How Social Media Sharing Cues Influence Consumer Choices: Impression Management and Loss of Autonomy

College of Business, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064

Abstract

With the rapid development of social media, third-party review platforms, and various e-commerce sites, consumers can increasingly share their consumption experiences with others. To capitalize on this trend, companies have implemented numerous social media marketing strategies to stimulate sharing, such as adding share buttons to product pages, creating hashtag campaigns, or using advertising slogans that encourage sharing. Unlike previous research that has primarily focused on post-purchase sharing behavior, this project proposes that social media sharing cues play a significant role during the consumer decision-making process, influencing judgments and choices. Specifically, we argue that social media sharing cues simultaneously activate consumers' impression management motivation and diminish their sense of autonomy. Building on these dual mechanisms, we investigate two key behavioral outcomes: product interest and decision termination. This research makes important theoretical contributions by moving beyond the predominant focus on post-decision sharing, offering valuable insights into how social media sharing and digital environments shape consumer behavior. Practically, it provides crucial guidance for companies seeking to optimize their social media marketing strategies.

Keywords: sharing cues, impression management, autonomy, consumer choice

1. Problem Statement

The internet, particularly mobile internet, has become deeply integrated into consumers' daily lives and work. According to the 49th survey report from the China Internet Network Information Center, as of December 2021, China's internet user base reached 1.032 billion, an increase of 42.96 million from December 2020, with internet penetration reaching 73.0%. The data also shows that Chinese internet users spend an average of 28.5 hours online per week. As consumers devote increasing time to online activities, they readily share their consumption experiences on social media and review platforms such as Dianping (Berger, 2013). The maturation of social networks and the rapid development of 5G technology have fundamentally transformed the internet ecosystem, shifting from a search-centric paradigm to a social network-centered social media marketing model. In response to this powerful sharing trend, many companies and brands have actively encouraged both online and offline sharing behaviors. Common practices include adding share buttons to product pages (Wertenbroch et al., 2020), creating hashtag campaigns on major social platforms, or using advertising slogans that directly prompt sharing. For instance, NetEase's 2016 "Share Your Music" campaign stimulated widespread user sharing and generated extensive discussion on Weibo and WeChat Moments. Similarly, the candy brand KisKis launched a #HalloweenShowYourCandy campaign on Weibo that attracted 2.27 million followers (as of November 3, 2021). From a marketing practice perspective, motivating consumers to share their purchases or experiences on social media has become an important marketing tactic and is considered a key approach to increasing page views and product exposure (see review in Rosario et al., 2016).

While social media sharing is ubiquitous and has received considerable academic attention, existing research has predominantly focused on post-purchase outcomes (Barasch, Zauberman & Diehl, 2018), examining antecedents of sharing such as impression management (Moore & Lafreniere, 2020), concern for others (Dubois et al., 2016), and contextual triggers (Consiglio, Angelis, & Costabile, 2018); the content of sharing, such as positive versus negative experiences (Bhattacharjee & Mogilner, 2014) or humorous content (McGraw, Warren, & Kan, 2014); and the impact of sharing on audiences, such as influences on others' decisions and emotional states (Barasch, 2020).

However, few studies have examined how social media sharing cues influence behavior during the decision-making process. The most relevant research to date is Barasch, Zauberman, and Diehl (2018), who found that activating sharing intentions during photography actually reduces enjoyment of the experience. Specifically, when people take photos with the intention of sharing them (versus saving them for personal use), their photographic experience diminishes because the sharing intention heightens self-presentational concerns while reducing engagement. This study holds significant importance in today's social marketing era, revealing that sharing intentions can permeate the consumer experience rather than emerging only after the experience. Nevertheless, their experimental approach of directly asking participants to imagine sharing with others differs somewhat from real-world contexts.

Social media sharing cues—such as share buttons on brand and product pages, hashtags on major platforms, and advertising slogans that prompt sharing—are ubiquitous. Consumers' sharing intentions emerge constantly, making it both theoretically and practically meaningful to examine how these cues affect consumer choices before and during decision-making. Today's consumers exist in a highly connected mobile and social network environment (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016; Schlosser, 2020), where the possibility and convenience of sharing have increased dramatically. For example, a "Share to Weibo/WeChat" icon next to a menu item enables one-click sharing to social platforms. From a managerial perspective, share buttons and pervasive sharing triggers constitute essential components of today's intense social media campaigns and are elements that major platforms compete to introduce. It is no exaggeration to state that in this context, social media sharing cues have become integrated into the consumer decision-making process, increasingly shaping an important aspect of consumer decisions and transforming what consumers choose and how they choose it (Berger, 2014).

Goal priming theory suggests that external environmental cues, even when presented subtly, can significantly influence behavior (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows 1996). Building on this, our research examines the following questions: How do social media sharing cues, as an extremely common contextual cue in today's social marketing era, influence consumers' product interest and decision-making experience before and during the decision process? What are the underlying mechanisms and influencing factors? We propose that social media sharing cues affect consumers through two primary pathways: impression management and sense of autonomy. Based on these mechanisms, we investigate both consumer-level and firm-level consequences. Specifically, we examine how social media sharing cues during decision-making, by activating consumers' public self-awareness and undermining their sense of autonomy, influence product interest and decision termination.

2. Literature Review

Based on our research objectives, we review relevant literature on information sharing and experience sharing in social media.

2.1. Information Characteristics in Social Media Sharing

Previous research has examined what types of information stimulate consumer sharing, which can be categorized into two main areas: content characteristics and external environmental factors. Regarding content characteristics, people are willing to share information with the following features. First, practical information: Research demonstrates that online content rich in practical value and information can trigger active sharing. For instance, Lee and Hong (2016) found through an online survey of 402 Facebook users that information-rich advertisements help consumers make more rational judgments and purchase decisions, better satisfying their functional needs and thus generating positive attitudes and sharing intentions. Second, interesting information: From an impression management perspective, people frequently share interesting, interactive, entertaining, humorous, or amusing online content because sharing such material projects a positive image of themselves as interesting and humorous individuals (Berger, 2014). Third, novel information: Through coding and analyzing the most-shared articles in The New York Times, Berger and Milkman (2012) discovered that novel, surprising, creative, and unique online content spreads widely through active sharing, such as sensational headlines, breaking news, eye-opening product innovations, and creative advertisements. Fourth, emotional information: Beyond the three types mentioned above, emotional information consistently captures attention (Heath & Heath, 2007). Previous research indicates that online reviews containing more emotional expressions, whether positive or negative, can increase perceived value and drive sales (Rocklage & Fazio, 2019).

2.2. Internal Motivations for Social Media Sharing

(1) Self-Enhancement. Individuals possess a fundamental need to enhance self-esteem, increase self-worth, seek positive self-concepts, and avoid negative feedback. This drive is rooted in the need for self-esteem, which forms the basis of self-enhancement motivation, while maintaining the self is a crucial reason for its emergence (Dong Yan & Yu Guoliang, 2005). It drives people to focus on self-image in social interactions and strive for positive recognition. Extensive research on word-of-mouth and information dissemination has explored consumers' self-enhancement motivation (Chen & Yuan, 2020). For example, because positive word-of-mouth spreads more widely than negative word-of-mouth (Berger & Milkman, 2012), consumers write more positive reviews for self-enhancement purposes (Wojnicki & Godes, 2008). Moreover, when sharing with weak ties or unfamiliar individuals, self-enhancement motivation becomes stronger because people are eager to make good first impressions to attract potentially valuable relationships (Dubois et al., 2016; Chen, 2017). To enhance self-image, consumers typically share their positive (versus negative) experiences (Angelis et al., 2012; Chen & Lure, 2013) and discuss novel topics or products to demonstrate they are "in the know" (Berger & Schwartz, 2011). When facing knowledge gaps, consumers who perceive discrepancies between their actual and ideal selves actively post positive information to showcase their knowledge reserves (Packard & Wooten, 2013).

(2) Emotion Regulation. A second major motivation for information sharing is emotion regulation, which refers to how people manage their emotions—when, where, and why they experience particular feelings. Individuals experience emotional responses through emotional priming or contagion, and these reactions, whether positive or negative, require emotion regulation to achieve psychological balance and mental health (Gross, 2013). Social sharing represents one such emotion regulation strategy (Rimé, 2009). For consumers, emotion regulation occurs simultaneously with emotions generated during consumption experiences or perceived in marketing messages. Therefore, emotion regulation constitutes an important motivation for information sharing, as consumers obtain social support and assistance through social communication and sharing, thereby reducing cognitive dissonance and stabilizing emotional fluctuations. For example, when flights are canceled or experiences are unsatisfactory, sharing with others can alleviate negative emotions. Ninety percent of consumers believe that sharing their emotional experiences with others helps reduce the impact on themselves. In interpersonal interactions, emotional venting represents an important reason for sharing negative emotions. In consumer behavior contexts, previous research shows that angry or dissatisfied consumers are more willing to share word-of-mouth as an emotional outlet (Wetzer, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2007).

(3) Information Acquisition. Another important motivation for sharing is information acquisition. Consumers often do not know what to purchase or how to solve a particular problem, so they seek help from others. To obtain information, they actively share their own thoughts. Conversely, consumers can also solve problems by sharing information. For instance, people's choices may not meet expectations, and their preferences continuously evolve. Through communication and sharing with others, consumers can receive suggestions for addressing these issues. Previous research finds that consumers who have previously used word-of-mouth to solve problems are more likely to share their opinions on online platforms (Kim, Barasz, & John, 2021).

(4) Social Bonding. Self-determination theory posits that establishing and maintaining social relationships is a fundamental human need. Daily interpersonal communication enables people to stay connected and express care, acting as "social glue" that binds individuals together and strengthens relationships. In social network environments, people typically strengthen social bonds and reduce feelings of loneliness and social exclusion by sharing common interests and emotional online content. For example, people build relationships by providing useful information to others (Chen, 2018) or expressing care during holidays. Related empirical research also demonstrates that strengthening social bonds constitutes an important psychological motivation for actively sharing online content. Libert and Tynski (2013) found that in communities, reinforcing members' shared passions and social connections represents a significant reason for sharing online content.

(5) Altruism. Unlike the self-beneficial perspectives mentioned above, altruism also represents an important sharing motivation. Sometimes people share content largely to help others and improve others' welfare (Berger, 2014). For example, sharing information about a public welfare project to encourage others to participate or sharing an insightful article for others' learning. Ligon and Schechter (2012) found that altruistic motivation positively correlates with sharing and participation behaviors in social network brand communities. Huang, Lei, and Zhu (2016) investigated how companies should design marketing messages by examining how relationship paradigms between consumers and companies influence information forwarding behavior. Through secondary data analysis and experiments, they found that economic incentives more effectively trigger forwarding behavior among consumers in transactional relationships, while emotional stimuli more effectively trigger forwarding among consumers in communal relationships. In transactional relationships, consumers share out of motivation to reciprocate the company.

2.3. Effects of Social Media Sharing on Sharers Themselves

Based on our research focus, we review literature on how information sharing affects sharers themselves. A meta-analysis of 206 fMRI studies found that information sharing positively correlates with activity in the striatum and frontal cortex, demonstrating that sharing activities generate positive value for sharers (Bartra, McGuire, & Kable, 2013). Yang, Li, and Zhao (2014) applied shared reality theory to examine how social bonds and imaginary audiences affect sharers' original brand love during experience sharing. They found that sharing brand experiences helps build brand love, and sharing positive brand experiences positively influences sharers' own brand love, strengthening their brand preference. Berger and Barasch (2017) found in their research on photo sharing on social media that audiences perceive people who post candid photos as more sincere and are thus more willing to get to know and date them. Valsesia and Diehl (2022) discovered that people perceive social media users who frequently share experiences as more authentic than those who frequently share material products, resulting in more favorable impressions.

2.4. Literature Review Summary

Social media has become an important platform for corporate marketing and communication, where companies collect massive amounts of information and share brand and product content. Simultaneously, social media continues to evolve, driven by technological advances such as major platforms constantly adding new features and services, and by increasingly sophisticated consumers who continuously discover new functionalities. In today's rapidly changing landscape, it is urgent to re-examine social media, particularly how environmental factors reshape consumers and what unintended negative consequences may arise for companies, in order to understand how businesses can effectively leverage social media.

Extant research has extensively examined sharing on social media from corporate and consumer perspectives, focusing on how to stimulate sharing and the antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes of sharing. These studies share a common context: consumers share after purchasing or experiencing. However, in today's socialized environment, consumers may no longer follow the traditional decision process of purchase, experience, then share. Pervasive social media saturates every moment of the consumer decision process, and encountering various sharing cues during decision-making may already trigger sharing intentions that subsequently alter or reshape their decisions. Based on this perspective, our project focuses on social media sharing cues encountered during shopping decisions and examines their impact on two outcome variables: product interest and decision termination.

3. Research Framework

This research aims to deeply investigate how social media sharing cues that appear during the consumer decision-making process influence consumer behavior, the underlying mechanisms, and boundary conditions. First, we address the fundamental question: what impact do social media sharing cues during decision-making have on consumers and companies? Previous research on social media sharing has concentrated on the positive effects of post-decision sharing (e.g., Lambert et al., 2013; Tamir & Mitchell, 2012). We extend this work by exploring the double-edged sword effect of sharing cues during decision-making. From a firm perspective, how do social media sharing cues affect product interest, and are there potential negative effects? From a consumer perspective, how do these cues influence consumers' own choices?

Second, we address the key scientific question: what are the internal mechanisms through which social media sharing cues during decision-making exert their effects? Although recent research has examined how sharing intentions during decision-making affect experience (Barasch et al., 2018), the internal mechanisms of social media sharing cues, particularly subtle cues, remain poorly understood. Their mechanisms may differ significantly from the single impression management pathway widely assumed in existing research. Therefore, revealing the internal mechanisms of social media sharing cues represents a key scientific question for this project.

Finally, we address important boundary conditions: under what circumstances do social media sharing cues during decision-making have differential effects? This research examines how these cues operate differently for various consumer types, consumption categories, and decision stages.

Based on the aforementioned framework and objectives, this project will be conducted through two sub-studies investigating the effects of social media sharing cues on product interest and decision termination, respectively.

3.1. Study 1: The Effect of Social Media Sharing Cues on Product Interest

One way companies and brands engage in social marketing is by adding social media icons to product pages. This practice requires minimal investment, but does it achieve the expected effects? Are there potential negative consequences? Study 1 examines how social media sharing cues, particularly subtle cues (i.e., social media icons), unconsciously activate consumers' public self-awareness and influence product interest.

Public self-awareness refers to the consciousness of oneself as a social being whose behavior is observed and evaluated by others. Consumers high in public self-awareness are particularly sensitive to external information, especially how others evaluate them, and thus engage in various behaviors to construct positive self-images (Scheier, 1980). For example, public self-awareness positively correlates with impression management behaviors on social media; individuals with strong public self-awareness are more likely to post photos that showcase high-quality social relationships (Shim, Lee, & Park, 2008) and share more positive content (Bazarova et al., 2013).

While early research viewed self-awareness as a conscious and deliberate information processing activity (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1981), growing evidence suggests that self-awareness involves automatic processing of self-related information that occurs beyond conscious awareness (Hull, Slone, Meteyer, & Matthews, 2002). Consequently, subtle and unobtrusive environmental cues can also activate public self-awareness. For instance, seeing mirrors, cameras, or recording devices can increase public self-awareness to some degree (Rochat, 2018). Existing research suggests that public self-awareness in public (versus private) consumption contexts leads people to avoid products inconsistent with their identity (White & Dahl, 2006), and that high public self-awareness makes consumers more sensitive to information unrelated to self-awareness. In summary, subtle external cues and relatively public social situations can enhance consumers' public self-awareness, and this effect can occur without consumers consciously noticing these cues.

The rapid development of social media, characterized by instant communication and broad dissemination, provides an excellent platform for satisfying public self-awareness (Barasch & Berger, 2014; Berger, 2014). With social media icons now ubiquitous, people can display their attitudes toward products to others without even purchasing or owning them, such as through one-click sharing to WeChat Moments or Weibo. In Study 1, we focus on how social media icons on product pages affect product interest. These icons can subtly influence shopping experiences and alter product interest. As previously discussed, external environmental cues can activate public self-awareness (Morin, 1997), leading us to infer that merely presenting social media icons is sufficient to make consumers conscious of themselves as social beings, enhance public self-awareness, and subsequently change their product interest and evaluations. Consumers not only express their characteristics and preferences through products they purchase and use (Belk, 1988) but also infer others' personalities from their purchases. Therefore, when anticipating evaluation by others, consumers alter their product choices (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). On one hand, consumers avoid products that negatively affect their image (i.e., undesirable products); on the other hand, they actively seek products that generate positive social effects (i.e., desirable products). For example, people avoid products associated with low social status (Dubois, Rucker, & Galinksy, 2012) and choose products that signal uniqueness (Ariely & Levav, 2000) or express belongingness (Chan, Berger, & Van Boven, 2012). Consequently, social media icons can have positive or negative effects on product interest, depending on consumers' judgments of whether the product enhances or harms their image.

Figure 2.1. Framework for Study 1

H1: Social media sharing cues on product pages influence consumers' product interest.

H2: The effect of social media sharing cues on product interest is mediated by consumers' public self-awareness. Social media sharing cues (vs. no cues) increase public self-awareness, which in turn affects product interest.

H3: Product desirability moderates H1. Specifically, for desirable products, social media sharing cues increase product interest; for undesirable products, social media sharing cues decrease product interest.

3.2. Study 2: The Effect of Social Media Sharing Cues on Decision Termination

While consumers use social media as a new platform for impression management, the increasing ease of sharing has also raised concerns about privacy and social media dominance. Network technology development creates a constant sense of being observed (André et al., 2018). Beyond direct interpersonal interactions, companies invest more resources in tracking, monitoring, and analyzing consumer marketplace activities across different decision stages. Technological advances enable firms to not only record and track consumer transactions but also analyze consumer responses before transactions occur. For example, retail surveillance can capture consumers' facial expressions in real time. During shopping, Taobao provides association reminders recommending potentially interesting products "based on your browsing history" (during decision-making) and displays other products you might be interested in at checkout (post-decision). Understanding how people respond to this constantly monitored shopping experience has important theoretical and practical significance.

Some research finds that while technology enhances human capabilities and autonomy, it also increases constraints (Wertenbroch et al., 2020). Some companies have recognized social media's potential negative effects and even abandoned social media to minimize these impacts. For example, the shopping website shopinprivate.com not only lacks social media icons but also claims to provide a "private, secure, and autonomous" consumption experience. Study 2 examines how social media affects people's sense of autonomy and the resulting potential negative consequences.

