Geographic proximity has become increasingly relevant due to the growing number of
marketing services that use consumers’ geographic locations, thus increasing the
importance of gaining insights from this information. In five studies (both field and
experimental), the authors analyze the effect of geographic proximity on social influence
and demonstrate that not only social proximity but also perceived homophily can trigger
social influence. They find that this effect holds under alternative representations of
geographic distance and is confirmed for a range of different services and even for
physical goods. Furthermore, the authors show that geographic proximity has a relative
effect because the social influence of a closer sender is stronger than that of a more
distant sender, regardless of the absolute distances. They present managerially relevant
conditions under which the influence of geographic proximity not only is comparable to
other types of information such as age or gender but also provides sufficient
informational value for customers to offset differences among alternatives (e.g., due to
higher prices) in trade-off decisions.
AgrawalAjay, KapurDevesh, and McHaleJohn (2008), “How Do
Spatial and Social Proximity Influence Knowledge Flows? Evidence from Patent
Data,”Journal of Urban Economics, 64 (2),
258–69.
2.
AngstCorey M., AgarwalRitu, SambamurthyVallabh, and KelleyKen (2010), “Social
Contagion and Information Technology Diffusion: The Adoption of Electronic Medical
Records in US Hospitals,”Management Science, 56 (8),
1219–41.
3.
BaptistaRui (2000), “Do
Innovations Diffuse Faster Within Geographical Clusters?”International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18
(3), 515–35.
4.
BarrotChristian, RangaswamyArvind, AlbersSönke, and ShaikhNazrul I. (2008), “The
Role of Spatial Proximity in the Adoption of a Digital Product,”working paper, University of Kiel.
5.
BellDavid R., and SongSangyoung (2007),
“Neighborhood Effects and Trial on the Internet: Evidence from Online
Grocery Retailing,”Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 5
(4), 361–400.
6.
BergerJonah, and IyengarRaghuram (2013),
“Communication Channels and Word of Mouth: How the Medium Shapes the
Message,”Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3),
567–79.
7.
BradnerErin, and MarkGloria (2002), “Why
Distance Matters: Effects on Cooperation, Persuasion and Deception,” in
Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work.New York: Association for
Computing Machinery,
226–35.
8.
BronnenbergBart J., and MelaCarl F. (2004), “Market
Roll-Out and Retailer Adoption for New Brands,”Marketing Science, 23 (4),
500–518.
9.
BrownJacqueline Johnson, and
ReingenPeter H. (1987), “Social
Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (3),
350–62.
10.
CairncrossFrances (2001), The Death of
Distance: How the Communications Revolution Is Changing Our Lives, 2nd
ed.Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
11.
ChevalierJudith, and MayzlinDina (2006), “The Effect
of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews,”Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (August),
345–54.
12.
ChoiJeonghye, HuiSam K., and BellDavid R. (2010),
“Spatiotemporal Analysis of Imitation Behavior Across New Buyers at an
Online Grocery Retailer,”Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (February),
75–89.
13.
CrandallDavid J., BackstromLars, CosleyDan, SuriSiddharth, HuttenlocherDaniel, and KleinbergJon (2010), “Inferring
Social Ties from Geographic Coincidences,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 107 (52),
22436–41.
14.
EdmondVerona P., and BrannonDavid L. (2016), “The
Choice of New Venture Partner: The Role of Trust and Familiarity,”Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 22
(1), 65–86.
15.
FeickLawrence, and HigieRobin A. (1992), “The
Effects of Preference Heterogeneity and Source Characteristics on Ad Processing and
Judgements About Endorsers,”Journal of Advertising, 21 (2),
9–24.
16.
FestingerLeon, SchachterStanley, and BlackKurt (1963), Social Pressures in
Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing.Stanford,
CA: Stanford University
Press.
17.
FormanChris, GhoseAnindya, and WiesenfeldBatia (2008), “Examining
the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in
Electronic Markets,”Information Systems Research, 19 (3),
291–313.
18.
FrenzenJonathan, and NakamotoKent (1993), “Structure,
Cooperation, and the Flow of Market Information,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (3),
360–75.
19.
FujitaKentaro, HendersonMarlone D., EngJuliana, TropeYaacov, and LibermanNira (2006), “Spatial
Distance and Mental Construal of Social Events,”Psychological Science, 17 (4),
278–82.
20.
GarberTal, GoldenbergJacob, LibaiBarak, and MullerEitan (2004), “From
Density to Destiny: Using Spatial Dimension of Sales Data for Early Prediction of New
Product Success,”Marketing Science, 23 (3),
419–28.
