Skip to main content
Original Article

An Information-Processing Model for Audiences’ Selections of Movies

Quantitative Versus Qualitative Bandwagon Effects

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000157

Abstract. Building on psychocognitive theories of information processing, the purpose of this study was to examine the relative impacts of qualitative bandwagon (e.g., using qualitative information such as comments and reviews) and quantitative bandwagon (e.g., using quantitative information such as view and download counts as bandwagon cues) on content selection decisions by media users. An experiment (N = 77) was conducted to investigate the contributions of the two types of bandwagon behaviors to the selections of Hollywood movies online and to identify factors moderating such bandwagon effects. The results showed that cognitive load was negatively associated with the strength of qualitative bandwagon effects, while positively associated with the strength of quantitative bandwagon effects. Although it was marginally significant, the results also showed that the impact of the quantitative bandwagon effect became stronger when individuals were less familiar with Hollywood movies. Implications with respect to tendency for choice imitation, as well as the conceptual understanding of and methodological approach to the bandwagon behaviors in movie selection, are discussed.

References

  • Axsom, D., Yates, S. & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30–40. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index: Informational and experiential dimensions. Tourism Management, 22, 127–133. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science, 15, 215–227. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bettman, J. R. & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 234–248. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bornstein, B. H. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’ liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 429–446. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. SrullR. S. Wyer Jr.Eds., Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805–818. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cha, M., Kwak, H., Rodriguez, P., Ahn, Y.-Y. & Moon, S. (2007). I tube, you tube, everybody tubes: Analyzing the world’s largest user generated content video system. Paper presented at the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chaiken, S. & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and. In J. S. UlemanJ. A. BarghEds., Unintended Thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Darke, P. R., Chaiken, S., Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H. P. & Hazlewood, J. D. (1998). Accuracy motivation, consensus information, and the law of large numbers: Effects on attitude judgment in the absence of argumentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1205–1215. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Vany, A. & Lee, C. (2001). Quality signals in information cascades and the dynamics of the distribution of motion picture box office revenues. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25, 593–614. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Vany, A. & Walls, W. D. (1996). Bose-Einstein dynamics and adaptive contracting in the motion picture industry. The Economic Journal, 106, 1493–1514. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dholakia, U. M. & Soltysinski, K. (2001). Coveted or overlooked? The psychology of bidding for comparable listings in digital auctions. Marketing Letters, 12, 225–237. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ferreira, M. B., Garcia-Marques, L., Sherman, S. J. & Sherman, J. W. (2006). Automatic and controlled components of judgment and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 797–813. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fu, W. W. (2004). Termination-discriminatory pricing, subscriber bandwagons, and network traffic patterns: the Taiwanese mobile phone market. Telecommunications Policy, 28, 5–22. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fu, W. W. & Sim, C. C. (2011). Aggregate bandwagon effect on online videos’ viewership: Value uncertainty, popularity cues, and heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 2382–2395. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gigerenzer, G. & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Godes, D. & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23, 545–560. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Griffin, D., Gonzalez, R. & Varey, C. (2001). The heuristics and biases approach to judgment under uncertainty. In A. TesserN. SchwarzEds., Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes (pp. 207–235). Malden, MA: Blackwell. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hanson, W. A. & Putler, D. S. (1996). Hits and misses: Herd behavior and online product popularity. Marketing Letters, 7, 297–305. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Igartua, J. J., Moral-Toranzo, F. & Fernández, I. (2011). Cognitive, attitudinal, and emotional effects of news frame and group cues, on processing news about immigration. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23, 174–185. First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholar

  • Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, E. J. & Russo, J. E. (1984). Product familiarity and learning new information. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 542–550. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, S. H., Park, N. & Park, S. H. (2013). Exploring the effects of online word of mouth and expert reviews on theatrical movies’ box office success. Journal of Media Economics, 26, 98–114. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Sharma, N., Hansen, D. L. & Alter, S. (2005). Impact of popularity indications on readers’ selective exposure to online news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 296–313. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ladwig, P., Dalrymple, K. E., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A. & Corley, E. A. (2012). Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy, 39, 761–774. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of marketing, 70, 74–89. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Maheswaran, D. & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13–25. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mattheiß, T., Weinmann, C., Löb, C., Rauhe, K., Bartsch, K., Roth, F. S., … Vorderer, P. (2013). Political learning through entertainment–only an illusion? How motivations for watching TV political talk shows influence viewers’ experiences. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 25, 171–179. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000100 First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholar

  • Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J. & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Neuman, W. R. (1991). The future of the mass audience. New York: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Park, D. H. & Kim, S. (2009). The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7, 399–410. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Park, C. W. & Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 223–231. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Payne, B. K. (2001). Prejudice and perception: The role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 181–192. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Payne, B. K. & Bishara, A. J. (2009). An integrative review of process dissociation and related models in social cognition. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 272–314. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Payne, B. K. & Stewart, B. D. (2007). Automatic and controlled components of social cognition: A process dissociation approach. In J. A. BarghEd., Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes (pp. 293–315). New York: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Punj, G. N. & Staelin, R. (1983). A model of consumer information search behavior for new automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 366–380. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ratneshwar, S. & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension’s role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52–62. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reinhard, M.-A. & Sporer, S. L. (2008). Verbal and nonverbal behaviour as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 477–488. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rieh, S. Y. & Hilligoss, B. (2008). College students’ credibility judgments in the information-seeking process. In M. J. MetzgerA. J. FlanaginEds., Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 49–72). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Roberts, D. F. & Foehr, U. G. (2008). Trends in media use. The Future of Children, 18, 11–37. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rohlfs, J. H. (2003). Bandwagon effects in high-technology industries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S. & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311, 854–856. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simon, H. A. (1954). Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 18, 245–253. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith, E. R. & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–131. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. MetzgerA. J. FlanaginEds., Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S., Knobloch-Westerwick, S. & Hastall, M. R. (2007). News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 366–378. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S. & Nass, C. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51, 52–72. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. & Xu, Q. (2008). The bandwagon effect of collaborative filtering technology. Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI 2008) Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy. Boston, MA: ACM, 3453–3458. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q. & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2009). Authority vs. peer: How interface cues influence users. Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI 2009) Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4231–4236. Boston, MA: ACM. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wirth, W. (2006). Involvement. In J. BryantP. VordererEds., Psychology of entertainment (pp. 199–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wood, W. (1982). Retrieval of attitude-relevant information from memory: Effects on susceptibility to persuasion and on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 798–810. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wood, W., Kallgren, C. A. & Preisler, R. M. (1985). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 73–85. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Xu, X. & Fu, W. W. (2013). Bandwagon effects of popularity information on audiences’ media product selection: Information load and cultural unfamiliarity. Washington, DC: Paper presented at the annual conference of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zhu, F. & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating role of product and consumer characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 74, 133–148. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar