests
Contrast Value of Std. Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Contrast
1 32.0000 5.86143 5.459 96 .000
2 -11.8400 5.86143 -2.020 96 .046
Assume equal variances
3 -12.1600 5.86143 -2.075 96 .041
Net- 4 -8.0000 5.86143 -1.365 96 .175
prevention 1 32.0000 4.88910 6.545 57.957 .000
Does not assume equal 2 -11.8400 6.24806 -1.895 36.794 .066
variances 3 -12.1600 7.27695 -1.671 30.649 .105
4 -8.0000 4.64004 -1.724 65.531 .089
Mediation Analyses: Bootstrap Mediator

Store preference.

MODEL RESULTS

Two-Tailed

Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value

PRE ON

CONDI -5.520 1.306 -4.227 0.000

PHAR ON

PRE 0.041 0.016 2.589 0.010

CONDI -0.235 0.216 -1.088 0.277

TOTAL INDIRECT, SPECIFIC INDIRECT EFFECTS

Two-Tailed
 Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value

Effects from CONDI to PHAR

Sum of indirect -0.225 0.096 -2.336 0.019

Specific indirect

PHAR

PRE

CONDI -0.225 0.096 -2.336 0.019

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS OF MODEL RESULTS

Lower .5% Lower 2.5% Estimate Upper 2.5% Upper .5%

PRE ON

CONDI -9.447 -8.435 -5.520 -3.257 -2.647

PHAR ON
PRE 0.000 0.010 0.041 0.073 0.087

CONDI -0.782 -0.641 -0.235 0.212 0.334

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS OF TOTAL, TOTAL INDIRECT, SPECIFIC INDIRECT, AND DIRECT EFFECTS

Lower .5% Lower 2.5% Estimate Upper 2.5% Upper .5%

Effects from CONDI to PHAR

Sum of indirect -0.509 -0.436 -0.225 -0.055 -0.003

Specific indirect

PHAR

PRE

CONDI -0.509 -0.436 -0.225 -0.055 -0.003

Product preference.

MODEL RESULTS

Two-Tailed

Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value

PRE ON

CONDI -5.520 1.306 -4.227 0.000

AID ON

PRE 0.054 0.016 3.364 0.001

CONDI -0.403 0.193 -2.092 0.036

TOTAL INDIRECT, SPECIFIC INDIRECT EFFECTS

Two-Tailed

Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-Value

Effects from CONDI to AID

Sum of indirect -0.297 0.114 -2.598 0.009

Specific indirect

AID

PRE

CONDI
-0.297 0.114 -2.598 0.009

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS OF MODEL RESULTS

Lower .5% Lower 2.5% Estimate Upper 2.5% Upper .5%

PRE ON

CONDI -9.447 -8.435 -5.520 -3.257 -2.647

AID ON

PRE 0.001 0.016 0.054 0.081 0.089

CONDI -0.887 -0.767 -0.403 -0.001 0.133

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS OF TOTAL, TOTAL INDIRECT, SPECIFIC INDIRECT, AND DIRECT EFFECTS

Lower .5% Lower 2.5% Estimate Upper 2.5% Upper .5%

Effects from CONDI to AID

Sum of indirect -0.649 -0.538 -0.297 -0.083 -0.022

Specific indirect

AID

PRE -0.649 -0.538 -0.297 -0.083 -0.022

CONDI
STUDY 3

Prior-Cleaned Data

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: store_choice
in_out crowded Mean Std. N
Deviation
uncrowded 4.68 2.305 80
outgroup crowded 5.26 1.998 80
Total 4.97 2.170 160
uncrowded 4.79 2.326 80
ingroup crowded 4.43 2.353 80
Total 4.61 2.339 160 Descriptives
uncrowded 4.73 2.309 160 store_choice
Total crowded 4.84 2.216 160 N Mean Std. Deviation
Total 4.79 2.260 320
Control 80 4.63 2.089

A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e -- Design 1

Tests of Significance for store_choice using UNIQUE sums of squares

 Source of Variation SS DF MS F Sig of F

WITHIN CELLS 1599.98 316 5.06

in_out 10.51 1 10.51 2.08 .151

crowded 1.01 1 1.01 .20 .655

in_out BY crowded 18.05 1 18.05 3.56 .060

(Model) 29.58 3 9.86 1.95 .122

(Total) 1629.55 319 5.11

A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e -- Design 2

Tests of Significance for store_choice using UNIQUE sums of squares

 Source of Variation SS DF MS F Sig of F

WITHIN CELLS 1599.98 316 5.06

IN_OUT WITHIN CROWDE 28.06 1 28.06 5.54 .019

D(1)

IN_OUT WITHIN CROWDE .51 1 .51 .10 .752

D(2)

In-group crowds vs. out-group crowds vs. control.

Descriptives
store_choice
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
in-group 80 4.4250 2.35342 .26312 3.9013 4.9487 1.00 7.00
out-group 80 5.2625 1.99838 .22343 4.8178 5.7072 1.00 7.00
control 80 4.6250 2.08900 .23356 4.1601 5.0899 1.00 7.00
Total 240 4.7708 2.17286 .14026 4.4945 5.0471 1.00 7.00

ANOVA
store_choice
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
(Combined) 30.608 2 15.304 3.304 .038
Between Groups Contrast 1.600 1 1.600 .345 .557
Linear Term
Deviation 29.008 1 29.008 6.263 .013
Within Groups 1097.788 237 4.632

Total 1128.396 239

Contrast Coefficients
Contrast condi
in-group out-group control
1 1 0 -1
2 0 1 -1

Contrast Tests
 Contrast Value of Std. Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Contrast
1 -.2000 .34029 -.588 237 .557
Assume equal variances
2 .6375 .34029 1.873 237 .062
store_choice
Does not assume equal 1 -.2000 .35183 -.568 155.808 .571
variances 2 .6375 .32322 1.972 157.690 .050

In-group sparse vs. out-group sparse vs. control.

Descriptives
store_choice
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
in-group 80 4.7875 2.32593 .26005 4.2699 5.3051 1.00 7.00
out-group 80 4.6750 2.30451 .25765 4.1622 5.1878 1.00 7.00
control 80 4.6250 2.08900 .23356 4.1601 5.0899 1.00 7.00
Total 240 4.6958 2.23400 .14420 4.4118 4.9799 1.00 7.00

ANOVA
store_choice
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
(Combined) 1.108 2 .554 .110 .896
Between Groups
Linear Term Contrast 1.056 1 1.056 .210 .647
 Deviation .052 1 .052 .010 .919
Within Groups 1191.688 237 5.028

Total 1192.796 239

Contrast Coefficients
Contrast condi
in-group out-group control
1 1 0 -1
2 0 1 -1

Contrast Tests
Contrast Value of Std. Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Contrast
1 .1625 .35455 .458 237 .647
Assume equal variances
2 .0500 .35455 .141 237 .888
store_choice
Does not assume equal 1 .1625 .34953 .465 156.211 .643
variances 2 .0500 .34776 .144 156.501 .886
Cleaned Data

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: store_choice
in_out crowded Mean Std. N
Deviation
crowded 4.47 2.354 77
ingroup uncrowded 4.84 2.323 74
Total 4.65 2.339 151
crowded 5.26 2.035 76
outgroup uncrowded 4.61 2.318 77
Total 4.93 2.200 153 Descriptives
crowded 4.86 2.230 153 store_choice
Total uncrowded 4.72 2.316 151 N Mean Std. Deviation
Total 4.79 2.270 304
Control 80 4.63 2.089

A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e -- Design 1

Tests of Significance for store_choice using UNIQUE sums of squares

Source of Variation SS DF MS F Sig of F

 WITHIN CELLS 1534.27 300 5.11

in_out 6.13 1 6.13 1.20 .274

crowded 1.52 1 1.52 .30 .587

in_out BY crowded 19.88 1 19.88 3.89 .050

(Model) 27.67 3 9.22 1.80 .147

(Total) 1561.94 303 5.15

A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e -- Design 2

Tests of Significance for store_choice using UNIQUE sums of squares

Source of Variation SS DF MS F Sig of F

 WITHIN CELLS 1534.27 300 5.11

IN_OUT WITHIN CROWDED(1) 24.16 1 24.16 4.72 .031

IN_OUT WITHIN CROWDED(2) 2.00 1 2.00 .39 .532

In-group crowds vs. out-group crowds vs. control.

