The Influence of a Mere Social Presence in a

Retail Context
JENNIFER J. ARGO
DARREN W. DAHL
RAJESH V. MANCHANDA*
While the majority of consumer research that has studied sociai influences has
focused on the impact of an interactive social presence, in this research we demonstrate that a noninteractive social presence (i.e., a mere presence) is also influential. We conduct two field experiments in a retail setting to show when and
how a noninteractive social presence that differs in size and proximity impacts
consumers' emotions and self-presentation behaviors. In doing so, we refine Social
Impact Theory by identifying boundary conditions under which the theory does not
hold.

ocial influence has been shown to play an important

role in the consumption process (Bearden and Etzel
1982; Moschis 1976). The majority of research in this area
has focused on how an interactive social influence, such as
being greeted by salespeople or debating a group purchase,
impacts a consumer (e.g., Childers and Rao 1992). However,
social influence situations in consumption are not limited
only to interactive situations but also include those that occur
without an interaction. These noninteractive social situations
include events where a social entity is physically present
during consumption but is not involved nor attempts to engage the consumer in any way (e.g., other shoppers in a
grocery aisle or a fellow audience member at the theater).
To date, little research has studied the effects of this type
of social influence on a consumer (for exceptions, see Dahl,
Manchanda, and Argo 2001; Zhou and Soman 2003). The
purpose of the present research is to broaden our understanding of the effects of a noninteractive social presence
and investigate its relevance in a consumption situation.
The theoretical framework used in our research is Social
Impact Theory (SIT; Latan 1981), which proposes that

people are impacted by the real, implied, or imagined presence or action of a social presence (i.e., another person or
group of people). This impact results from three "social
forces": number (i.e., social sizehow many people are
present), immediacy (i.e., proximity), and social source
strength (i.e., importance; Latan 1981). Using a retail shopping environment as our context, we investigate the impact
of two of these social forces, social size and proximity, on
consumers' emotions and self-presentation behaviors in two
field experiments.
Our research contributes to the existing literature by refining SIT through the identification of boundary conditions
under which the theory does not hold. In two studies we
find that SIT does not predict the impact of a change in
social size on consumers' emotions and produces mixed
results for impression management tendencies. At a more
general level, we validate the importance of a noninteractive
social influence in the consumption context and point to important opportunities for future research. Next, we review the
principles of SIT and present the hypothesis for study 1.

*Jennifer J. Argo is assistant professor of marketing. School of Business,

University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R6 (jennifer.argo@ualberta
.ca). Darren W. Dahl is associate professor of marketing. Sauder School
of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. BC, V6T 1Z2
(darren.dahl@sauder.ubc.ca). Rajesh V. Manchanda is associate professor
of marketing, I. H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 5V4 (raj_manchanda@umanitoba.ca). Correspondence: Jennifer J. Argo. This article is based on the first author's doctoral
dissertation, cochaired by the second and third authors. The authors wish
to thank Peter Darke, Page Moreau, and Jaideep Sengupta for their helpful
comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. The financial support from
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

As noted earlier, the impact of a social presence on a

person results from "social forces" that include the size,
immediacy, and strength of the social influence (Latan
1981). Social Impact Theory forwards three principles that
define its functionality. First, the theory posits that the impact of a social presence's social forces increases as a power
function such that the greatest influence will arise when the
social presence is large (vs. small), is in close (vs. far)
proximity, or is high (vs. low) in source strength (Latan
and Wolf 1981). The second principle addresses the relationships between the social forces and suggests that the in-

SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY

207
2005 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 32 September 2005
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2005/3202-0003$10.00

