Conversion Theory in Marketing

Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)

Abstract

How do marketing campaigns encourage a majority group of consumers to support a minority group of consumers’ opinion? Why do consumers change their opinions? Why do consumers do what they do? Conversion theory addresses a simultaneous majority and minority influence on consumer behaviour. Whilst conversion theory is applied to various disciplines, there is a gap in literature on conversion theory as applied to the marketing discipline. This paper focuses on conversion theory in marketing and contributes by introducing three new propositions to marketing literature, namely, (1) marketing campaigns can convert the majority opinion to support the minority opinion privately and/or publicly when portraying ‘consistency’, (2) marketing campaigns can convert the majority opinion to support the minority opinion privately and/or publicly when portraying a style of thinking that encourages discussion amongst the majority, and (3) marketing campaigns can convert the majority opinion to support the minority opinion privately and/or publicly when the majority identifies themselves with the message of the marketing campaign.

Keywords

Conversion theory Consumer behaviour Minority influence Majority influence 

References

  1. Allard-Poesi, F. (1998). Representations and influence processes in groups: Towards a socio-cognitive perspective on cognition in organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14(4), 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. The Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit, W. L., & Benoit, P. J. (2008). Persuasive messages: The process of influence. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, pp. 288.Google Scholar
  4. Bolton, L. E., & Reed, A. (2004). Sticky priors: The perseverance of identity effects on judgment. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 397–410.Google Scholar
  5. Book, L. A., Tanford, S., Montgomery, R., & Love, C. (2015). Online traveler reviews as social influence price is no longer king. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348015597029.Google Scholar
  6. Campaignlive. 2015. Case study: Always #LikeAGirl [Online]. Available: http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/case-study-always-likeagirl/1366870 [2017, March 31].
  7. Celebre, A. & Denton, A. 2014. The good, the bad, and the ugly of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty [Online]. Available: http://www.in-mind.org/article/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-dove-campaign-for-real-beauty?page=2 [2017, March 31].
  8. Codaccioni, C., & Tafani, É. (2011). Advertising effectiveness as a function of numerical support: From majority compliance to minority conversion. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahlén, M., Granlund, A., & Grenros, M. (2009). The consumer-perceived value of non-traditional media: Effects of brand reputation, appropriateness and expense. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(3), 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diaz, A. 2015. Always’ Hard-Hitting ‘Like a Girl’ Wins 2015 Outstanding Commercial Emmy [Online]. Available: http://adage.com/article/advertising/always-like-a-girl-wins-2015-emmy-outstanding-commercial/300343/ [2015, March 31].
  11. Dickel, N., & Bohner, G. (2012). Minority and majority influence on attitudes. INTECH Open Access Publisher. Available at: https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/36455.pdf.
  12. Dove. 2017. Dove real beauty sketches [Online]. Available: http://www.dove.com/uk/stories/campaigns/real-beauty-sketches.html [2017, March 31].
  13. Erb, H. P., & Bohner, G. (2009). Consensus as the key: Towards parsimony in explaining majority and minority influence. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes and consequences (pp. 79–103). Hove: Psychology.Google Scholar
  14. Fromkin, H. L. (1971). A social psychological analysis of the adoption and diffusion of new products and practices from a uniqueness motivation perspective. In SV-Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, eds. David M. Gardner, College Park, MD: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 464–469.Google Scholar
  15. Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (2009). The effect of public commitment on resistance to persuasion: The influence of attitude certainty, issue importance, susceptibility to normative influence, preference for consistency and source proximity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(1), 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Imhoff, R., & Erb, H. P. (2009). What motivates nonconformity? Uniqueness seeking blocks majority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kotler, P., Berger, R., & Bickhoff, N. (2015). Quintessence of strategic management. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. Attitude Strength: Antecedents Consequences, 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
  19. Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences scale. Psychology and Marketing, 14(6), 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1983). Internalization versus compliance: Differential processes underlying minority influence and conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(3), 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. (1986). Conversion theory and simultaneous majority/minority influence: Can reactance offer an alternative explanation? European Journal of Social Psychology, 16(3), 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2008). Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The source-context-elaboration model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 237–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P. Y. (2008). Majority versus minority influence: The role of message processing in determining resistance to counter-persuasion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, R., Martin, P. Y., Smith, J. R., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Majority versus minority influence and prediction of behavioral intentions and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(5), 763–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 209–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moscovici, S. (1985). Innovation and minority influence. Perspectives on Minority Influence, Cambirdge University Press. pp. 9–52.Google Scholar
  28. Moscovici, S., & Mugny, G. (1983). Minority influence. In Basic group processes (pp. 41–64). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(3), 270–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mucchi-Faina, A., Pacilli, M. G., & Pagliaro, S. (2010). Minority influence, social change, and social stability. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(11), 1111–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1982). The power of minorities (Vol. 31). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1980). When rigidity does not fail: Individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10(1), 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1991). The social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(9), 788–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 175–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterson, R. S., & Nemeth, C. J. (1996). Focus versus flexibility majority and minority influence can both improve performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumer catch-22 carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sullivan, C. 2013. How Diamonds Became Forever [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/fashion/weddings/how-americans-learned-to-love-diamonds.html [2017, March 31].
  40. Trost, M. R., Maass, A., & Kenrick, D. T. (1992). Minority influence: Personal relevance biases cognitive processes and reverses private acceptance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(3), 234–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Luleå Institute of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  2. 2.Luleå Institute of Technology & University of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations