Social proof and social media: Does using social media make us follow the crowd more?

(1)

Social proof and social media: Does using social media

make us follow the crowd more?

10th January, 2018 Words: 6177

Master Thesis

MSc Marketing Management Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Supervisor: Prof. Dr Bob M. Fennis

(2)

1

ABSTRACT

(3)

2 1. Introduction ... 3 2. Theoretical Framework ... 5 2.1 Social Proof ... 5 2.2 Social Media ... 6 2.3 Conceptual Model... 7 3. Methodology... 8

3.1 Participants and design ... 8

3.2 Procedure ... 8

3.3 Independent variables ... 9

3.3.1 Level of use of Social Media ... 9

3.3.2 Social Proof ... 10

3.4 Dependent variable - Persuasion ... 10

3.5 Control Variables ... 10

3.5.1 Life History Theory ... 10

3.5.2 Socioeconomic Status ... 10 3.5.3 Dispositional Attitude ... 11 3.5.4 BIS/BAS Scale ... 11 4. Results ... 12 4.1 Willingness to pay ... 12 4.2 Covariates ... 14 4.3 Auxiliary analysis ... 14 4.3.1 Gender Effect ... 14 4.3.2 Age Effect ... 15 5. Discussion ... 17 5.1 Managerial implications ... 18

5.2 Limitations and further research ... 18

5.3 Conclusion ... 19

References ... 20

(4)

3

1. INTRODUCTION

How many times have you been in an unfamiliar situation, and behaved as others did? When looking for a restaurant, we will choose the one that is crowded. We will kiss twice in Spain, three times in the Netherlands, we will bow in Japan. “It seems the right thing to do” -you think, “If everyone else is doing that, it must be the right thing to do”. This is an example of how we tend to look at others when we need to make a decision we are not sure of. We look at the actions of others to determinate how to behave, in other words, we look for social proof.

Robert B. Cialdini published in 1984 his book “Influence: The Psychology of persuasion” naming the six principles of persuasion: Reciprocity, Commitment/Consistency, Authority, Scarcity, Liking and Social Proof. The last one mentioned will be a core part of the present study. The use of these techniques is widely popular among marketers to try to persuade customers into buying their products, as it has been proved that social proof techniques are really effective due to our inner desire to conform. Social proof is a peripheral cue that individuals use as an argument during the process of persuasion, however, the receiver’s perception of certain source variables such as credibility, majority or similarity play a role in the acceptance of the message and consequently, on persuasion. But what happens if our perceptions and attitudes change? Over the last decades, we have become heavily dependent on social media; we are always connected, which have affected our behaviours and attitudes. Facebook users have been found to be more trusting than non-users (Hampton, 2011), but is this higher level of trust affecting the way we perceive marketing techniques? Is social media making society become more susceptible to be persuaded by social proof techniques, because we trust more that source of information? Or this trust just does apply to personal relations and not to marketing techniques?

Therefore, the objective of this research is to answer the following question:

(5)

4 This study aims to test the differential level of persuasion of social proof techniques on individuals with regard to their level of use of social media.

Although there is already extensive research on the effectiveness of social proof techniques in the online context, there is a gap in the literature about the implications that this growing use of social networks (and its consequent change in human behavior) have on the susceptibility of consumers to be persuaded with the use of social proof techniques. The results of this study can have diverse implications in how to effectively persuade consumers in a fast-growing online world, with special attention to the so-called “Millennials”. This term, which refers to the first generation growing up with technology, is a segment that has gain crescent marketing professionals attention, as their unique features regarding, brand loyalty, shopping preferences, among others, have already created many challenges in marketing for their effective communication and engagement.

(6)

5

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1- Social proof

The principle of social proof (Cialdini, 1984) is a phenomenon in which in uncertain situations, people rely on the actions of others to try to determine the appropriate behaviour. This persuasive technique works better in situations of uncertainty and similarity. Also, exerts a more powerful influence when the proof is provided by plenty of people (majority) (Cialdini, 2007). Hence, when we find ourselves into unfamiliar situations in which we do not have a frame of reference, we look at the actions of others, as we assume they are more familiar and therefore, better informed. We tend to assume that when a lot of people are behaving in a certain way, it must be the correct way to behave.

(7)

6 persuasive social proof technique) including the percentage of previous guests who already complied with the request. Their results demonstrated that those who were exposed to the descriptive norm had a higher towel reuse rate in comparison with those that were exposed to an environmental cue. Moreover, a recent study (Sherman et al. 2016) on psychology and social media in adolescents found that the popularity of a photo had a significant effect in the way it was perceived. During their experiment, they exposed thirty-four participants to a number of different pictures. In the social proof condition, pictures were presented as they would on Instagram, with the number of likes underneath them. The results showed that pictures including the social proof cue were rated significantly higher than expected by chance (for popular pictures). Likewise, there was a reverse effect for unpopular pictures, which were rated lower than average in the control condition. This phenomenon is comparable to the canned laughter experiment mentioned by Cialdini in his book “The psychology of persuasion”, in which it was found that canned laughter in the background of a television program caused the audience to laugh longer and rate the material as funnier. Both are powerful examples of people’s inner tendency to conform, highlighting the influence that social proof exerts. These examples lead to the first hypothesis of this research:

H1: Exposure to social proof cues positively affects persuasion

But what makes this technique so effective? Why are we persuaded by the actions of others? The reason behind is related to our motivation to conform. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) introduced this term and distinguished between informational conformity motivations and normative conformity motivations. The first one refers to our desire to behave in a correct way (also known as goal of accuracy), and the second to our motivation to get approval from others and be part of a group (goal of affiliation). In other words, we want to be right and we want to be accepted.

2.2 - Social media

(8)

7 more likely than other internet users and more than three times as likely as non-internet users to feel that most people can be trusted). These findings throw some light in how the use of social media is progressively changing users’ attitudes and behaviours.

A fundamental theory of attitude change and persuasion was elaborated by Petty and Cacioppo (1981), named Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). In their work, they described two different routes which can lead to an attitude change, in other words, to be persuaded: the central route (with a careful scrutiny of the information) and the peripheral route (as a result of the use of a cue in the persuasive context, and not by the strength of arguments and ideas. They specified that, for the process to happen within the central or peripheral route depends on the ability and motivation of the person exposed to the persuasive message. The peripheral route, in which individuals make use of cues or rules of thumbs to be persuaded, is a fundamental part in explaining the effectiveness of social proof techniques.

Furthermore, they elaborated that numerous source variables can play a role in persuasion, such as source credibility, majority, expertise or similarity among others. These source variables, as described before, play an important role in increasing persuasion under low elaboration conditions, as they can serve as peripheral cues (hence, serving as an argument such as “experts are always right”). Thus, source credibility, for instance, will depend on the message receiver’s perception of the (positive or negative) qualities of the communicator. This perception will affect the message acceptance, ultimately affecting persuasion.

Considering the findings of existing literature that social media users have a greater sense of belonging, this can make them see a source as more similar than non-users, hence, increasing the persuasiveness of the message. Likewise, social media users have been found to be more trusting than others, which will make them see a source as more credible than non-users, hence, having more favourable thoughts, making them more likely to accept the message and be persuaded. These leads to the second hypothesis of this study:

H2: The use of social media positively affects persuasion

(9)

8 the premise that individuals have the desire to conform, this goal of affiliation will be stronger for social media users than non-users (as they have been found to have a more intense sense of belonging and need for approval), making them more likely to be persuaded. Moreover, sources such as credibility and similarity play a crucial role in persuasion, a high-level use of social media, as explained before, will make social media users more tend to see these sources as favourable and accept the message, hence amplifying the persuasive effect of social proof techniques. Consequently, the third and last hypothesis is proposed:

H3: A high-level use of social media amplifies the persuasive effect of social proof techniques

2.3 - Conceptual Model

The following conceptual framework summarizes the hypothesis previously exposed and their proposed relationships:

FIGURE 1

(10)

9

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 - Participants and design

A total of 139 randomly selected English and Spanish speaking participants (57 male, 82 female; Age M= 28.02 , SD= 11,08) were recruited within the span of one week, online and via social connections to participate in an online 2 (social proof vs. no social proof) x 2 (high level of use of social media vs. low level of use of social media) between subjects factorial design. The selection and allocation of participants to the different conditions of the experiment were randomly done, without any condition taken into account.

3.2 - Procedure

Participants were invited to join in an online experiment involving different unrelated tasks from various departments of the Economics and Business Faculty of the University of Groningen. This was done to assure that participants’ answers would not be affected by any supposition of the real goal of the experiment.

Participants were approached using as many different channels and contexts as possible, aiming to get a more diverse group of participants. Means of recruitment were social networks such as Facebook (posting on students community groups), and also direct and indirect personal networks. Due to the nationality of the author of the present study (Spanish) the experiment was presented both in English and Spanish. Both surveys were identical, just differing in the language.

Participants were randomly assigned to either social proof or control condition. Due to the specifications of the independent variables of this experiment, just the social proof variable was manipulated (through the exposition of participants to a social proof heuristic), while the second variable (level of use of social media) needed to be measured. Therefore it was not possible to know beforehand to which of the four experimental conditions participants were assigned.

(11)

10 speakers were presented next to a label that read “Best seller, Best Quality”, while in the no social proof condition, participants were just exposed to the same speakers but with no label or additional information. After being presented with the product they were asked: “How much would you pay for this product?”

Secondly, participants were asked to fill in a survey regarding social media practices. Questions were included from the “Social Networking Time Use Scale” (from now on, SONTUS; Olufadi, 2015), which would provide information about time spent by participants in this networks, in order to allocate them in the spectrum of level of use of social media.

In the third and last part of the experiment, participants had to fill in a survey that combined different scales to control for possible confounding effects. These scales were included at the end of the experiment in order to assure that depletion did not play a role in participants’ answers during the experimental task. The Life History Theory Mini K scale (Figueredo et al., 2014), dispositional attitude measure (Hepler&Albarracin, 2013), Socioeconomic status scale (Griskevicius, Tybur et al., 2011), along with demographics such as age, marital status or nationality were included in this section. 3.3 - Independent Variables

3.3.1 - Level of use of social media

To be able to determine participants’ level of use of social media, the SONTUS (Olufadi, 2015) was selected. The reason behind the selection of this particular scale is due to its proven validity and the objectivity of its measurement. This is one of the very few scales in which their authors deliberately avoided Likert scales common answers such as “frequently” or “sometimes” due to their dependency on the subjectivity of the respondents. Henceforth, by exposing participants to specific numerical answers such as “Once a week, for 30 minutes” we could assure a realistic and effective allocation of participants in the spectrum of level of use of social media.

(12)

11 week”) to 11 (“I used it more than 3 times during the past week, but spent more than 30 minutes each time”).

In scoring their answers, the SONTUS scale divides the questions into 5 different groups regarding their different nature, namely:

1. Free time periods

2.Academic-related periods 3.Public places-related issues 4.Stress-related periods 5.Motives for use

The global score of the five different groups could range from 5 to 23 (M=10,49 , SD=2,36) , allocating the participants within the following range:

Low-level user of SNs: Score from 5 to 9 Average level user of SNs: Score from 10 to 14 High-level user of SNs: Score from 15 to 19

Extremely high-level user of SNs: Score higher than 19

However, for the simplicity of the analysis of the data, these results were divided between low or high level of use of social media based on a median split of the sample.

3.3.2 - Social proof

(13)

12 3.4 - Dependent Variable

3.4.1 - Persuasion

Persuasion was measured as the willingness to pay for a product (in this case, a pair of speakers, for which participants had to indicate how much they would be willing to pay). Hence, we could test whether social proof heuristics affect the perceived quality of a product, and consequently lead to a higher willingness to pay.

3.5 - Control Variables

In order to assure that participants’ answers were not biased and to control for possible confounding results, participants had to answer some questions regarding feelings, economic status, childhood or predisposition towards some objects.

3.5.1 - Life History Theory

The LHT proposes that individuals need to constantly make tradeoffs among their resources and energy (Stearns, 1992). Individuals that experienced stability, health and great parenting will have a slow strategy, while individuals with few resources and less stability will engage in a fast LH strategy. Additionally, each strategy is associated with certain behaviours and attitudes (Figueredo, 2005). To control for possible differences among participants regarding their childhood the Mini-K scale (Figueredo, 2014) was included.

This scale consists of 20 items regarding relationships and behaviours (such as “I avoid taking risks”) which participants had to answer using a Likert scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). The sum score (M=103,32 , SD=12,31) will determine the strategy of participants, being fast for low scores and slow for high scores.

3.5.2 - Socioeconomic Status

(14)

13 neighbourhood”), using a 7 points Likert scale. A high total score (M=34,39 , SD=11,21) implies a high SES, while a low score suggests a low SES.

3.5.3 - Dispositional Attitude

Individuals have an inner disposition to like or dislike stimuli (Hepler, 2013). Therefore, to control for participants’ tendency to like or dislike stimuli the Dispositional Attitude Measure (DAM) (Hepler, Albarracion 2013) was included. Participants had to evaluate 16 unrelated items such as “Statistics” or “Cold showers” using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Extremely unfavorable) to 7 (Extremely favourable). With a total of 112 points (M=67,30 , SD=11,21), a high score implies a favourable attitude, while a low score suggests an unfavourable predisposition.

3.5.4 - BIS/BAS Scale

(15)

14 ,

4. RESULTS

4.1 -Willingness to pay

In order to test the three hypotheses of the present study, which suggest that a high level of use of social media moderates the positive relationship between the use of social proof techniques and persuasion, and their main effects, a two way ANOVA was performed. For the purpose of this experiment, persuasion was measured as the amount of Euros a participant was willing to pay for a product.

A 2 (low vs. high level of use of social media) x 2 (social proof cue vs. absent) full factorial ANOVA on the willingness to pay was performed to test the hypothesis that people are more susceptible to pay for a product when exposed to a social proof technique, especially when they have a high level of use of social media.

Results of the main effect of social proof were aligned with the first proposed hypothesis (The exposure to social proof cues positively affects persuasion) as it was significant (F(1,136)=5,82, p=0,017). The main effect of the use of social proof techniques indicated that participants in the condition for which the social proof cue was included, were willing to pay more for the speakers (M=71,02, SD=63,75) than in the control condition (M=53,80 , SD=41,33).(See table 1)

TABLE 1

Level use of social media Social proof cue Mean SD

(16)

15 However, some important implications are driven by the analysis of the main effect of the second hypothesis proposed in this study (A high level of use of social media positively affects persuasion). The results of the performed ANOVA confirm that there

is a significant effect of the level of use of social media on persuasion (F(1,136)=4,42 , p=0,037). However, the inspection of the mean scores shows that this

effect is reversed to the proposed hypothesis. In other words, there is a significant effect between the level of use of social media and persuasion, but while it was proposed that a high level of use of social media will positively affect persuasion, results show that in the contrary, a low-level of use of social media positively affects persuasion. Inspection of the means showed that low-level users of social media were willing to pay more (M=72,77 , SD=65,80) than those with a high level of use of social media (M=55,70 , SD=44,35).