21.
GershoffAndrew D., MukherjeeAshesh, and MukhopadhyayAnirban (2007), “Few Ways
to Love, but Many Ways to Hate: Attribute Ambiguity and the Positivity Effect in Agent
Evaluation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (4),
499–505.
22.
GillyMary C., GrahamJohn L., WolfinbargerMary Finley, and YaleLaura J. (1998), “A Dyadic
Study of Interpersonal Information Search,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26
(2), 83–100.
23.
GimpelJames G., KarnesKimberly A., McTagueJohn, and Pearson-MerkowitzShanna (2008),
“Distance-Decay in the Political Geography of Friends-and-Neighbors
Voting,”Political Geography, 27 (2),
231–52.
24.
GodesDavid, and MayzlinDina (2004), “Using Online
Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication,”Marketing Science, 23 (4),
545–60.
25.
HägerstrandTorsten (1967), Innovation
Diffusion as a Spatial Process.Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
26.
HofstedeGeert (2001), Culture's
Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across
Nations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
27.
HendersonMarlone D, WakslakCheryl J., FujitaKentaro, and RohrbachJohn (2011), “Construal
Level Theory and Spatial Distance,”Social Psychology, 42 (3),
165–73.
28.
HindsPamela J., CarleyKathleen M., KrackhardtDavid, and WholeyDoug (2000), “Choosing
Work Group Members: Balancing Similarity, Competence, and Familiarity,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81
(2), 226–51.
29.
HippJohn R., FarisRobert W., and BoessenAdam (2012), “Measuring
‘Neighborhood’: Constructing Network Neighborhoods,”Social Networks, 34 (1),
128–40.
30.
HuddyLeonie, and KhatibNadia (2007), “American
Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement,”American Journal of Political Science, 51
(1), 63–77.
31.
JohnsonEric J., BellmanSteven, and LohseGerald L. (2002),
“Defaults, Framing and Privacy: Why Opting In-Opting
Out?”Marketing Letters, 13 (1),
5–15.
32.
JuddCharles M., KennyDavid A., and McClellandGary H. (2001),
“Estimating and Testing Mediation and Moderation in Within-Subject
Designs,”Psychological Methods, 6 (2),
115–34.
33.
KossinetsGueorgi and WattsDuncan J. (2009), “Origins
of Homophily in an Evolving Social Network,”American Journal of Sociology, 115 (2),
405–50.
34.
LambiotteRenaud, BlondelVincent D., De KerchoveCristobald, HuensEtienne, PrieurChristophe, SmoredaZbigniew, et al. (2008),
“Geographical dispersal of mobile communication
networks,”Physica A, 387,
5317–25.
35.
LatanéBibb (1981), “The
Psychology of Social Impact,”American Psychologist, 36 (4),
343–56.
36.
LatanéBibb, LiuJames H., NowakAndrzej, BoneventoMichael, and ZhengLong (1995), “Distance
Matters: Physical Space and Social Impact,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21
(8), 795–805.
37.
LazarsfeldPaul F., and MertonRobert K. (1954),
“Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological
Analysis,”Freedom and Control in Modern Society, 18
(1), 18–66.
38.
LeeConrad, ScherngellThomas, and BarberMichael J. (2011),
“Investigating an Online Social Network Using Spatial Interaction
Models,”Social Networks, 33 (2),
129–33.
39.
LevyMoshe, and GoldenbergJacob (2014), “The
Gravitational Law of Social Interaction,”Physica A, 393,
418–26.
40.
LibaiBarak, BoltonRuth, BügelMarnix S., de RuyterKo, GötzOliver, RisseladaHans, et al. (2010),
“Customer-to-Customer Interactions: Broadening the Scope of Word of Mouth
Research,”Journal of Service Research, 13 (3),
267–82.
41.
LiviatanIdo, TropeYaacov, and LibermanNira (2008),
“Interpersonal Similarity as a Social Distance Dimension: Implications
for Perception of Others’ Actions,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44
(5), 1256–69.
MaLiye, KrishnanRamayya, and MontgomeryAlan L. (2014), “Latent
Homophily or Social Influence? An Empirical Analysis of Purchase Within a Social
Network,”Management Science, 61 (2),
454–73.
44.
ManchandaPuneet, YingXie, and YounNara (2008), “The Role of
Targeted Communication and Contagion in Product Adoption,”Marketing Science, 27 (6),
961–76.
45.
McPhersonMiller, Smith-LovinLynn, and CookJames M. (2001), “Birds of
a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks,”Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (1),
415–44.
46.
MokDiana, and WellmanBarry (2007), “Did
Distance Matter Before the Internet?: Interpersonal Contact and Support in the
1970s,”Social Networks, 29 (3),
430–61.
47.
MokDiana, WellmanBarry, and CarrascoJuan (2010), “Does
Distance Matter in the Age of the Internet?”Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 47
(13), 2747–83.
48.
MoonYoungme (1999), “The
Effects of Physical Distance and Response Latency on Persuasion in Computer-Mediated
Communication and Human–Computer Communication,”Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 5
(4), 379–92.
49.
MurrayKeith B. (1991), “A Test
of Services Marketing Theory: Consumer Information Acquisition
Activities,”Journal of Marketing, 55 (January),
10–25.
50.
NamSungjoon, ManchandaPuneet, and ChintaguntaPradeep K. (2010), “The
Effect of Signal Quality and Contiguous Word of Mouth on Customer Acquisition for a
Video-on-Demand Service,”Marketing Science, 29 (4),
690–700.
51.
NaylorRebecca Walker, LambertonCait Poynor, and NortonDavid A. (2011), “Seeing
Ourselves in Others: Reviewer Ambiguity, Egocentric Anchoring, and
Persuasion,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (June),
617–31.
52.
NejadMohammad G., AminiMehdi, and BabakusEmin (2015), “Success
Factors in Product Seeding: The Role of Homophily,”Journal of Retailing, 91 (1),
68–88.
53.
NitzanIrit, and LibaiBarak (2011), “Social
Effects on Customer Retention,”Journal of Marketing, 75 (July),
24–38.
54.
OnnelaJ.-P., SaramäkiJ., HyvönenJ., SzabóG., LazerD., KaskiK., et al. (2007),
“Structure and Tie Strengths in Mobile Communication
Networks,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 104 (18),
7332–36.
RatcliffRoger (1993), “Methods for
Dealing with Reaction Time Outliers,”Psychological Bulletin, 114 (3),
510–32.
57.
RisseladaHans, VerhoefPeter C., and BijmoltTammo H.A. (2014),
“Dynamic Effects of Social Influence and Direct Marketing on the Adoption
of High-Technology Products,”Journal of Marketing, 78 (March),
52–68.
58.
RogersEverett M. (2003), Diffusion of
Innovations, 5th ed. New York:
The Free Press.
59.
RogersEverett M., and BhowmikDilip K. (1970),
“Homophily-Heterophily: Relational Concepts for Communication
Research,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 34 (4),
523–38.
60.
SchmittPhilipp, SkieraBernd, and Van den BulteChristophe (2011),
“Referral Programs and Customer Value,”Journal of Marketing, 75 (January),
46–59.
61.
ShiMengze, YangBotao, and ChiangJeongwen (2009), “A Dyad
Model of Calling Behaviour with Tie Strength Dynamics,”working paper, Net Institute.
62.
SobelMichael E. (1982),
“Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural
Equation Models,”Sociological Methodology, 13,
290–312.
63.
StrangDavid, and TumaNancy Brandon (1993),
“Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity in Diffusion,”American Journal of Sociology, 99 (3),
614–39.
64.
TakhteyevYuri, GruzdAnatoliy, and WellmanBarry (2012), “Geography
of Twitter Networks,”Social Networks, 34 (1),
73–81.
65.
TropeYaacov, and LibermanNira (2010),
“Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,”Psychological Review, 117 (2),
440–63.
66.
TurnerJohn C., and TajfelHenri (1986), “The Social
Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” in Psychology of
Intergroup Relations, AustinWilliam G. and WorchelStephen, eds. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
67.
Van den BulteChristophe (2010),
“Opportunities and Challenges in Studying Customer
Networks,” in The Connected Customer: The Changing Nature of
Consumer and Business Markets, WuytsStefan, DekimpeMarnik G., GijsbrechtsEls, and PietersRik, eds. London:
Routledge,
7–36.
68.
XuHeng, LuoXin Robert, CarrollJohn M., and RossonMary Beth (2011), “The
Personalization Privacy Paradox: An Exploratory Study of Decision Making Process for
Location-Aware Marketing,”Decision Support Systems, 51 (1),
42–52.
69.
ZhaoMin, and XieJinhong (2011), “Effects
of Social and Temporal Distance on Consumers’ Responses to Peer
Recommendations,”Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (June),
486–96.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
