Organizational buying and strategic marketing decisions often emerge from a messy process of belief accommodation and compromise. In a longitudinal field study, the authors investigate how the beliefs and preferences of individual actors in a collective decision developed and changed. This provides a rare opportunity to relate beliefs and social influence to articulated preferences, as well as to evaluate the basic assumptions that underlie persuasive arguments theory, a prominent theory of group polarization. Econometric models are employed to test proposed relationships between group processes and outcomes. A model incorporating both cognitive and social process variables accurately predicts 95% of the actors’ top choices. The authors provide new insights for understanding the dynamics underlying group polarization and exploring group processes in marketing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonNorman (1981), Foundations of Information Integration Theory.New York: Academic Press.
2.
AndersonPaul F. (1982), “Marketing, Strategic Planning and the Theory of the Firm,”Journal of Marketing, 46(Spring), 15–26.
3.
BakerFrank B., and HubertLawrence J. (1981), “The Analysis of Social Interaction Data,”Sociological Methods and Research, 9(February), 339–61.
4.
BeggsS., CardellS., and HausmanJ. (1981), “Assessing the Potential Demand of Electric Cars,”Journal of Econometrics, 16(May), 1–19.
5.
BettmanJames R., and Whan ParkC. (1980), “Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Process: A Protocol Analysis,”Journal of Consumer Research, 1(December), 234–48.
6.
BorgattiStephen, EverettMartin, and FreemanLinton (1992), UCINET IV Version 1.0 Reference Manual.Columbia, SC: Analytic Technologies.
7.
BrassDaniel J. (1984), “Being in the Right Place: A Structural Analysis of Individual Influence in an Organization,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(December), 518–39.
8.
BurnsteinEugene, and SentisKeith (1981), “Attitude Polarization in Groups,” in Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, PettyRichard E., OstromThomas M., and BrockTimothy C., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 197–216.
9.
ButlerJohn K., and CrinoMichael D. (1992), “Effects of Initial Tendency and Risk on Choice Shift,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(October), 14–34.
10.
CorfmanKim P., and LehmannDonald R. (1987), “Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 14(June), 1–13.
11.
DavisJames H. (1973), “Group Decision and Social Interaction: A Theory of Social Decision Schemes,”Psychological Review, 80(March), 97–125.
12.
EaglyAlice H., and ChaikenShelly (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes.New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
13.
EliashbergJehoshua, La TourStephen A., RangaswamyArvind, and SternLouis W. (1986), “Assessing the Predictive Accuracy of Two Utility-Based Theories in a Marketing Channel Negotiation Context,”Journal of Marketing Research, 23(May), 101–10.
14.
FrankwickGary L., WardJames C., HuttMichael D., and ReingenPeter H. (1994), “Evolving Patterns of Organizational Beliefs in the Formation of Strategy,”Journal of Marketing, 58(April), 96–110.
15.
FriedkinNoah E. (1993), “Structural Bases of Interpersonal Influence in Groups: A Longitudinal Case Study,”American Sociological Review, 58(December), 861–72.
16.
GodwinW., and RestleF. (1974), “The Road to Agreement: Subgroup Pressures in Small Group Consensus Processes,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(October), 500–509.
17.
GreeneWilliam H. (1993), Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Isenberg, Daniel J. (1986), “Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis,”Psychological Bulletin, 50(June), 1141–51.
18.
KanuseDavid E., and Reid HansonL.Jr. (1987), “Negativity in Evaluations,” in Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, JonesEdward E., KanuseDavid E., KellyHarold H., NisbettRichard E., ValinsStuart, and WeinerBernard, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 47–62.
19.
KardesFrank R. (1994), “Consumer Judgment and Decision Processes,” in Handbook of Social Cognition, Vol. 2, WyerRobert S.Jr., and SrullThomas K., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 399–466.
20.
KintschW., KozminskyE., StrobyW. J., McKoonG., and KeenanJ. M. (1975), “Comprehension and Recall of Text as a Function of Content Variables,”Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(April), 196–214.
21.
KruglanskiArie W., and MayselessOfra (1987), “Motivational Effects in the Social Comparison of Opinions,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(November), 834–42.
22.
LammHelmut, and MyersDavid G. (1978), “Group-Induced Polarization of Attitudes and Behavior,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, BerkowitzL., eds. New York: Academic Press, 147–95.
23.
MacEvoyBruce, and FreemanLinton (1987), UCINET: A Micro-Computer Package for Network Analysis.Irvine, CA: University of California, School of Social Sciences, Mathematical Science Group.
24.
MahajanVijay, MullerEitan, and BassFrank M. (1990), “New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A Review and Directions for Research,”Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 1–26.
25.
MorrisonDonald G. (1969), “On the Interpretation of Discriminant Analysis,”Journal of Marketing Research, 6(May), 156–63.
26.
PettyRichard E. (1981), “The Role of Cognitive Responses in Attitude Change Processes,” in Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, PettyRichard C., OstromThomas M., and BrockTimothy C., eds. Hillsdale, HJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 135–39.
27.
RaoVithala R., and SteckelJoel H. (1991), “A Polarization Model for Describing Group Preferences,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(June), 108–18.
28.
RonchettoJohn R.Jr., HurtMichael D., and ReingenPeter H. (1989), “Embedded Influence Patterns in Organizational Buying Systems,”Journal of Marketing, 53(October), 51–62.
29.
RugsDeborah, and KaplanMartin F. (1993), “Effectiveness of Informational and Normative Influences in Group Decision Making Depends on the Group Interactive Goal,”British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(March), 147–58.
30.
SchmittleinDavid C., BemmaorA. C., and MorrisonDonald G. (1985), “Why Does the NBD Model Work? Robustness in Representing Product Purchases, Brand Purchases and Imperfectly Recorded Purchases,”Marketing Science, 4(Summer), 255–66.
31.
TverskyAmos, and KahnemanDaniel (1974), “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,”Science, 185(September), 1124–31.
32.
WalshJames P., HendersonCaroline M., and DeightonJohn (1988), “Negotiated Belief Structures and Decision Performance: An Empirical Investigation,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42(October), 194–216.
33.
WardJames C., and ReingenPeter H. (1990), “Sociocognitive Analysis of Group Decision Making Among Consumers,”Journal of Consumer Research, 17(December), 245–62.
34.
WebsterCynthia (1994), “Effects of Hispanic Ethnic Identification on Marital Roles in the Purchase Decision Process,”Journal of Consumer Research, 21(September), 319–31.
35.
WebsterFrederick E.Jr. (1992), “The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation,”Journal of Marketing, 56(October), 1–17.
36.
WeimannGabriel (1983), “The Strength of Weak Conversational Ties in the Flow of Information and Influence,”Social Networks, 5(September), 245–307.
37.
WilsonElizabeth J., LilienGary L., and WilsonDavid T. (1991), “Developing and Testing a Contingency Paradigm of Group Choice in Organizational Buying,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28(November), 452–66.
38.
WojciszkeBogdan, BryczHanna, and BorkenauPeter (1993), “Effects of Information Content and Evaluative Extremity on Positivity and Negativity Biases,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(March), 327–35.