Descriptives
store_choice
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
in_crowd 77 4.4675 2.35408 .26827 3.9332 5.0018 1.00 7.00
out_crowd 76 5.2632 2.03547 .23348 4.7980 5.7283 1.00 7.00
control 76 4.6316 2.07745 .23830 4.1569 5.1063 1.00 7.00
Total 229 4.7860 2.17896 .14399 4.5023 5.0697 1.00 7.00
 ANOVA
store_choice
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
(Combined) 26.925 2 13.463 2.882 .058
Unweighted 1.029 1 1.029 .220 .639
Between Groups
Linear Term Weighted 1.069 1 1.069 .229 .633
Deviation 25.857 1 25.857 5.536 .019
Within Groups 1055.590 226 4.671

Total 1082.515 228

Contrast Coefficients
Contrast condi
in_crowd out_crowd control
1 1 0 -1
2 0 1 -1

Contrast Tests
Contrast Value of Std. Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Contrast
1 -.1640 .34945 -.469 226 .639
Assume equal variances
2 .6316 .35059 1.801 226 .073
store_choice
Does not assume equal 1 -.1640 .35883 -.457 149.152 .648
variances 2 .6316 .33362 1.893 149.938 .060
In-group sparse vs. out-group sparse vs. control.
Descriptives
store_choice
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
in_sparse 74 4.8378 2.32336 .27009 4.2996 5.3761 1.00 7.00
out_sparse 77 4.6104 2.31787 .26415 4.0843 5.1365 1.00 7.00
control 76 4.6316 2.07745 .23830 4.1569 5.1063 1.00 7.00
Total 227 4.6916 2.23450 .14831 4.3994 4.9839 1.00 7.00

ANOVA
store_choice
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
(Combined) 2.364 2 1.182 .235 .791
Unweighted 1.595 1 1.595 .317 .574
Between Groups
Linear Term Weighted 1.578 1 1.578 .314 .576
Deviation .786 1 .786 .156 .693
Within Groups 1126.050 224 5.027

Total 1128.414 226

Contrast Coefficients
Contrast condi
in_sparse out_sparse control
1 1 0 -1
2 0 1 -1

Contrast Tests
Contrast Value of Std. Error t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Contrast
1 .2063 .36617 .563 224 .574
Assume equal variances
2 -.0212 .36253 -.058 224 .953
store_choice
Does not assume equal 1 .2063 .36018 .573 145.231 .568
variances 2 -.0212 .35575 -.060 149.621 .953
STUDY 4

Average Message Evaluation by Conditions

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: avg. eval
crowding framing Mean Std. Deviation N
prom 4.3736 1.30091 53
uncrowded prev 4.3961 1.20166 51
Total 4.3846 1.24719 104
prom 4.2727 1.07866 55
crowded prev 4.9815 1.29747 54
Total 4.6239 1.23879 109
prom 4.3222 1.18837 108
Total prev 4.6971 1.28006 105
Total 4.5070 1.24575 213

A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e -- Design 1

Tests of Significance for avg using UNIQUE sums of squares

Source of Variation SS DF MS F Sig of F

 WITHIN CELLS 312.25 209 1.49

crowding 3.12 1 3.12 2.09 .150

framing 7.11 1 7.11 4.76 .030

crowding BY framing 6.26 1 6.26 4.19 .042

(Model) 16.75 3 5.58 3.74 .012

(Total) 329.00 212 1.55

A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e -- Design 2

Source of Variation SS DF MS F Sig of F

WITHIN CELLS 312.25 209 1.49

FRAMING WITHIN CROWD 13.60 1 13.60 9.11 .003

ING(1)
 FRAMING WITHIN CROWD .02 1 .02 .01 .910

ING(2)

Logistic Regression: Behavioral Choice

Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)

(Intercept) -1.2287 0.3282 -3.744 0.000181 ***

crowd -0.4028 0.4905 -0.821 0.411571

frame 0.2568 0.4541 0.566 0.571691

crowd:frame 1.5230 0.6430 2.368 0.017863 *

Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Wald test

Crowd X2 = 0.67, df = 1, P(> X2) = 0.41

Frame X2 = 0.32, df = 1, P(> X2) = 0.57

Crowd:frame X2 = 5.6, df = 1, P(> X2) = 0.018

STUDY 5

Number of Decisions Not to Invest

Group Statistics
crowding N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
crowding 28 3.5714 3.29341 .62240
num_keep
empty 28 1.9643 2.11664 .40001

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of
tailed) Difference Difference the Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances -2.172 54 .034 -1.60714 .73985 -3.09046 -.12383
assumed
num_keep
Equal variances -2.172 46.054 .035 -1.60714 .73985 -3.09634 -.11794
not assumed

Decision to Investment After Lost

Descriptive Statistics
 N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Percentiles
25th 50th (Median) 75th
crowding 28 4.2857 1.62975 1.00 7.00 3.0000 4.0000 6.0000
uncrowding 28 3.1071 1.87260 .00 6.00 2.0000 3.5000 4.0000

Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Ranks
N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Negative Ranks 18a 15.33 276.00

Positive Ranks 9b 11.33 102.00
uncrowding - crowding Ties 1c

Total 28

a. uncrowding < crowding

b. uncrowding > crowding
c. uncrowding = crowding

Test Statisticsa
uncrowding -
crowding
Z -2.109b
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .035
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on positive ranks.

Decision to Invest After Won

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Percentiles
25th 50th (Median) 75th
crowding 28 3.0714 .97861 1.00 5.00 3.0000 3.0000 4.0000
uncrowding 28 2.5714 1.52579 .00 5.00 1.2500 3.0000 3.7500

Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Ranks
N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Negative Ranks 12a 9.67 116.00

Positive Ranks 6b 9.17 55.00
uncrowding - crowding Ties 10c

Total 28

a. uncrowding < crowding

b. uncrowding > crowding
c. uncrowding = crowding

Test Statisticsa
uncrowding -
crowding
Z -1.348b
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .178
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on positive ranks.

Percentages of Decisions to Invest as a Function of Decision and Outcome in the Previous Round

Invested and Invested and Invested

Previous Rounds Did not invest
lost won overall

Crowding 28% 47% 97% 81%

Uncrowding 41% 75% 95% 84%

 WEB APPENDIX B

PILOT TEST

Crowding Manipulation

This is a study about how consumers perceive photographs.

Please spend a few moments looking at the image below and consider how you would feel to be

in the scene.

[one of the following pictures was presented]

Please briefly describe how you would feel if you were in this scene.
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
Concerns in Daily Life

What is most important to you? Please read the following statements and rate the extent to which

each of these issues is important to you at this very moment. There are no right or wrong

answers, only your personal feelings and opinions matter. Please circle the number that best

reflects how important each issue is to you right now. A bigger number indicates higher

importance and a smaller number indicates lower importance to you.

Totally Extremely

Unimportant Important

1. Doing well in work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. Not making enemies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. Being smart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. Being more active in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

politics

5. Paying attention to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 my family’s needs

6. Avoiding getting fat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. Enduring personal safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

at night

8. Stay healthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. Working harder 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. Avoiding unsafe sexual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

practices

11. Not looking unfashionable1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. Drinking in moderation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. Making new friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. Making specific plans for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

the weekend
STUDY 1

Words Grid

Please complete a word search task to clear your mind in preparation for the experiment. Please

try to identify as many words as possible in 3 minutes and write down the words that you

identify on the provided sheet.

Vacation Study

Imagine that you are going with friends on a cottage vacation. Your flight has been delayed for

15 minutes and now you have some time before flight. You remembered that you need some first

aid supplies in case you get sick or hurt; however you also would like to pick up some snacks.

You don’t have enough time to visit both, but you can choose to visit either a pharmacy to pick

up first aid supplies or a convenience store for snacks. Which one would you choose to visit?

I would

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________
_________|
Definitely visit Definitely visit
1 2 3 4 5
convenience store 6 7 h

G
Promotion Gift Study

Imagine that you went to a newly opened Canadian Tire in your neighborhood. The store was

running a promotion which gave away a free gift. You can choose one of two gift options

between first aid products or a box of cookies. Which one would you choose?

I would

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|
_________|
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
G
Definitely choose kefinitely choose

ki

G
Manipulation Check

How worried do you currently feel?

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|_
________|_________|_________|
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Not worried Very much worried

How crowded do you feel in this room?

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|_
________|_________|_________|
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Not crowded Very crowded

How clean do you feel this room is?

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|_
________|_________|_________|
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Not clean Very clean
How cramped do you feel in this room?

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|_
________|_________|_________|
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Not cramped Very cramped

How furnished do you think this room is?

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|_
________|_________|_________|
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Not much furnished Very much furnished

How relaxed do you currently feel?

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|_
________|_________|_________|
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Not relaxed Very relaxed
How tense do you currently feel?

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|_
________|_________|_________|
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Not tense Very tens
STUDY 2

Crowding Manipulation

This is a study about how consumers perceive photographs. Please spend a few moments looking

at the image below and consider how you would feel to be in the scene.

[one of the following pictures was presented]

Please briefly describe how you would feel if you were in this scene.
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
Vacation Study

Imagine that you are going with friends on a cottage vacation. Your flight has been delayed for

15 minutes and now you have some time before flight. You remembered that you need some first

aid supplies in case you get sick or hurt; however you also would like to pick up some snacks.

You don’t have enough time to visit both, but you can choose to visit either a pharmacy to pick

up first aid supplies or a convenience store for snacks. Which one would you choose to visit?

I would

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________
_________|
Definitely visit Definitely visit
1 2 3 4 5
convenience store 6 7 h

G
Promotion Gift Study

Imagine that you went to a newly opened Canadian Tire in your neighborhood. The store was

running a promotion which gave away a free gift. You can choose one of two gift options

between first aid products or a box of cookies. Which one would you choose?

I would

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|
_________|
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
G
Definitely choose kefinitely choose

ki

G
Concerns in Daily Life

What is most important to you? Please read the following statements and rate the extent to which

each of these issues is important to you at this very moment. There are no right or wrong

answers, only your personal feelings and opinions matter. Please circle the number that best

reflects how important each issue is to you right now. A bigger number indicates higher

importance and a smaller number indicates lower importance to you.

Totally Extremely

Unimportant Important

1. Doing well in work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. Not making enemies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. Being smart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. Being more active in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

politics

5. Paying attention to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 my family’s needs

6. Avoiding getting fat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. Enduring personal safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

at night

8. Stay healthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. Working harder 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. Avoiding unsafe sexual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

practices

11. Not looking unfashionable1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. Drinking in moderation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. Making new friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. Making specific plans for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

the weekend
STUDY 3

Welcome.

This task consists of a couple of brief unrelated mini-surveys being conducted by different

researchers at several universities. Please follow the instructions provided carefully, the whole

thing should take you about 15 minutes to complete.

To start, please click to go to the next page.

G
Survey Check

To ensure that the survey is functioning properly, please select "price" from the options below.

• Memory͒

• Processor Speed͒

• Price͒

G
Dot-Estimation Task

This study concerns determination of your group classification based on a particular type of

cognitive style that relates to how visual imagery is processed. According to Hoffman and

Routledge (2004), people can be reliably divided into two cognitive categories: dot-over-

estimators and dot-under-estimators.

Following a series of studies, Hoffman and Routledge (2004) concluded that these two groups

are distinguished by several differences. For example, variation between the groups on the

dimensions of analytical problem solving ability, degree of cognitive bias, literacy, mathematical

ability, and social competence, have all been identified.

In this study you will complete a dot-estimation task, which we will use to determine your group

classification. You will be shown a series of pictures of dots and be asked to estimate the

approximate number of dots in each one. Please provide your initial, immediate guess which will

be used to determine your classification: dot-under-estimator and dot-over-estimator.

Such groups differ in cognitive style, and we are interested in the effects of this form of

classification for new psychological characteristics. Specifically, we are interested in your

perceptions of others in terms of similarity and differences.

Please begin the Dot Estimation Task.

G
You will be presented with a series of pictures containing dots. Your task is to estimate the

number of dots in the picture. We want you to give your best, instinctual guess. There will be ten

pictures presented and each picture will be shown for ½ second.

First, on the next page is a practice task to get you used to the format. Please make a quick

estimation of the number of dots in the picture. You will only see the dot image for 1/2 second.

How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

––––––––––––––––––––––
G
Ok, that was the practice, now you will complete a series of actual dot estimation tasks.

Remember, you will only see each image for half a second.

How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________
How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________
How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________
How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________
How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________
How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________
How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________
How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________

G
How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________
How many dots would you estimate were in this picture?

_______________
You have just completed the dot-estimation Task. Your classification is now ready.

Please continue to receive your classification.

Your classification is: “DOT UNDER-ESTIMATOR”

Your responses indicate that you are part of the dot-under-estimator group. The test you just took

examines individuals’ differences in cognitive style.

Please correctly identify your group from the list below.

o ball-under-estimator
o dot-over-estimator
o ball-over-estimator
o dot-under-estimator

G
In-Group Crowding Manipulation

In this next part of the study, we are interested in your perceptions of other people in terms of

similarity and differences. Below you will find a picture of a group of people. This is a picture of

dot under-estimators (i.e., the same group as you) taken when Drs. Hoffman and Routledge, the

inventors of the two different cognitive styles, invited dot-under-estimators to their annual

convention.

Please describe three ways in which you think you might be similar to the dot-under-estimators

in the picture.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Now, please carefully look again at the picture of your group above and then imagine that you

are present in the scene. Visualize the scenario in as much detail as possible.

Please briefly describe how you would feel.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

You have now completed the dot-estimation study. On the next page, you will be presented with

two unrelated product choice tasks.

To begin the next study, please continue.