As one of humans' basic intrinsic motivations, sense of autonomy is closely related to freedom of choice (Kim et al., 2015). Previous research has examined autonomy from political, psychological, and philosophical perspectives. Based on existing literature, we define sense of autonomy during decision-making as the perception that one's decisions are not influenced by external forces (Wertenbroch et al., 2020). Consequently, consumers focus on their internal feelings, independent of others' influence, and intentionally differentiate themselves from others (Feist, 1999). Ubiquitous social media sharing cues can make people feel connected to more individuals while simultaneously conflicting with the desire to be an independent, autonomous entity. For example, people care about how others perceive them and integrate observers' thoughts and cognitions into their own decisions. Moreover, people establish shared reality in cyberspace, incorporating both their own cognitions and others' perspectives into decisions (Hardin & Higgins, 1996). Additionally, previous research shows that people overestimate the degree to which their choices and behaviors are observed and evaluated by others and that their internal mental states are detected by others—the "illusion of transparency."

The extent to which social media cues affect sense of autonomy depends on the consumer's stage: during decision-making (process stage) versus post-decision (outcome stage). Specifically, the decision-making stage refers to when consumers are still comparing options and have not yet formed clear preferences, whereas the post-decision stage refers to when consumers have clarified their thinking and formed preferences, such as when products are already in the shopping cart ready for checkout. The key distinction lies in whether preferences are being constructed or have already been formed.

Since autonomy's core concerns sensitivity to free choice, we argue that it is particularly salient during the decision-making process rather than post-decision and is more sensitive to external information (e.g., Lichtenstein & Slovic, 2006). For example, consumers who realize their decision process is recorded only at the moment of payment will experience significantly less autonomy threat than those whose entire decision process is recorded. Recording the entire decision process—including how trade-offs are made and how preferences are formed—creates stronger self-presentation concerns and accountability, substantially damaging consumers' sense of autonomy.

Therefore, when consumers strive to maintain decision autonomy, social media sharing cues during the decision process may produce opposite effects. Drawing on previous research, in Study 2 we propose:

H4: Social media sharing cues during the decision-making process reduce sense of autonomy, leading consumers to terminate their decisions.

Figure 2.2. Framework for Study 2

4. Theoretical Contributions

First, regarding research object, this project focuses on social media sharing cues encountered during consumer decision-making rather than actual information sharing behavior or product sharing. Online information sharing—reviews, movies, music, or life moments—has become an important part of daily life. Extensive previous research has examined how consumers use social media or why and how they share post-decision (e.g., Angelis et al., 2012; Barasch & Berger, 2014; Chen, 2017; Chen & Lurie, 2013; Dubois et al., 2016). Our research examines how social media sharing cues (e.g., common social media icons) can influence consumer behavior during decision-making without requiring direct participation in a specific social media platform. This research object responds to recent studies on how the possibility of information sharing in social media environments affects consumer behavior (Berger, 2014; Stephen, 2016; Yadav & Pavlou, 2014).

Second, regarding research perspective, this project investigates how social media sharing cues influence consumer behavior through two pathways: activating impression management motivation and reducing sense of autonomy. Related existing research has examined how others' presence influences decision-making through two mechanisms. The first is accountability concerns (see review in Lerner & Tetlock, 1999), which suggests that because people anticipate others will ask them to justify their choices, they constantly seek audience approval (Baumeister & Leary, 2017), tend to align with others' viewpoints or preferences (e.g., Tetlock, 1983), and choose socially desirable products (Andreoni & Bernheim, 2009). The second is self-presentation motivation, where people always desire to project a positive image to others and thus engage in impression management. However, we find that existing research has focused on how physical others' presence at the decision critical point activates accountability concerns and self-presentation motivation. Today, social media sharing cues also create feelings of connection with others, which conflicts with being an independent individual and autonomous entity. Previous research also shows that when people perceive self-other connection, they adopt others' perspectives and integrate others' feelings into their own decisions (Shteynberg, 2015; Smith & Mackie, 2016). Therefore, we need to construct two pathways from social media sharing cues: first, sharing cues activate self-awareness, thereby enhancing impression management motivation; second, sharing cues activate self-other connection, thereby reducing sense of autonomy. Our comprehensive research model enriches and deepens existing explanations.

Third, regarding research content, this project examines the effects of social media sharing cues on a range of consumer behaviors and proposes boundary conditions. Previous research based on photo-sharing contexts has examined how sharing cues affect the experience itself (Barasch et al., 2018) but not how sharing cues affect decisions. Our research focuses on how sharing cues change consumer judgments and decisions, complementing existing research on people's relationship with social media and how they use social media to achieve self-goals (e.g., Barasch & Berger, 2014; Appel et al., 2020; Packard, Gershoff, & Wooten, 2016). Additionally, it enhances the "validity" of existing research and improves the "generalizability" of conclusions. Furthermore, existing research has primarily examined how social observation and others' presence at the decision point affect consumer decisions, but few studies have examined how external influence cues in cyberspace permeate the entire consumer decision process and subsequently change their choices. Our project's examination of three effects of social media sharing cues also enriches research on how social influence affects choices before and during decision-making (Kupor et al., 2014; Lamberton et al., 2013).

董妍, 俞国良. (2005). 自我提升的研究现状与展望. 心理科学进展.178–185. 黄敏学, 雷蕾, 朱华伟. (2016). 谈钱还是谈情: 企业如何引导消费者分享自媒体营销. 心理学报, 48(2), 211– 杨德锋, 李清, 赵平. (2014). 分享中社会联结, 假想观众对品牌至爱的影响——他人回应分歧性的调节作用 .

心理学报, 46(7), 1000–1013. Andreoni, J., & Bernheim, B. D. (2009). Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77(5), 1607–1636.

Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The future of social media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 79–95.

Ariely, D., & Levav, J. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 279–290.

Babić Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2016). The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), Barasch, A., Zauberman, G., & Diehl, K. (2018). How the intention to share can undermine enjoyment: Photo- taking goals and evaluation of experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1220–1237.

Barasch, A. (2020). The consequences of sharing. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 61–66.

Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244.

Bartra, O., McGuire, J. T., & Kable, J. W. (2013). The valuation system: a coordinate-based meta-analysis of BOLD fMRI experiments examining neural correlates of subjective value. Neuroimage, 76, 412–427.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (2017). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Interpersonal development, 57–89.

Bazarova, N. N., Taft, J. G., Choi, Y. H., & Cosley, D. (2013). Managing impressions and relationships on Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(2), 121–141.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

Berger, J. (2013). Beyond viral: Interpersonal communication in the internet age. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607.

Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), Berger, J., & Barasch, A. (2018). A candid advantage? The social benefits of candid photos. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 1010–1016.

Bhattacharjee, A., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Happiness from ordinary and extraordinary experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 1–17.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(6), 545–568.

Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Identifiable but not identical: Combining social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 561–573.

Chen, Z., & Yuan, M. (2020). Psychology of word of mouth marketing. Current opinion in psychology, 31, 7–10.

Chen, Z. (2017). Social acceptance and word of mouth: How the motive to belong leads to divergent WOM with strangers and friends. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3), 613–632.

Chen, Z., & Lurie, N. H. (2013). Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of online word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 463–476.

Consiglio, I., De Angelis, M., & Costabile, M. (2018). The effect of social density on word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(3), 511–528.

De Angelis, M., Bonezzi, A., Peluso, A. M., Rucker, D. D., & Costabile, M. (2012). On braggarts and gossips: A self-enhancement account of word-of-mouth generation and transmission. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), 551–563.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–639.

Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M. (2016). Sharing with friends versus strangers: How interpersonal closeness influences word-of-mouth valence. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 712–727.

Feist, G. J. (1999). Autonomy and independence. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1, 157–163.

André, Q., Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., Crum, A., Frank, D., Goldstein, W., Huber, J., Boven, L., Weber, B., & Yang, H. (2018). Consumer choice and autonomy in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Customer needs and solutions, 5(1), 28–37.

Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. Emotion, 13(3), 359–365.

Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. New York: Random House.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer- opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52.

Hull, J. G., Slone, L. B., Meteyer, K. B., & Matthews, A. R. (2002). The nonconsciousness of self- consciousness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 406–416.

Kim, K., Schmierbach, M. G., Chung, M. Y., Fraustino, J. D., Dardis, F., & Ahern, L. (2015). Is it a sense of autonomy, control, or attachment? Exploring the effects of in-game customization on game enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 695–705.

Kim, T., Barasz, K., & John, L. K. (2021). Consumer disclosure. Consumer Psychology Review, 4(1), 59–69.

Kupor, D. M., Tormala, Z. L., Norton, M. I., & Rucker, D. D. (2014). Thought calibration: How thinking just the right amount increases one’s influence and appeal., Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(3), 263– Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing:

Research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 146–172.

Lamberton, C. P., Naylor, R. W., & Haws, K. L. (2013). Same destination, different paths: When and how does observing others' choices and reasoning alter confidence in our own choices?. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 74–89.

Lee, J., & Hong, I. B. (2016). Predicting positive user responses to social media advertising: The roles of emotional appeal, informativeness, and creativity. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2006). The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press.

Libert, K., & Tynski, K. (2013). The emotions that make marketing campaigns go viral., Harvard Business Review, 1(1).

Ligon, E., & Schechter, L. (2012). Motives for sharing in social networks. Journal of Development Economics, 99(1), 13–26.

McGraw, A. P., Warren, C., & Kan, C. (2015). Humorous complaining. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), Moore, S. G., & Lafreniere, K. C. (2020). How online word of mouth impacts receivers.

Consumer Psychology Review, 3(1), 34–59. Morin, A. (1997). History of exposure to self-focusing stimuli as a developmental antecedent of self- consciousness. Psychological Reports, 80(3_suppl), 1252–1254.

Packard, G., & Wooten, D. B. (2013). Compensatory knowledge signaling in consumer word of mouth.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 434–450. Rimé, B. (2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical review. Emotion review, 1(1), Rochat, P. (2018). The ontogeny of human self-consciousness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(5), Rocklage, M., & H Fazio, R. (2019). The enhancing vs. backfiring effects of emotionality in consumer reviews. ACR North American Advances.

Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368.

Scheier, M. F. (1980). Effects of public and private self-consciousness on the public expression of personal beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 514–523.

Schlosser, A. E. (2020). Self-disclosure versus self-presentation on social media. Current opinion in psychology, 31, 1–6.

Shim, M., Lee, M. J., & Park, S. H. (2008). Photograph use on social network sites among South Korean college students: the role of public and private self-consciousness. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 489–493.

Shteynberg, G. (2015). Shared attention. Perspectives on psychological science, 10(5), 579–590.

Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2016). Representation and incorporation of close others’ responses: The RICOR model of social influence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(4), 311–331.

Stephen, A. T. (2016). The role of digital and social media marketing in consumer behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 17–21.

Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(21), 8038–8043.

Valsesia, F., & Diehl, K. (2022). Let Me Show You What I Did versus What I Have: Sharing Experiential versus Material Purchases Alters Authenticity and Liking of Social Media Users. Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming.

Wertenbroch, K., Schrift, R. Y., Alba, J. W., Barasch, A., Bhattacharjee, A., Giesler, M., ... & Zwebner, Y. (2020).

Autonomy in consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 31, 429–439.

Wetzer, I. M., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). “Never eat in that restaurant, I did!”: Exploring why people engage in negative word of mouth communication.

Psychology & Marketing, 24(8), 661–680. White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404–414.

Wojnicki, A. C., & Godes, D. (2008). Word-of-mouth as self-enhancement. HBS Marketing Research Paper, (06– Yadav, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2014). Marketing in computer-mediated environments: Research synthesis and new directions. Journal of Marketing,78, 20–40.