208

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

fluence of a social presence is a multiplicative function of the

forces with the greatest impact occurring when there are several people in close proximity and in high source strength.
Finally, the third principle states that a social presence's
influence is an inverse function of the number of targets,
proximity, and source strength; the impact of the social
forces will be divided between the targets. Our research
focuses on the ideas inherent in the first two principles. We
begin our conceptual development by outlining the importance of social size relative to consumers' emotions and
behaviors.
Social Size. Social Impact Theory proposes that as the
size of a social presence increases, it should have an increasing impact on one's emotions and behaviors. First, research on stage fright has supported this prediction by showing that an increase in audience size results in participants
experiencing more negative emotions (Jackson and Latan
1981; Latan and Harkins 1976). Similarly, research on
crowding has found that an increase in the number of people
present decreases participants' feelings of comfort and increases their negative affect (Griffitt and Veitch 1971;
Langer and Saegert 1977). Thus, an increase in the size of
a noninteractive social presence is expected to increase consumers' negative emotions and decrease positive emotions.
Second, in general, people have a pervasive desire to be
viewed in a positive light (Leary and Kowalski 1990), and
to achieve this desire, they regularly engage in impression
management behaviors. In fact, consumers will go to great
lengths, such as lie (Sengupta, Dahl, and Gom 2002) or
purchase certain products (Leigh and Gabel 1992), to impress others. Thus, we expect that an increase in social size,
which results in more people to impress (Schlenker and
Weigold 1992), will translate into an increased tendency for
consumers to manage their impressions.
HI: As the size of a noninteractive social presence
increases, a consumer will be more likely to experience negative (and less positive) emotions and
manage self-presentation behaviors.

STUDY 1
Method
In a retail shopping setting, a between-subjects experimental design tested the impact of social size (no one vs.
one person vs. three people) on consumers' emotions and
behaviors. Eighty-seven undergraduate students (males =
48, females = 39) from a large North American university
completed the study (cell sizes ranged from 28 to 30).
Independent Variable, Social size was manipulated,
using trained confederates (one male/two females) who assumed the role of store shoppers. In the social presence
conditions, a confederate (three confederates) was situated
in the store aisle 2 ft. from a consumer battery display. The
confederates were trained to avoid interacting with partic-

ipants and rehearsed their role to achieve consistency. In the

no social presence condition, a confederate was not present.
Social size manipulations were based on previous research
(e.g., Jackson and Latan 1981).
Procedure, Participants were mn individually and were
told that the purpose of the research study was to evaluate
the university bookstore for store management. As part of
the evaluation, they were asked to visit the store, make a
product purchase assigned by random draw, and then provide their impressions. Unknown to participants, the only
product that could be drawn was a package of four AA
batteries. The store's battery display was located in a lowtraffic aisle away from the view of the cashiers. The choice
of store aisle and the fact that the study was mn during offpeak hours helped minimize the likelihood that additional
shoppers would be present in the aisle at the same time as
the participants. Participants were given $5.00 to make the
purchase and told that they could keep the product and any
change remaining.
After participants retumed from the store, they completed
a questionnaire. To assess their emotions, they indicated how
they felt while in the shopping aisle, using 11 seven-point
scale items (not at all/very). Factor analysis indicated four
underlying dimensions (two negative/two positive, 72% of
variance explained), including annoyance (annoyed and
frustrated; r = .55, p < .001), self-consciousness (self-conscious and awkward; r = .88, p< .001), happiness (good,
happy, excited, and interested; a .81), and confidence
(confident, sure, and certain; a = .81). To assess the social
size manipulation, they were asked how many, if any, other
people were present in the aisle in which they found their
assigned product. Participants also indicated their gender,
age, and responded to a suspicion probe. Analysis of gender effects, cross-gender effects, age, and the suspicion
probe were not significant in either of the studies and are
not discussed further.
An observer situated two aisles away from the battery
display assessed self-presentation behaviors. The first behavior measured the extent to which participants interacted
with a battery-testing station located next to the display,
using a three-point scale (1 = did not use, 2 = used somewhat, 3 = used extensively). A pretest showed that use of
the station was "nerdy" and "uncool" in the presence of
others. The second behavior recorded was brand selection.
Pretesting established the prices of five brands to refiect
differences in perceived quality, with higher prices denoting
higher quality: Duracell/Energizer ($4.29), Rayovac/Panasonic ($3.99), and Chateau ($3.69).

Results
The social size manipulation was successful. Analysis
of variance with the measure of the number of people
in the aisle as the dependent variable and social size as
the independent factor produced a significant main effect
(F(2,84) - 139.06, p < . 0 0 1 ; M_ = 0.37, M , ^ _ =
1.45,M3pp|j. = 3.54). Post hoc tests showed significant dif-

MERE SOCIAL PRESENCE

ferences between the conditions no one versus one person

(f(57) = 5.91, p<.001), one person versus three people
(i(55) = 10.31, p < .001), and no one versus thiee people
(i(56) = 17.72, p<.001).
ANOVA demonstrated that social size significantly influenced consumers' emotions (annoyance: F(2, 84) = 3.51,
/7< .05; self-consciousness: F(2, 84) = 5.06,/? < .01; happiness: F(2,84) = 4.02, p < .05; and confidence: F{2, 83) =
5.61, p < .01; for means, see table 1). However, post hoc
tests produced a surprising result. Specifically, the prediction
that an increase in social size would result in an increase in
negative (decrease in positive) emotions was not realized.
Instead, a v-shaped (inverted \'-shaped) pattern arose where
the least negative (most positive) emotions were experienced in the one person condition (no one vs. one person,
all p's < .05; one person vs. three people, all p's < .05). The
no one and three people conditions did not differ significantly for any of the emotions (all /'s < 1 ).
The results for the two behavioral measures also did not
support hypothesis 1. ANOVA for the battery-testing station
measure produced a main effect for social size (F(2, 84) =
5.35, p < .01). However, post hoc tests indicated that while
participants used the station less (i.e., managed behaviors
more) when a noninteractive social presence existed versus
when they were by themselves (no one vs. one person,
i(57) = 2.81, p < . 0 5 ; no one vs. three people, f(56) =
3.35, p < .01), there was no significant difference identified
between the social presence conditions (?< 1). Similarly,
ordinal regression analysis demonstrated that social size impacted brand selection ( = 1.36, Wald = 6.79, p < .01).
Further examination of the frequencies indicated that the
lowest quality/priced brand was selected the most when
there was no one present to impress, but when a social
presence existed (one or three), there was no difference in
brand selection.
Discussion. The results of study 1 showed that two
distinct patterns arose when the size of a noninteractive
social presence increased. Specifically, when social size increased from no one to one person, negative emotions decreased (positive emotions increased) and then inverted
when the social size increased from one to three people. A
possible explanation for this unexpected pattern is that people have a fundamental human motivation to belong (i.e.,
they desire interpersonal attachment; Baumeister and Leary
1995). Research has suggested and shown that the mere
association between people can create an initial level of
social attachment, and that this change to one's perceived
belongingness can elicit a positive emotional response (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Festinger, Schachter, and Back
1950). Thus, the presence of another person in the shopping
aisle may have satisfied participants' need for association
and caused the decrease in negative (increase in positive)
emotions between the no one and one person conditions.
However, consistent with SIT, when the social size increased
beyond one person, the consumer experienced more negative
(less positive) emotions. Findings for the behavioral measures also did not support SIT. Although participants did

209
TABLE 1
EXPERIMENT 1: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
No one
Annoyance
Self-consciousness
Happiness
Confidence
Battery-testing station
Brand selection (%)"

2.45 (1.40)
3.12 (.90)
4.63 (1.18)
4.93 (1.21)
.33 (.47)
1 == 33
2 =-- 27
3 == 40

One person
1.71
1.88
5.23
5.85
.10
1 =
2 =
3 =

(.88)
(1.10)
(.94)
(.76)
(.31)
41.5
41.5
17

Three people
2.48 (1.42)
2.61 (1.22)
4,54 (.85)
5.19 (1.16)
0
1 == 63
2 == 22
3 == 15

NOTE.Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses.

"1 = Energizer/Duracell, 2 = Rayovac/Panasonic, 3 = Chateau.

manage their impressions more when a noninteractive social

presence existed, as compared to when they were by themselves, the actual size of the social presence (when it existed)
did not appear to matter Study 2 attempts to replicate the
patterns of results in study 1 and introduces a second SIT
force, proximity, whose impact on emotions and behaviors
is explored in conjunction with social size.
Proximity. Immediacy is a social force that refers to
the closeness or proxitniity of a social entity to a target.
Recall SIT's second principle, which states that a combination of two social forces produces a greater impact on a
target than each of the forces independently. This principle
has been supported in a number of investigations. Researchers have found that when a social presence in close proximity
is large (vs. small) in size, a person's personal space becomes invaded, creating stress and discomfort (Dabbs 1971 ;
Sommer 1969), and the social presence will have enhanced
visual accessibility to observe the behaviors of others (Kraut
1982). However, when the social presence is further away,
personal space will not be invaded, and it will have less
visual access, regardless of the social size. Thus, we expect
that proximity will moderate the impact of social size on
emotions and self-presentation behaviors.
H2: A consumer will experience more negative (less
positive) emotions and will be more likely to manage self-presentation behaviors when a close noninteractive social presence increases in size, but
when the social presence is further away, social
size will no longer matter

STUDY 2
Method
Study 2 employed a 2 (social size: one vs. three) x 2
(proximity: close vs. far) -i- 1 control between-subjects experimental design. One hundred and eighteen undergraduate
students (males = 47, females = 71) successfully completed the assigned task (cell sizes ranged from 23 to 25).
Social size was manipulated as described in study 1. To

210

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

manipulate proximity, a confederate(s) was situated either

2 ft, (close) or 8 ft, (far) from the battery display. These
distances were determined based on pretesting and earlier
reseai-ch (e.g., Sommer 1959),
The procedure followed study 1 with a few notable differences. First, a different campus retail outlet was used
to increase experimental control. Second, a low-quality
brand of battery was added to create an equal balance
across brand quality levels. Third, two hidden cameras
recorded the behaviors measured in study 1, and the
footage was interpreted by two independent coders (reliability ranged from 97.1% to 100%). As in .study 1, the
same four dimensions of emotions were identified (62.3%
of variance explained; annoyance: r = .55, p < .001; selfconsciousness:/ = .65,/ < ,001; happiness: a = ,73; and
confidence: a = .79). To assess the proximity manipulation, participants rated the distance of other shoppers
relative to themselves using three items (close/far, near/
distant, next to me/awaji from me, a =,195). The manipulations for social size and proximity were successful
(social size: F(l,90) = 248.2, /7<.001; M,p,,, = 1.09,
Ajpecpic = 3,11; proximity: F(l,85) == 91,31, p < .001;
M,,,,, = l',78, M,,, = 4,02),

Results
Consistent with hypothesis 2, ANOVA for emotions produced significant interactions between social size and proximity (annoyance: F(l, 90) = 10,47,/?< ,01; self-consciousness: F(l, 91) = 6,61, p < ,05; happine.ss: F(\, 89) = 5,09,
p < .05; confidence: F(l, 91) = 7.46,/; < ,01; forrneans, see
table 2). A main effect for social size was also identified for
each emotion {p's < .05), Planned contrasts indicated that,
as predicted, more negative (less positive) emotions were
felt when a close noninteractive social presence was comprised of three people versus only one person (p's < ,01),
but when the social presence was further away, social size
did not influence emotions differently (r's < 1), Including
the control group in one-way ANOVAs using social size as
the independent variable rephcated the distinct pattem Of emotions found earlier (p's < ,05), > < .

ANOVA for the battery testing station measure produced

only a main effect for proximity (F(l, 83) = 5.76, p < ,05,
^ciosc - OS,Mf.^^ = ,34); the interaction effect did not reach
significance (p > ,20), Participants interacted with the station more when the social presence was further away as
opposed to close by. However, ordinal regression analysis
using the battery brand as the dependent variable and the
two social forces and their interaction term as predictor variables produced the predicted significant interaction effect
( = 1,81, Wald = 3,81, p = ,05) and a main effect for
social size ( = 1,74, Wald = 6,23, p < ,05), Simple regression tests showed that when there were three people (vs,
one person) in close proximity, participants were more likely
to select the expensive/high-quality brands ( = 1,75,
Wald = 6.21, p < ,05); however, when the social presence
was further away, social size did not influence brand selection ( = 6.69E-02, Wald = ,01, p > .20). As in study 1,
subsequent analysis demonstrated that participants in the
control group interacted with the battery-testing station and
selected the cheapest/lowest-quality brands more than those
in the one or three close conditions (p's < ,05),
Discussion. Study 2 demonstrates that the proximity of
a noninteractive social presence moderates the impact of
social size on emotions and brand selection. An increase in
social size only influenced consumers when a noninteractive
social presence was in close proximity. When it was further
away, although the social presence was still noticed, the
effects it produced did not change when social size increased. Further, this study established the robustness of the
findings for emotions in study 1. Contradicting SIT, we again
found that in experimental conditions with no one or a social
presence comprised of three people, targets experienced
more negative (less positive) emotions as compared to those
in a one person social presence condition.

GENERAL DISCUSSION
Using a retail setting, the results of two field experiments
show that the social size and proximity of a noninteractive

TABLE 2
EXPERIMENT 2: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
Close

Annoyance
Self-consciousness
Happiness
Confidence
Battery testing station
Brand selection (%)"

Far

Control

One person

Three people

One person

Three people

2.33 (1.55)
3.20 (1.69)
4.79 (1.00)
4.90 (1.32)
.42 (.50)
1 = 35
2 = 17
3 = 48

1.08 (.25)
1.82 (1.23)
5.43 (.86)
5.67 (.74)
.06 (.24)
1 = 47
2 = 21
3 = 32

2.52 (1.54)
3.42 (1.61)
4.61 (.88)
4.35 (1.46)
.10 (.30)
1 = 84
2 = 8
3 = 8

1.76(1.21)
3.05(1.88)
5.05 (.64)
4.90 (1.39)
.41 (.64)
1 = 70
2 = 15
3 = 15

1.70 (.85)
2.91 (1.64)
5.02 (.99)
4.99(1.07)
.28 (.54)
1 = 70
2 = 3
3 = 17

NOTE.Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses.

=1 = Energizer/Duracell, 2 = Rayovac/Panasonic, 3 = Chateau/Classics.

211

MERE SOCIAL PRESENCE

social presence influence consumers shopping for a product

in a store aisle. A central contribution of our research is that
the results for both emotions and behaviors identify boundary conditions under which SIT does not hold. First, SIT
did not predict the unique inverted v-shaped (and v-shaped)
pattern of results found for emotions. To qualify SIT, we
propose that a need for interpersonal association may explain
the decrea.se in negative (increase in positive) emotions that
arose between the control and one person conditions. Indeed,
at the extreme it appears that no one likes to be alone in a
retail environment. However, when the social size increases
beyond the comfort of one person, consumers' emotional
reactions turn negative, possibly due to the increasingly
crowded environment. Second, the results for the impression
management measures produced mixed support for SIT.
While consumers' tendencies to manage impressions appear
to be attenuated when no one is present or the social presence
is further away, seldom do differences arise between the one
or three person conditions.
Our research presents an initial investigation concerning
the impact of a noninteractive social presence in a consumption context. One limitation of this effort is that theoretical mechanisms that may explain why the mere presence of other shoppers influences consumers are not
empirically tested. Future research should test the proposed
explanations of interpersonal association and crowding identified. Another limitation of this work is that while field
studies enhance extemal validity, they do so at the expense
of internal validity. To illustrate, although efforts were taken
to enhance experimental control, other shoppers could not
be prevented from entering the aisle, and participants' travel
time between the experimenter and the stores likely varied.
Although these types of effects should randomize across
conditions, we recognize that laboratory settings would enhance internal validity. These limitations underscore the necessity for future research.
Future research could also focus on developing a more
comprehensive theoretical explanation for our findings. To
achieve this, research could integrate existing social theories
such as Zajonc's (1965) social facilitation model. Despite
the fact that Zajonc's model is defined in an evaluative social
audience setting, it may provide insight into the role of
arousal in our context. Following the model, participants
may have become aroused when a social presence existed.
As arousal is neutral, and situational factors establish its
directionality and intensity, social size may have determined
the emotional responses elicited. Similarly, a large social
presence may have heightened arousal, distracting or impairing one's ability to further manage impressions as compared to when one person was present. If and how arousal
affects emotions and behaviors as an outcome of different
social sizes is an important question. Research that directly
measures arousal, using scales such as PAD (Mehrabian and
Russell 1974), is warranted.
Interestingly, no differences arose in the emotions experienced between the no one and three person conditions.

Future research should address this null finding by testing

larger social sizes than those studied here. Research could
also explore SIT's remaining social force, source strength.
Finally, little attention has been devoted to understanding
the impact of partially interactive social influences (for an
exception, see Stayman and Deshpande 1989); thus, determining the impact of various degrees of social interactions
on consumers is needed.
[Dawn Iacobucci served as editor and Laura Peracchio
served as associate editor for this article.]

REFERENCES
Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary (1995), "The Need to
Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation," Psxchological Bulletin, 117 (3),
497-529.
Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982). "Reference
Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions."
Journal of Consumer Research. 9 (September). 183-94.
Childers, Terry L. and Akshay R. Rao ( 1992), "The Influence of
Familial and Peer-Based Reference Groups on Consumer
Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research. 19 (September),
198-211.
Dabbs, James M., Jr. (1971). "Physical Closeness and Negative
Feelings," Psychonomic Science, 23 (2), 141^3.
Dahl, Darren W., Rajesh V. Manchanda, and Jennifer J. Argo
(2001), "Embarrassment in Consumer Purchase: The Roles
of Social Presence and Purchase Familiarity," Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 473-81.
Festinger, Leon, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt Back (1950), Social
Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of a Housing Communiry, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Griffltt. William and Russell Veitch (1971). "Hot and Crowded:
Influences of Population Density and Temperature on Interpersonal Affective Behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(1), 92-98.
Jackson. Jeffrey M. and Bibb Latan (1981). "AU Alone in Front
of All Those People: Stage Fright as a Function of Number
and Type of Co-performers and Audience," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40 (1 ), 73-85.
Kraut, Robert E. (1982), "Social Presence, Facial Feedback, and
Emotion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42
(5), 853-63.
Langer, Ellen J. and Susan Saegert (1977), "Crowding and Cognitive Control," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (3), 175-82.
Latan. Bibb (1981). "The Psychology of Social Impact," American Psychologist, 36 (4), 343-56.
Latan, Bibb and Stephen Harkins (1976). "Cross-Modality
Matches Suggest Anticipated Stage Fright a Multiplicative
Power Function of Audience Size and Status." Perception and
Psychophysics, 20 (6). 482-88.
Latan, Bibb and Sharon Wolf (1981). "The Social Impact of Majorities and Minorities," Psychological Review. 88 (5). 438-53.
Leary. Mark R. and Robin M. Kowalski (1990). "Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model,"
Psychological Bulletin, 107 (1), 34-47.
Leigh. James H. and Terry G. Gabel (1992). "Symbolic Interactionism: Its Effects on Consumer Behavior and Implications

m.
for Marketing Strategy," Journal of Sen/ices Marketing, 6
(Summer), 5-16.
Mehrabian, Albert and James Russell (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 206-15.
Moschis, George P. (1976), "Social Comparison and Informal Group
Influence," Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August), 23744.
Schlenker. Barry R. and Michael F. Weigold (1992), "Interpersonal
Processes Involving Impression Regulation and Management," Annual Review of' Psychology, 43, 133-68.
Sengupta, Jaideep, Darren W. Dahl, and Gerald J. Gorn (2002),
"Misrepresentation in the Consumer Context," Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 12 (2), 69-79.

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Sommer, Robert (1959), "Studies in Personal Space," Sociometry,
22, 247-60.
(1969), Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis for Design,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stayman, Douglas M. and Rohit Deshpande (1989), "Situational
Ethnicity and Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December), 361-71.
Zajonc, Robert B. (1965), "Social Facilitation," Science, 149,
269-74.
Zhou, Rongrong and Dilip Soman (2003), "Looking Back: Exploring the Psychology of Queuing and the Effect of the
Number of People Behind," Journal of Consumer Research,
29 (4), 517-30.

i,\

''

|--'ll