Out-Group Crowding Manipulation

In this next part of the study, we are interested in your perceptions of other people in terms of

similarity and differences. Below you will find a picture of a group of people. This is a picture of

the dot over-estimators (i.e., the other group from you, not your group) taken when Drs. Hoffman

and Routledge, the inventors of the two different cognitive styles, invited dot-over-estimators to

their annual convention.

Please describe three ways that you might be different from those dot-over-estimators in the

picture.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Now, please carefully look again at the picture of the other group above and then imagine that

you are present in the scene. Visualize the scenario in as much detail as possible.

Please briefly describe how you would feel.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

You have now completed the dot-estimation study. On the next page, you will be presented two

unrelated product choice tasks.

To begin the next study, please continue.

In-Group Sparse Manipulation

In this next part of the study, we are interested in your perceptions of other people in terms of

similarity and differences. Below you will find a picture of a group of people. This is a picture of

dot under-estimators (i.e., the same group as you) taken when Drs. Hoffman and Routledge, the

inventors of the two different cognitive styles, invited dot-under-estimators to their annual

convention.

Please describe three ways in which you think you might be similar to the dot-under-estimators

in the picture.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Now, please carefully look again at the picture of your group above and then imagine that you

are present in the scene. Visualize the scenario in as much detail as possible.

Please briefly describe how you would feel.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

You have now completed the dot-estimation study. On the next page, you will be presented with

two unrelated product choice tasks.

To begin the next study, please continue.

Out-Group Sparse Manipulation

In this next part of the study, we are interested in your perceptions of other people in terms of

similarity and differences. Below you will find a picture of a group of people. This is a picture of

the dot over-estimators (i.e., the other group from you, not your group) taken when Drs. Hoffman

and Routledge, the inventors of the two different cognitive styles, invited dot-over-estimators to

their annual convention.

Please describe three ways that you might be different from those dot-over-estimators in the

picture.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Now, please carefully look again at the picture of the other group above and then imagine that

you are present in the scene. Visualize the scenario in as much detail as possible.

Please briefly describe how you would feel.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

You have now completed the dot-estimation study. On the next page, you will be presented two

unrelated product choice tasks.

To begin the next study, please continue.

Control Condition

Now, please briefly describe how you feel at this moment.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
Vacation Study

Imagine that you are going with friends on a cottage vacation. Your flight has been delayed for

15 minutes and now you have some time before flight. You remembered that you need some first

aid supplies in case you get sick or hurt; however you also would like to pick up some snacks.

You don’t have enough time to visit both, but you can choose to visit either a pharmacy to pick

up first aid supplies or a convenience store for snacks. Which one would you choose to visit?

I would

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________
_________|
Definitely visit Definitely visit
1 2 3 4 5
convenience store 6 7 h

G
Manipulation Check

Earlier in this sequence of studies you completed the dot estimation exercise and were classified

as a dot-under-estimator. Please check one of the following answers to record how you felt about

this classification.

I identify with dot-under-estimators a lot more than I do dot-over-estimators

I identify with dot-under-estimators somewhat more than I do dot-over-estimators

I identify with dot-under-estimators a little more than I do dot-over-estimators

I identify with dot-under-estimators and dot-over-estimators to about the same degree

I identify with dot-under-estimators a little less than I do dot-over-estimators

I identify with dot-under-estimators somewhat less than I do dot-over-estimators

I identify with dot-under-estimators a lot less than I do dot-over-estimators

Attention Check

Recent research on decision-making shows that choices are affected by context. Differences in

how people feel, their previous knowledge and experience, and their environment can affect

choices. To help us understand how people make decisions, we are interested in information

about you. Specifically, we are interested in whether you actually take the time to read the

directions; if not, some results may not tell us very much about decision making in the real

world. To show that you have read the instructions, please ignore the question below about how

you are feeling and instead check only the "none of the above" option as your answer. Thank

you very much.

Please check all words that describe how you are currently feeling.

Interested Hostile Nervous

Distressed Enthusiastic Determined

Excited Proud Attentive

Upset Irritable Jittery

Strong Alert Active

Guilty Ashamed Afraid

Scared Inspired None of the above

STUDY 4

Part I

[The photograph below shows the manner in which the room was set up for the first part of the

study]
Survey used in the part I.

SNACKS AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR

Welcome to today’s study. Your participant number today is _______

Before you proceed, please note that you will be asked to sample four out of six snacks available

today. The snacks available are

1) Chips

2) Cookies

3) Popcorn

4) Dried Mango

5) Fruit (Berries)

6) Caramels

All of these snacks have been purchased from a major grocery store earlier today. They have

been stored with appropriate attention to hygiene and safety. None of the snacks have

approached their expiration date.

