ROBERT E.
WITT*
This article discusses the influence of small, informal social groups on member brand
choice. Two determinants of group influence, cohesiveness and group knowledge of
member behavior, were found to be signifkantly related to similarity of brand choice
within groups. Variation across products in the susceptibility of purchase decisions to
Informal Social Group Influence on Consumer
Brand Choice
The amount of influence a small, informal social
group has over its members, or those aspiring to be
members, is a function of several interrelated variables.
These variables include the relevance of the group to
the behavior in question [10], the cohesiveness of the
group [1, 3], the sanctions (positive and negative) at-
tributed to the group by the individual [4, 12], the de-
gree of attraction of the individual to the group [3], the
susceptibility of the individual to group influence [5, 7,
8, 15], the nature of the behavior in question [14, 16],
the knowledge of group members (or those who aspire
to be members) of the behavior of other members [9],
and the individual's perception of the group's expertise
relative to his own with respect to the behavior in ques-
. ti on [4].
The primary purpose of this study was to explore the
influence of small, informal social groups on the brand
choice behavior of their members. Two determinants of
group influence were involved in the study: (1) group
cohesiveness and (2) the group member's knowledge of
the behavior of other group members. Two hypotheses
were investigated:
1. Similarity of brand choice within a group is related
to the cohesiveness of the group.
2. Similarity of brand choice within a group is related
to the knowledge of group members of the brand
choices of other group members.
METHODOLOGY
The sample used in the study consisted of 50 groups
drawn from a population of male undergraduate Penn-
* Robert E. Witt is assistant professor of marketing,
University of Texas. This study was financed by research grants
from the Armstrong Cork Company and the United States Steel
Company. The author is grateful for constructive comments by
Peter D. Bennett, Pennsylvania State University, and Zarrel
V. Lambert and Mark I. Alpert, University of Texas.
473
group influence is discussed.
sylvania State University students. The determination of
group size was influenced by three factors: (1) minimiz-
ing the likelihood of subgroup formation within the
primary group [6, 13], (2) facilitating the formation and
assembly of groups for testing, and (3) the intergroup
nature of hypothesis testing in the study. A group size
of five and a sample size of 50 groups were selected after
considering these factors and financial constraints.
There were four prerequisites for participation in
the study. Subjects had to be: (1) male, (2) Pennsylvania
State University undergraduates, (3) living in a dormi-
tory or fraternity house and (4) cigarette smokers. No
overlap in group membership was allowed. Approxi-
mately 900 students were offered the opportunity of
participating in the study. The announcement of the
project indicated that all subjects would be compensated.
The first 50 students who met the prerequisites for
participation were selected as group "nuclei." Each
group nucleus was instructed to select four friends, with
whom he spent time socially, to participate in the ex-
periment with him. In selecting .members for their
groups, nuclei were governed by the four participation
prerequisites plus two additional restrictions: first, all
individuals in the group had to reside in the same dormi-
tory or fraternity, and second, group members 'had to be
at least acquaintances of each other. 1 Groups were
tested separately and as complete units. Test super-
visors allowed no communication among group members
during the testing. 2
Data were collected on group cohesiveness (i.e., the
1
Implict in these two restrictions is the assumption that ex-
posure to and influence by the brand choices of one's friends
depend more on spatial proximity of residence than on degree
of friendship.
2
It is possible that the group selection procedure yielded
test groups that were referents for their nuclei but not neces-
sarily for the other members.
Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. VI (November 1969), 473-76
474
attractiveness of a group to its members), group brand
choices and group knowledge of member brand choices.
A measure of group cohesiveness was obtained by means
of a modified version of Seashore's Index of Group
Cohesiveness [10]. The index used Likert-type questions
that required the respondent to choose among group
oriented, indifference, and nongroup oriented responses. 3
The index scores of group members are averaged to
produce the group's index of cohesiveness. The maxi-
mum attainable score on the index is 19; the minimum
score, five.
Seashore's Index of Group Cohesiveness was de-
signed for use in an industrial research environment.
Therefore, it was necessary to modify the wording of
the questions to adapt the Index to a student environ-
ment. 4 The wording changes were minor, and inter-
correlations among question responses on the modified
index were sufficiently high to conclude that the instru-
ment's ability to measure a common factor group co-
hesiveness had not been impaired. 5
The brand choice questionnaire used in the study
was designed to provide two types of information: first,
the brand of each of the test products a subject used
most frequently, and second, the brand of each of the
test products a subject thought each of his fellow group
members used most frequently. It was recognized that
subjects might attribute their own brand uses to their
fellow group members. For this reason the question on
a subject's brand uses was included in the group co-
hesiveness questionnaire. Subjects completed the brand
choice questionnaire before receiving the group co-
hesiveness questionnaire and were not allowed to refer
to the former while completing the latter. Although this
sequencing of questions could not eliminate response
distortion, it was felt that it would be reduced. It should
be recognized that subjects, in making their brand
choices, might have been influenced by friends not in-
cluded in their test groups.