(17)

16 FIGURE 2

4.2 - Covariates

In order to control for possible external factors that may have an impact on the results, the LHT, SES, dispositional attitude measure and BIS/BAS scale were included as covariates in this analysis. A Cronbach’s Alpha analysis was performed, showing that it was possible to proceed (αlht=0,729, αdns=0,707, αses=0,719, αbis/bas=0,835).

(18)

17 between level of use of social media and LHT was found to be significant (F(1,131)=3,86 , p=0,05).

4.3 – Auxiliary Analysis

4.3.1 - Gender effect

In order to control for possible differences on the willingness to pay between genders, a new ANOVA was performed on the means of the willingness to pay for male and female, showing that there was statistic significance (F(1,131) = 10,48, p= 0,002). The inspection of the means for the willingness to pay shows that females are more willing to pay a higher price (M=72,57 , SD=65,88) compared to males (M=47,45 , SD=24,47). While neither the interaction effect between level of use of social media and social proof (F(1,131)=1,29, p=0,25), the interaction effects between social proof and gender (F(1,131)=3,30, p=0,07) or the level of use of social media, social proof, and gender (F(1,131)=1,94, p=0,16) on persuasion did reach significance, there was a significant effect for the interaction between the level of use of social media and gender on persuasion (F(1,131)=4,38, p=0,03).

Inspection of means for this interaction effect shows that females with a low level of use of social media pay considerably more (M=85,38 , SD=73,04) than those with a higher level of use of social media (M=60,95 , SD=57,03). Contrary to one of the main effects of the ANOVA analysis (this is, that a low level of use of social media positively affect the willingness to pay) when looking at the mean scores of males, it shows that males with a high level of use of social media paid more (M=50,11 , SD = 26,14) than those with a low level of use of social media (M=40,00 , SD=17,72).

This difference is notably bigger for the interaction effect between social proof, social media and gender on persuasion, as females with low (M=120,62 , SD=82,58) rather than high (M=66,63 , SD=68,25) level use of social media were willing to pay considerably more in the social proof condition.

(19)

18 The previously explained effects can be conceptualized in the following plot in which it is clear that there is a significant difference in the willingness to pay between males and females. It can also be observed the big difference between means of females when comparing the willingness to pay for those participants who were exposed to a social proof cue and those for which there was no social proof.

FIGURE 2

4.3.2 - Age effect

(20)

19 (F(1,131=0,59 , p=0,44) or level of use of social media, social proof and age (F(1,131)=1,23 , p=0,26) on the willingness to pay are not significant.

As reflected on the following plot, the analysis of the median scores shows that for the group of young people (Age ≤ 24) there is almost no difference in the willingness to pay between low level users of social media (M=46,87 , SD=37,35) and high level users (M=48,40 , SD=30,89), while for the group of older people (Age > 24) there is a significant difference in the means on the willingness to pay for high-level users (M=64,49 , SD=56,42) and low level users (M=93,50 , SD=76,20).

FIGURE 3

(21)

20

5. DISCUSSION

The aim of this research was to find if there is an interaction effect between the level of use of social media and the use of social proof techniques on persuasion. From previous findings on existing literature, it was assumed that a higher level of use of social media would increase the vulnerability of people to be persuaded with social proof techniques. The persuasive effect of social proof techniques should increase for people with a high rather than low level of use of social media due to their higher level of trust and desire of affiliation. To test these assumptions the present study measured persuasion by means of willingness to pay for a product and was based on the performance of an experiment in which the level of use of social media was measured while manipulating the presence of social proof cues.

The present findings demonstrate that participants were more willing to pay for a product when exposed to a social proof cue. These results are in line with previous studies indicating that social proof is still a powerful weapon of persuasion and influence. However, results demonstrated that the increase in the willingness to pay as a result of the exposure to social proof heuristics varies among different variables. It has been found that, when exposed to social proof, females increased their willingness to pay considerably more than males. Likewise, with regard to age, while both groups increased their willingness to pay when exposed to social proof, this increase was higher for the older group.

(22)

21 Moreover, results indicate that the interaction effect between social proof and use of social media on persuasion was approaching significance. This suggests a movement towards our proposed hypothesis which states that the persuasive effect of social proof techniques is higher in combination with a low level of use of social media. Low-level users of social media increased their willingness to pay considerably when exposed to social proof, compared to those with a higher level of use of social media. A possible explanation may be that the over exposition to social proof cues of high-level users of social media in the online context is making them immune to be persuaded by social proof techniques. While high-level users of social media might be used to see posts on Facebook with millions of likes, the exposition to a social proof cue could have a greater impact in low level users of social media, as they would see this cues as a stronger argument than those with a high level, as they might not be as used to social proof heuristics. An important implication from this is that considering the crescent popularity of social media networks this effect possibly will become stronger through time, therefore it should be researched in the near future in order to examine the effect that the use of these networks will exert on persuasion.

Additionally, gender was found to have a significant effect on persuasion. Females were found to be willing to pay a much higher price than males. Consistent with our main findings, females with a low level of use of social media were found to increase their willingness to pay considerably more than high-level users. In contrast, males with a high level of use of social media were found to be willing to pay more than those with a low level of use of social media, however, this difference was not significant. Age was also found to be a significant variable. The older group was willing to pay considerably more than the younger group, which could have a reasonable explanation, as usually older people have a higher income to spend. Moreover, within the older group, low-level users of social media were willing to pay considerably more than high-level users. This, as explained before, could be due to their lack of knowledge regarding tools to compare products online.

(23)

22 5.1 - Managerial implications

From the acquired results it is evident that the principle of social proof is a powerful tool, thus marketing managers should make use of it when trying to persuade customers. As reflected in this experiment, women’s’ reactions to the exposure to a social proof cue were considerably higher than for men. Therefore, managers should be aware of their target groups when selecting the adequate marketing technique, as its effectiveness can differ among genders or ages. In the same way, the level of use of social media can play a role in the effectiveness of these techniques, hence should be considered in order to maximize its effectiveness.

5.2 - Limitations and further research

The present research was performed in an online environment, not a real shopping situation. Hence, performing it in a real situation could increase the validity of the results. Moreover, the measurement of persuasion was performed by means of the willingness to pay for a product, in this case, speakers. Since there was no price reference, participants’ answers differed considerably. From the analysis of the answers it is clear that most participants did not know the price range for such a product, therefore the acquired results are biased. The results could be improved by performing a new experiment with different product categories, which would give better insights on the effectiveness of the social proof cues at such, and not somehow biased by not being able to determine what the correct price range for a product is. Additionally, the social proof condition was manipulated by exposing participants to the picture of a product including a banner that read “Best Seller, Best quality” (See appendix), however not being supported by specific people (such as reviews) or a specific brand. The introduction of a stronger social proof cue, such as ratings from a well-known brand as Amazon or real customers’ reviews could increase the persuasive effect of social proof in future research.

5.3 - Conclusion

(24)

(25)

24

REFERENCES

Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2009). Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation

approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 49-96.

doi:10.1080/10463280802643640

Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: the psychology of persuasion. New York: Collins Business. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.

Cialdini, R. B., Wosinka, W., Barrett, D. W., &Gornik-Durose, M. (2010). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1242-1253.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629-636. Fennis, B. M., &Stroebe, W. (2016). The psychology of advertising. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Figueredo AJ, Sefcek JA, Vásquez G, Brumbach BH, King JE, Jacobs WJ. Evolutionary personality psychology. In: Buss DM, editor. Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005. pp. 851–877

Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P. S. A., Olderbak, S. G., Gladden, P. R., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wenner, C., ... Rushton, J. P. (2014). The psychometric assessment of human life history strategy: A meta-analytic construct validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 8(3), 148-185.

Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., &Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472-482.

Griskevicius, V., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., &Tybur, J. M (2011). Environmental contingency in life history strategies: The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 241254.

Hampton, K. N., & Goulet, L. S. (2011). PIP- Social networking sites and our lives. Pew Internet & American life project.

Hepler, J., &Albarracin, D. (2013). Attitudes without objects: Evidence for a dispositional attitude, its measurement, and its consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 1060-1076.

(26)

25 Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Abraham, C. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of

persuasion.

Quinn, S., &Oldmeadow, J. A. (2012). Is theigeneration a ‘we’ generation? Social networking use among 9- to 13-year-olds and belonging. British Journal of Developmental

Psychology,31(1), 136-142. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12007

Shearman, S. M., & Yoo, J. H. (2007). “Even a Penny Will Help!”: Legitimization of Paltry Donation and Social Proof in Soliciting Donation to a Charitable Organization. Communication

Research Reports, 24(4), 271-282. doi:10.1080/08824090701624148

Sherman, L. E., Payton, A. A., Hernandez, L. M., Greenfield, P. M., &Dapretto, M. (2016). The Power of the Like in Adolescence. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1027-1035. doi:10.1177/0956797616645673

(27)

26

APPENDIX: QUESTIONARIE

Welcome!

Dear participant, thank you very much for participating in this research. This is a short survey (15-20 minutes) which consists of 3 parts of short unrelated studies issued by different researchers.

The survey is being administered as part of a research project in the Department of Marketing at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Your participation in this study will remain confidential and there will be no attempt to link your responses and your identity.

Please read all instructions carefully.

Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and you may withdraw at any time by closing the survey platform

PART 1

Please fill in some short questions about your demographics What is your gender?

o

Male

o

Female

What is your age?

(28)

27 Currently I am...

o

Studying

o

Working

o

Looking for a job

o

Not applicable

What is your nationality?

________________________________________________________________

What is your current marital status?

o

Single

o

In a relationship

o

Married PART 2

(29)

28 How many euros would you be willing to pay for the speakers?

________________________________________________________________

(NO SOCIAL PROOF CONDITION)

How many euros would you be willing to pay for the speakers?

(30)

29 PART 3

Kindly use the scale below to indicate how often you use the social networking sites like Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest etc., during the past week in the following situations and places.

1= Not applicable to me during the past week 2= I never used it during the past week

3= I used it once during the past week but spend less than 10 min 4= I used it once during the past week but spend between 10 and 30 min 5=I used it once during the past week but spent more than 30 min

6=I used it between 2 and 3 times during the past week but spend less than 10 min each time 7=I used it between 2 and 3 times during the past week but spend between 10 and 30 min each

8=I used it between 2 and 3 times during the past week but spent more than 30 min each time 9=I used it more than 3 times during the past week but spend less than 10 min each time 10= I used it more than 3 times during the past week but spend between 10 and 30 min each time

(31)

30 When you are at a seminar/workshop or training program

o

1= Not applicable to me during the past week

o

2= I never used it during the past week

o

3= I used it once during the past week but spend less than 10 min

o

4= I used it once during the past week but spend between 10 and 30 min

o

5=I used it once during the past week but spent more than 30 min

o

6=I used it between 2 and 3 times during the past week but spend less than 10 min each time

o

7=I used it between 2 and 3 times during the past week but spend between 10 and 30 min each

o

8=I used it between 2 and 3 times during the past week but spent more than 30 min each time

o

9=I used it more than 3 times during the past week but spend less than 10 min each time

o

10= I used it more than 3 times during the past week but spend between 10 and 30 min each time

(32)

31 When you are at home sitting idly

o

(33)

32 When you need to reduce your mental stress

o

(34)

33 When you go to the stadium to watch football, basketball etc.

o

(35)

34 When you are doing school or job-related assignment at home

o

(36)

35 When you are waiting for someone (e.g., friends) either in their house or at a pre-arranged place

o

(37)

36 When you are listening to music, radio, religious lectures etc

o

(38)

37 When you have gone through a lot of stress

o

(39)

38 When you are in a meeting

o

(40)

39 When you are in class receiving a lecture

o

(41)

40 When you need to mantain contact with existing friends

o

(42)

41 When you are in bed about to sleep

o

(43)

42 When you are reading in the library for academic purpose e.g. recommended text for class

o

(44)

43 When you are at a place to repair your car, house appliances, etc.

o

(45)

44 When you need to reduce your emotional stress

o

(46)

45 When you want to reduce the pressure of your daily routines

o

(47)

46 When you are at a social gathering like wedding ceremony, birthday party, reception etc

o

(48)

47 When you need to communicate with your families and friends

o

(49)

48 When you are sitting in a religious place (e.g., church, mosque) and activities like sermon or prayer is yet to start

o

(50)

49 When you need to find out more about people you met offline

o

(51)

50 When you are in the company of friends/family/colleagues having fun

o

(52)

51 When you are watching TV, news, football, films, sports, etc.

o

(53)

52 When you go to the cinema house to watch movie(s)

o

(54)

53 When you are a passenger in a car/bus/train for at least 2 min

o

(55)

54 When you need to find people you haven’t seen for a while

o

(56)

55 When you are waiting for your boss in her office for at least 2 min when she is not attending to you

o

(57)

56 When you are trying to forget your financial challenges

o

(58)

57 When you are online doing school or job-related works e.g., project, homework

o

(59)

58 Watching academic-related video lectures or those related to your job

o

(60)

(61)

60

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. Use the scale below and write your answers in the spaces provided. For any item that does not apply to you, please enter 0

(62)

(63)

(64)

63 Please indicate the extent of agreement with the following statements, ranging from 1-7, whereas 1 means "extremely unfavorable" and 7 means "extremely favorable".

(65)

64

(66)

65 Please indicate the extent of agreement with the following statements, ranging from 1-9, whereas 1 means "totally disagree" and 9 means "totally agree".

Totally disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Totally agree 9 My family usually had enough money for things when I was growing up

o

I grew up in a relatively wealthy neighborhood

o

I felt relatively wealthy compared to the other kids

in my school

o

I have enough money to buy things I want

o

I don't need to worry too much about paying my bills

o

I don't think I'll have to worry about money too much in the future

o

Each item of this questionnaire is a statement that a person may either agree with or disagree with. For each item, indicate how much you agree or disagree with what the item says. Please respond to all the items; do not leave any blank. Choose only one response to each

statement. Please be as accurate and honest as you can be. Respond to each item as if it were the only item. That is, don't worry about being "consistent" in your responses. Choose from the following four response options: 1 = very true for me

(67)

66

Very true for me 1 Somewhat true for me 2

Somewhat false for me

3 Very false for me 4 A person's family is the

most important thing in life Even if something bad

is about to happen to me, I rarely experience

fear or nervousness I go out of my way to get things I want When I'm doing well at

something I love to keep at it I'm always willing to try

something new if I think it will be fun How I dress is important to me When I get something I want, I feel excited and

energized Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit

When I want something I usually go

all-out to get it I will often do things for

no other reason than that they might be fun It's hard for me to find

the time to do things such as get a haircut If I see a chance to get something I want I move on it right away I feel pretty worried or upset when I think or

know somebody is angry at me When I see an opportunity for something I like I get

excited right away I often act on the spur

of the moment If I think something unpleasant is going to

happen I usually get pretty "worked up" I often wonder why

(68)

67

When good things happen to me, it affects

me strongly I feel worried when I

thinnk I have done poorly at something

important I crave excitement and

new sensations When I go after someting I use a "no holds barred" approach

I have very few fears compared to my

friends It would excite me to

win a contest I worry about making

mistakes

This is the end of the survey.

Thank you very much for your participation!

Are you curious about the results of this research? If you are, please leave your email address here and I will send you the results afterwards. Your email address will only be used for this purpose and will be treated confidentially.