198 TU AND FISHBACH ption.Consistent with our prediction,participants repor d (M =2.97,SD=91.143)=2.37,p=019. tion mediated the s design. hase intention 45145 -235m= 020. such as colors s and tex 614 own style. the comp ntention (B= 87145 t each other.That is,while each item Study 3 confirm our hypothesis: using a new That is,although ac most-liked information on member on on ot Inot ge ation on others differ in the degre The surveys nted a picture of products (gree and blu ed cople the ense that Appendix A).wh Th sume (vs refer):this indic ofmental sharingm urvey then had participants list th ns these two color were comple both provide their ers on a sinele su withou ting to e mdy 4 tested f anoth marker of mental sharing as epreferenc e othe (pre s as partially their own,they for mark your choic You omly old as long as the "(items owned by others and self)is vered the question first and handed the suvey to the n the first mover's resp the choice their partner in the experiment made.and which we as actio dictationforta king thi Results and Discussion form me to a We coded second movers'responses(same as the first mover as preference rat than acn cho stie p ielded the predicted interaction =168 SE 69)Wald(1)= Method 6.03.p014(se Figure 2).In support of the hypothesis.for Participants. We predetermined a sample size of 35 natural (74%28/38)han 0s(39%:15 dyadic groups (students who sat with another perceived frequency and recency of consuming each of the eight products, r .82, p  .001 into an index of recalled recent consumption. Consistent with our prediction, participants reported they had consumed items described as most liked less frequently and recently (M 2.60, SD .93) than items described as most consumed (M 2.97, SD .91), t(143) 2.37, p .019, Cohen’s d .40. We next tested whether recalled past consumption mediated the effect of information type on purchase intention. We find that information on others’ actions versus preferences decreased pur￾chase intention (.45), t(145) 2.35, p .020, and increased perceived past consumption ( .36), t(145) 2.37, p .019; perceived past consumption, in turn, lowered purchase intention (.87), t(145) 11.73, p  .001. A bootstrap analysis revealed that the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval for the size of the indirect effect excluded zero (.59, .05), suggesting a significant indirect effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Thus, recalled recent consumption mediated the effect of social information (others’ action vs. preference) on purchase intention. Results from Study 3 confirm our hypothesis: using a new paradigm that compares purchase intentions in response to “best sellers” versus “most-liked” information on in-group members (i.e., fellow respondents), people conform to information on oth￾ers’ actions less than others’ preferences. We further documented that these two types of information on others differ in the degree to which they give people the sense that they have acted too. Participants recalled greater recent consumption of the items that others consume (vs. prefer); this indicator of mental sharing me￾diated the effect of information-on-others on purchase-intentions. We next test for another marker of mentally sharing others’ ac￾tions, namely, that people choose differently to complement what others have rather than contradict it. Study 4: Moderation by Complementary Versus Contradictory Choice Sets Study 4 tested for another marker of mental sharing as the underlying cause of lower conformity to others’ actions: if people experience others’ possessions as partially their own, they should choose items that complement (go with) rather than contradict (go against) what others have. The documented effect should therefore hold as long as the “set” (items owned by others and self) is desired (i.e., consists of complementary items). Accordingly, participants in Study 4 chose between a green luggage tag and a blue luggage tag, which we presented as either complementary or contradictory colors, after they learned about the choice their partner in the experiment made, and which we framed either as action (“have it,” as compensation for taking this study) or preference (“like it”). We predicted that for complemen￾tary items, participants would conform more to another person’s choices that are framed as preference rather than action. This pattern should not hold for contradictory items, because in choos￾ing differently, a person does not improve the overall experience from owning both. Method Participants. We predetermined a sample size of 35 natural dyadic groups (i.e., undergraduate students who sat with another person in a common university area; 70 people) per condition. We used the same sample size as in Study 1, because the choice paradigm in both studies was similar. We ran this study throughout 2 weeks, returning a total of 150 dyads (300 participants, 120 males, 177 females, 3 missing). Participants completed this study for candy prizes. Materials and procedure. This study used a 2 (choice fram￾ing: action vs. preference)  2 (relationship between items: com￾plementary vs. contradictory) between-subjects design. Participants read, “In the world of product design, a variety of elements, such as colors, shapes, patterns and textures, are cre￾atively used to give each product its own style.” In the comple￾mentary condition, participants read, “Sometimes, different styles are designed to complement each other. That is, while each item looks good by itself, when put together, they enhance each other and make a harmonious set which is visually pleasant. Therefore, shopping experts advise that consumers should get products with complementary styles together.” In the contradictory condition, participants further read, “Sometimes, different styles are designed to contradict or clash with each other. That is, although each item looks good by itself, when put together, they undermine each other and make an unharmonious set which is visually unpleasant. Therefore, shopping experts advise that consumers should not get products with contradictory styles together.” The surveys presented a picture of two products (green and blue luggage tags, see Appendix A), which, depending on condition, were said to have complementary or contradictory colors. The survey then had participants list the main reasons these two colors were complementing/contradicting. Participants further reported some demographic details, including their relationship with their partner (e.g., friend, significant other). For the next and last part of the study, participants learned they would both provide their answers on a single survey, without communicating to each other. The survey displayed a picture of the blue and green luggage tags, followed by a single question that was formatted to follow the preference or action condition: “Which luggage tag do you like better? Please mark your preference below” (preference condition), or, “Which luggage do you want to get for yourself? Please mark your choice below. You will receive the option of your choice” (action condition). We randomly as￾signed one participant within each dyad to be the first mover— he or she answered the question first and handed the survey to the second mover, who then answered the question with information on the first mover’s response. Upon indicating their choice, par￾ticipants received their selected luggage tags and were thanked and debriefed. Results and Discussion We coded second movers’ responses (same as the first mover 1; different from the first mover 0) as our conformity index. A logistic regression with conformity as the dependent variable on choice framing (action vs. preference), relationship between items (complementary vs. contradictory), and their interaction term yielded the predicted interaction (b 1.68, SE .69), Wald(1) 6.03, p .014 (see Figure 2). In support of the hypothesis, for complementary options, participants conformed more often to their partner’s stated preferences (74%; 28/38) than actions (39%; 15/ 38), 2 (1) 9.05, p .003, whereas for contradictory options, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 198 TU AND FISHBACH