Four products were involved in the study-beer,
after shave lotion, deodorant, and cigarettes. In selecting
the test products it was assumed that brand choices have
different degrees of susceptibility to group influence, and
that these differences result partly from the nature of
3
Seashore's Index joins three distinct but not inconsistent
meanings of cohesiveness:
1. Identifiable membership in the group
2. Attraction to the group or resistance to leaving it
3. Perception of the group as being better than others in
terms of getting along together, helping each other, and sticking
together.
The magnitude of the intercorrelations among responses led
Seashore to conclude that his index measured a common factor,
group cohesiveness.
4
Slocum [11] made similar minor wording changes in Sea-
shore's Index to adapt it for use in a student environment.
From the intercorrelations he obtained among question re-
sponses on his modified index he concluded that it measured
a common factor, group cohesiveness.
5
Of the 20 intercorrelations 16 were significant at the .001
level, two at the .01 level and two at the .05 level.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, NOVEMBER 1969
the products involved. Five factors were considered in
attempting to select products, the brand choices of which
would differ in their susceptibility to group influence:
1. The "conspicuousness" of the product when in the
process of purchase or use0
2. The extent to which purchase or use of the product
involves a concomitant embracing of a "user-image"
3. The declaration of personal taste involved in the
purchase or use of the product
4. The likelihood that subjects could perceive physical
differences among brands of the product
5. The extent to which the anticipated satisfaction as-
sociated with the use or consumption of the product
is derived from, or experienced in, the consumer's
social environment.
Similarity of brand choice reflected the extent to
which group members used the same brand of a product,
as measured by the following formula:
(1)
where
Si is similarity of brand choice for Product i
K is a constant (six) used to create a range of 5-1
for the similarity of brand choice scale
Ni is the number of different brands used by mem-
bers of a group. 7
Thus, maximum similarity of brand choice (all group
members using the same brand) would have a score of
five (6 - 1 = 5), and minimum similarity of brand
choice (all group members using different brands)
would have a score of one (6 - 5 = 1).
Group knowledge of member brand choice was a
group measure of the extent to which members knew
what brand of the test products their fellow members
used most frequently. Each subject had an individual
brand choice knowledge score for each test product
that ranged from four (complete knowledge) to zero
(no knowledge). The scores of the five members of a
group were added to produce a group brand choice
knowledge score that ranged from 0 to 20.
Two variations of group brand choice knowledge were
considered: perceived brand choice knowledge and cor-
rect brand choice knowledge. A's perception of what
brand B uses may influence his (A's) own brand choice.
However, if an influence relationship exists between
brand choice knowledge and similarity of brand choice,
the observed relationship will tend to be stronger as the
accuracy of perceived brand choice knowledge increases.
Obtaining a measure of correct brand choice knowledge
as well as perceived brand choice knowledge increased
the likelihood of identifying a knowledge-similarity re-
lationship if one existed.
° Conspicuousness in this context has two dimensions: (1) the
product must be conspicuous in that it can be seen and identified,
and (2) it must be conspicuous in that it stands out and is
noticed [2].
7
The similarity of brand choice measure does not take into
account the market shares of the brand(s) involved.
INFORMAL SOCIAL GROUP INFLUENCE ON CONSUMER BRAND CHOICE 475

The following formulas were used in calculating per- choice knowledge and similarity of brand choice is con-
ceived and correct brand choice knowledge: sistent with the logic and literature of the referent-indi-
5 vidual influence process. If a group member's brand
(2) KPj = LKp,j, choice is to be influenced by the brand choices of his
i=l fellow group members, the individual must be aware of
where their brand choices. Also, if the individual is to attribute
KPi is perceived brand choice knowledge for Group j sanction influence to his group with respect to his brand
Kpii is perceived brand choice knowledge for the ith choice behavior, he must believe that his brand choice
member of Group j. behavior will be known by the group.
5
The combined relationship of group cohesiveness and
(3) KCi = L (Kp;i - e;), group knowledge of member brand choice to similarity
i=l of brand choice was evaluated by multiple correlation.
Similarity of brand choice was the dependent variable
where
and group cohesiveness and group knowledge of member
KCi is correct brand choice knowledge for Group j
brand choice were independent variables. The multi-
Kpii is the perceived brand choice knowledge of the
variate analysis did not produce substantially greater
ith member of Group j
percentages of explained variance than the bivariate
ei is the number of instances in which the ith member
analyses (see the table).
incorrectly perceived the brand choice of a fellow group
member. VALUE OF R2 IN REGRESSION OF BRAND CHOICE ON
GROUP COHESIVENESS AND GROUP KNOWLEDGE
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
After Deo- Ciga-
Hypothesis I Independent variable(s) Beer shave dorant rettes
lotion
The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient Bivariate
and the coefficient of determination were used to evalu- Group cohesiveness .ose .11 d
ate the relationship between group cohesiveness and Perceived group know]- .23b .16°
similarity of brand choice. A significant correlation be- edge
Correct group knowledge .47b .42b .14°
tween group cohesiveness and similarity of brand choice Multivariate
was found for two of the test products: beer (.06 level) Cohesiveness and perceived .25b . lSC .18°
and after shave lotion (.02 level). The correlation be- knowledge
tween group cohesiveness and average similarity of Cohesiveness and correct .47b .13<l .44b .14°
knowledge
brand choice was significant at the .02 level. The co-
efficients of determination for these relationships were a Not statistically significant.
.08, .11 and .12, respectively. Although these values of b Significant at .001 level.
R 2 are low, note that group cohesiveness is only one of
0
Significant at .01 level.
<l Significant at .02 level.
·the numerous variables associated with member brand e Significant at .06 level.
choice. It is unlikely that a bivariate analysis would pro-
duce a substantial percentage of explained variance in The relationship of group cohesiveness and group
this context. The positive relationship between group knowledge to similarity of brand choice varied signifi-
cohesiveness and similarity of brand choice is in accord cantly across products. This can be interpreted as an
with the literature on group cohesiveness which indi- indication that product purchase decisions vary in their
cates that the influence of a group on its members is susceptibility to group influence. The product selection
directly proportional to the cohesiveness of the group factors mentioned earlier are probable causes of the
[1, 3]. hypothesized variation in susceptibility of purchase de-
cisions to group influence.
Hypothesis II Research is needed to define and measure the parame-
ters of susceptibility of product purchase to group in-
Five of the eight relationships tested between group fluence. Only two determinants of group influence were
knowledge of member brand choice (perceived and cor- involved in this study; the relationship of other determi-
rect) and similarity of brand choice were significant at nants of group influence to brand choice should be in-
the .001 or .01 level. For the significant perceived vestigated, using multivariate rather than bivariate analy-
brand choice knowledge relationships, the R 2 values sis to the extent possible.
were: beer -.23, and deodorant -.16. For the signifi-
cant correct brand choice knowledge relationships the R 2 REFERENCES
values were: beer -.47, deodorant -.42 and cigarettes 1. K. Back, "Influence Through Social Communication," Jour-
.14. nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46 (January 1951),
The observed relationship between group brand 9-23.
476
2. F. Bourne, "Group Influence in Marketing," in R. Likert
and S. Hayes, eds., Some Applications of Behavioral Re-
search, Paris: UNESCO, 1957, 208-24.
3. L. Festinger, S. Schachter and K. Back, "The Operation of
Group Standards," in H. Proshansky and B. Seidenberg,
eds., Basic Studies in Social Psychology, New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1956, 471-85.
4. J. French, Jr. and B. Raven, "The Bases of Social Power,"
in D. Cartwright and A. Zander eds., Group Dynamics:
Research and Theory, 2nd edition, New York: Harper and
Row Publishers, 1960.
5. R. L. Gordon, "Interaction Between Attitudes and Definition
of the Situation in the Expression of Opinion," American
Sociological Review, 17 (February 1952), 50-9.
6. A. P. Hare, "Interaction and Consensus in Different Size
Groups," American Sociological Review, 17 (June 1952),
261-7.
7. I. L. Janis and P. B. Field, "A Behavioral Assessment of
Persuasibility: Consistency of Individual Differences," in
I. L. Janis, et al., eds., Personality and Persuasibility, New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1959, 29-54.
8. F. Merei, "Group Leadership and Institutionalization," Hu-
man Relations, 2 (January 1941), 23-39.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, NOVEMBER 1969
9. R. K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe,
Ill.: The Free Press, 1957, 247-8.
10. Stanley E. Seashore, Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial
Work Group. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Re-
search, 1954, 36-9.
11. John W. Slocum, Jr., "Group Cohesiveness: A Salient Fac-
tor Affecting Students' Academic Achievement in a Colle-
giate Environment," Unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Washington, 1967.
12. James E. Stafford, "A Sociometric Analysis of Group Influ-
ence on Consumer Brand Preference," Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Texas, 1965.
13. E. Thomas and C. Fink, "Effects of Group Size," Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 60 (July 1963), 371-84.
14. M. Venkatesan, "Experimental Study of Consumer Behavior
Conformity and Independence," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 3 (November 1966), 384-7.
15. - - - , "Personality and Persuasibility in Consumer Deci-
sion Making," Journal of Advertising Research, 8 (Novem-
ber 1966), 38-45.
16. Robert E. Witt, "Small, Informal, Social Group Influence
on Member Brand Choice of Low Cost Nondurable Con-
sumer Products," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsyl-
vania State University, 1968.