Construct · 4 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one openness, many names Nearest construct by meaningsusceptibilitycompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to consumer susceptibility to influence is susceptibility.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The standing tendency of a consumer to let other people shape what they buy, which Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel treated as a trait of personality expressed in the marketplace. Their 1989 scale has two parts: a normative part, the willingness to conform to what others expect and to buy what will win their approval, and an informational part, the tendency to accept other people's opinions as trustworthy evidence about products. They drew the split directly from Deutsch and Gerard's two kinds of social influence, and validated the items across student and adult samples. This is the referent the rest of this map is measured against, since every other name here is either its source or one of its later applications. What the scale calls one trait, the wider literature has also called conformity, compliance, persuasibility, and peer influence.[1]
The classic distinction between two reasons a person yields to a group, which Deutsch and Gerard drew in 1955 and which the consumer scale later operationalized. Normative influence is going along with a group to meet its expectations and gain its acceptance; informational influence is treating what other people say or do as evidence about what is real or correct. Using a variant of Asch's line-judgment task, they showed the two operate differently: making judgments anonymous cut the normative pressure but left the informational effect largely intact. This is a general account of conformity, not a consumer trait, and it names a situation and a process rather than a stable difference between people. Bearden and colleagues turned the same two forces into a personality scale, and the separate question of how far a message can move a person under these pressures has its own page under persuasion.[2]
How far a person's buying is swayed by the groups they belong to or admire, studied here across families and peers rather than as a single trait of the buyer. Childers and Rao measured reference-group influence on product and brand decisions and found the two sources do not act alike: family weighed more on goods consumed privately, while peers weighed more on those consumed in public and on luxuries. They built on Bearden and colleagues' work and kept the same underlying idea of susceptibility, but located it in specific relationships and specific kinds of goods. The construct here is the influence a reference group exerts, close to Bearden's trait but tied to whose approval matters and to what is being bought. It is one more label in a cluster that also holds conformity, compliance, and peer influence.[3]
Susceptibility to interpersonal influence carried into adolescence and the shopping trip, where teenagers are especially open to the views of friends. Mangleburg, Doney, and Bristol adapted the normative and informational idea to teens shopping with peers, and found that shopping with friends raised the influence those friends had and, through it, shaped attitudes toward the store. The population is younger and the setting is concrete, but the construct is the same tendency Bearden and colleagues named, measured with items in the same family. Developmental and social-media work has since carried the trait into further settings, from teen peer groups to online recommendation. Calling it peer influence rather than susceptibility to interpersonal influence does not make it a new thing, which is the jangle this map is about.[4]
Next
Combine items across the consumer susceptibility to influence scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct