Attraction and compromise effects under social exclusion

Purpose Integrating conceptual perspectives from social exclusion, thinking style and context effects, this study aims to examine how different types of social exclusion influence attraction and compromise effects. Design/methodology/approach Eight studies were conducted. To establish the causal relationship between social exclusion types and context effects, this study uses experimental designs in all studies. Findings The attraction effect is stronger when consumers feel rejected than ignored, whereas the compromise effect is stronger when they feel ignored than rejected. Consumers who feel rejected increase their propensity to think holistically, which in turn leads to their choice preferences for asymmetrically dominant options. Conversely, those who feel ignored increase their propensity to think analytically, which in turn leads to their choice preferences for compromise options. Research limitations/implications The findings show that consumer preferences for one option over the other alternatives in choice contexts are susceptible to subtle differences in the manner that exclusion is communicated. The studies are limited to recall tasks and scenarios that previous research has shown to be effective. Future research may use actual exclusion to corroborate this study’s findings. Practical implications Marketing practitioners may benefit from this study’s findings when it comes to an increase in the relative share of their target brand against their competitor brands by introducing a third option. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to provide evidence that exclusion communicated in an explicit manner produces the attraction effect, whereas exclusion communicated in an implicit manner produces the compromise effect. Given that threatening situations often influence individuals’ preferences and choices, how social exclusion shapes cognitive processes is an empirical question worthy of investigation.