If you are allergic to any of these snacks please DO NOT sample them.

Please list below all/ as many snacks that you are NOT ALLERGIC to and that you have NO

CONCERNS in sampling:
 Snack 1: ___________________________________

Snack 2: ___________________________________

Snack 3: ___________________________________

Snack 4: ___________________________________

Snack 5: ___________________________________

Snack 6: ___________________________________

The study will proceed as follows:

Step 1: Welcome and completion of consent form and this sheet

Step 2: Sampling of snacks (approximately 10 minutes)

Step 3: Return to computer room to a) complete the evaluation of the snacks and b) complete an

online survey and any related activities.

Step 4: Conclusion, debriefing and payment.

Please sign this form to acknowledge that you have read and understood its contents, keep it with

you and return it to the experimenter when you leave the laboratory today.

_____________________________ (signature)
 SNACKS AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR

Thank you for sampling the snacks. Please answer the following questions. There are no right or

wrong answers and we are only interested in your personal opinions.

1) Which snacks did you sample? Please list:

Snack 1: ________________________________

Snack 2: ________________________________

Snack 3: ________________________________

Snack 4: ________________________________

2) If you could purchase any one of these snacks, which one would you purchase?

_________________________

3) Rank order these four snacks in the order of their TASTE

1) ________________________________

2) ________________________________
 3) ________________________________

4) ________________________________

4) Rank order these four snacks in the order of how NUTRITIOUS they are

1) ________________________________

2) ________________________________

3) ________________________________

4) ________________________________

5) Which of these four snacks would be most appropriate for

Serving at a business meeting? ________________________________________

Serving to a casual gathering of friends at home? ________________________

Serving at a student association meeting? _______________________________

Thank you for completing this survey. Please alert for the experimenter so you can start on the

computerized portion of today’s study.

Part II

Thank you for participating in Part I: Food Sampling Experiment.

Welcome to Part II of Snacks and Consumer Behaviour Survey.

Please enter your 3 digit Identification Number below

_______________

There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions—we are simply interested in your

honest opinions.

Please click the arrow below when you are ready to begin.
Crowding Manipulation

This study is about how people perceive photographs. Please spend a few moments looking at

the image below. On the next screen, answer the questions that follow.

[one of the following pictures was presented]

 [one of the following pictures was presented]

In one sentence, describe what you see in this picture.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Please briefly describe how you would feel if you were one of the persons in the picture.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Prevention Condition

This part of the study evaluates health care messages. The message to below was developed by

the association of dental hygiene to educate college students. Please read the following carefully

and provide your honest opinions on the next page.

IMPORTANT: NOTE THAT ONCE YOU PROCEED TO THE QUESTIONS PAGE, YOU

WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THE ARTICLE.

How You Can Prevent Gingivitis

Gingivitis is a serious and very common dental condition, but it is 100 per cent preventable and

easily treated if you have it diagnosed early. So if you begin to notice the signs of gingivitis, then

you need to pay a visit to you dentist for a recommended treatment plan.

The condition is caused by an overgrowth of bacteria inside the mouth that converts into plaque

and leads to bad breath, bleeding gums and often sore or swollen gums. If you leave the

condition for too long, it can cause more serious conditions such as tooth loss, periodontal

disease and even heart disease.

You can easily prevent the condition from occurring by combining good home dental practices

with regular dentist visits. By brushing, flossing and rinsing twice a day at home using the

correct technique and then having a professional clean twice a year at your dentist, the instance

of gingivitis is drastically reduced.

Before you brush, you should floss your teeth and get all the bacteria and food particles that get

trapped between the teeth out. Brushing with then help to get rid of the bacteria on the tooth

surface and get rid of plaque. Using a natural toothpaste that is based on mint oil is the best

choice as it is both effective and gentle on your body. Mint oil is a naturally powerful

antibacterial agent and also has anti-fungal properties. In contrast commercial toothpastes

contain detergents, which can act as allergens for many people.

Mouthwash is another essential part of a good dental routine. It is able to kill bacteria left over in

the mouth, particularly the bacteria that gets stuck around the gum line. Additionally, scraping

your tongue can also get rid of a lot of bacteria that can lead to gingivitis. You can buy tongue

scrapers, or alternatively, use your regular tooth brush.

Protecting your dental health from the onslaught of gingivitis is relatively easy, but the key is

consistency. You have to ensure that you are brushing, flossing and rinsing twice a day to

prevent the build up of harmful bacteria in the mouth. When you visit your dentist you should

discuss how you can best prevent gingivitis and other dental conditions and ask them to show

you how to most effectively brush your teeth as many people do not use the right technique.

If you have read the article carefully, check below and press the arrow to continue. You will

NOT be able to return to this screen.

Yes, I have carefully read the article and would like to proceed.͒
Promotion Condition

This part of the study evaluates health care messages. The message to below was developed by

the association of dental hygiene to educate college students. Please read the following carefully

and provide your honest opinions on the next page.

IMPORTANT: NOTE THAT ONCE YOU PROCEED TO THE QUESTIONS PAGE, YOU

WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THE ARTICLE.

How You Can Get Brighter Smiles

Everyone loves a bright white smile. Fortunately there are a variety of procedures and products

available today that can improve the look of yours. When exploring these options it's wise to

know the difference between "teeth whitening" and "teeth bleaching" and familiarize yourself

with cosmetic dentistry and its terminology. With so many companies offering their magical

teeth whitening treatments, it's easy to feel overwhelmed. To counteract the influx of these

potentially bogus programs, several websites have recently popped up with accurate and easy to

digest information regarding your teeth.

Whitening one's teeth is the process of restoring teeth to their natural color. This is done by

removing the build-up and dirt collected on the tooth's surface. You can achieve these results

with toothpastes that boast a whitening agent. Having your teeth cleaned regularly is an excellent

way to keep your teeth free of debris.

Bleaching one's teeth actually whitens teeth beyond their natural state to produce its desired

result. The use of a bleach-containing agent will draw out the stain and color leaving them clean

and whiter than before. There are two types of bleach used in this process. Hydrogen peroxide is

used by your dentist in a controlled environment and contains a high level of peroxide. Take-

home kits use carbamide peroxide which has a lower percentage of peroxide and is therefore

safer to use on your own.

Over-The-Counter teeth bleaching products can be purchased at your local drugstore for the most

affordable prices. A good choice would be one that uses a tray (as a dentist would) that covers

the teeth and holds the peroxide-based gel in place over your teeth. Other options include strips

and "paintable" teeth whitening gel. Many toothpaste brands incorporate peroxide as a way to

bleach teeth while brushing.

Professional take-home teeth bleaching kits are slightly more expensive but are dentist-approved

and therefore more reliable. They utilize the tray process and are custom fitted for your teeth.

This makes them more effective than over-the-counter brands. Custom molded trays may take

several weeks to receive so plan accordingly. The long and the short of it is that teeth whitening

works. Virtually everyone who opts for this cosmetic treatment will see moderate to substantial

improvement in the brightness and whiteness of their smile. However, teeth whitening is not a

permanent solution and requires maintenance or "touch-ups" for a prolonged effect.

If you have read the article carefully, check below and press the arrow to continue. You will

NOT be able to return to this screen.

Yes, I have carefully read the article and would like to proceed.͒
Message Evaluation

The following questions are related to the message that you just read. Please answer the

questions honestly.

This message is very convincing.

|_________|_________|_________|_________|________
_|_________|
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

This message is very appealing to me.

|_________|_________|_________|_________|________
_|_________|
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

This message speaks to me.

 |_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|
_________|
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

This message said something important to me.

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|_
________|
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Strongly disagree Strongly agree

To what extent are you willing to keep up the good dental routine that has been suggested in the

passage?

|_________|_________|_________|_________|_________|_
________|
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
Not at all Very much
Floss Intention Measure

Since you have first sampled food, we have arranged for floss should you like to floss your teeth.

Would you like to floss your teeth before leaving?

Yes No

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

NOTIFY THE RESEARCH ASSISTANT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS BY RAISING

YOUR HAND.
PART III

[Those who chose to floss their teeth were led to a room pictured below]
STUDY 5

Investment Game

You have been given $10. Treat this money as real as you will be entered into a competition for a

prize based on your results. You will be making ten rounds of investment decisions. In each

round, you must decide between two options: invest $1 or not invest. On each round, if you

decide not to invest, you will keep the dollar. If you decide to invest, your earnings will be

decided by a coin toss. If the outcome of the toss is heads, then you will lose the $1 that was

invested; if the toss is tails, then $2.5 will be added to your account. You will be given ten

opportunities to make this investment decision.

If you do not invest, keep $1

If you invest, H = lose $1 / T = win $2.5

Earnings from this round

Keep $1 Invest $1 H/T (Please write $1 if you

decided not to invest)

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

Round 5
Round 6

Round 7

Round 8

Round 9

Round 10

TOTAL BALANCE:

_____________________________
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) is the property of American Marketing
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.