Human beings possess an inherent drive to orient their beliefs, aesthetic preferences, and behaviors toward social collectives that represent prestige, ideal identity, and elevated status. Within the behavioral sciences and consumer psychology, the aspirational group represents one of the most pervasive drivers of anticipatory socialization and lifestyle emulation. By examining how individuals bridge the psychological distance between their current standing and their desired affiliations, scholars uncover the mechanisms governing modern identity formation, economic consumption, and social mobility.
Aspirational Group
1. Concise Definition
An aspirational group (also known as an aspirational reference group) is a social collective, stratum, or category to which an individual does not currently possess formal membership, but toward which the individual actively directs psychological attachment, social comparison, and behavioral emulation. Such groups establish desirable normative standards, aesthetic paradigms, and behavioral benchmarks that non-members adopt to cultivate a prospective identity or signal symbolic alignment with high-status peers.
Unlike normative membership groups where belonging is institutionalized through formal entry or biological kinship, an aspirational group operates primarily as an idealized cognitive schema. The individual perceives the group’s values, material markers, and behavioral codes as intrinsically rewarding or socially advantageous. Consequently, the individual engages in purposive emulation—often altering patterns of consumption, speech, vocational pursuit, and interpersonal etiquette—to minimize the perceived psychological or social distance between their current self-concept and the idealized norms of the target collective.
2. Etymology & Linguistic Origin
The term is a compound construct deriving from sociology and the Latin linguistic tradition. The adjective aspirational traces directly to the Latin verb aspirare, compounded from ad- (meaning “toward” or “at”) and spirare (meaning “to breathe”). Historically, the term carried the evocative connotation of “panting after,” “reaching toward,” or yearning for an unreached summit. By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the English noun aspiration signified an earnest desire for personal elevation, honor, or spiritual attainment.
The noun group entered English via the French groupe (and earlier Italian gruppo or groppo), originally signifying a cluster, knot, or composite whole in fine art. The integration of the two words into a distinct behavioral term occurred during the mid-twentieth century within American social psychology and market sociology. Early social theorists, building upon Latinate sociological vocabulary, designated collectives that individuals “aspire to join” as aspirational reference groups to distinguish them from membership groups, dissassociative groups, and contact groups.
3. Pronunciation & Grammatical Form
In standard English phonetics, the term is pronounced / æs.pəˈreɪ.ʃən.əl ɡruːp / (in General American) and / ˌæs.pɪˈreɪ.ʃən.əl ɡruːp / (in British Received Pronunciation). Stress occurs on the third syllable of aspirational (-ray-), followed by the single-syllable noun group.
Grammatically, aspirational group functions as a compound noun phrase, taking standard pluralization on the head noun (aspirational groups). The word aspirational operates as an attributive adjective modifying the collective noun. In consumer research and psychometrics, the construct is frequently paired with prepositional phrases (e.g., “aspirational group influence,” “alignment with an aspirational group”) and functions both as an abstract categorical construct and as an operationalized independent variable in empirical investigations.
4. Detailed Conceptual Explanation
At its core, the aspirational group construct explains why human behavior is frequently dictated by social arrangements to which actors do not belong. Foundational sociology posits that human beings do not evaluate their well-being, achievements, or material comfort in absolute isolation; rather, individuals evaluate their circumstances relative to designated comparison targets. When an individual selects an external collective characterized by higher prestige, specialized knowledge, creative acclaim, or economic affluence, that collective acts as an aspirational benchmark.
The operational mechanism of an aspirational group rests upon the psychological process of anticipatory socialization. In anticipatory socialization, an actor internalizes the values, manners, vocabulary, and consumption rituals of a prospective group before attaining formal membership. This preparation serves two psychological functions: instrumental utility and self-enhancement. Instrumentally, assimilating group norms reduces friction and facilitates smooth integration if the actor eventually joins the group. From a self-enhancement perspective, even if physical integration is improbable, adopting group-associated symbols allows the actor to project an elevated identity, reinforcing self-esteem through vicarious association.
Social boundaries separate aspirational groups into distinct operational spheres. Sociologists categorize these collectives based on accessibility and contact feasibility. An individual aspiring to join a community of corporate executives or academic scholars may maintain realistic, proximate pathways toward membership through credentialing, professional networking, and targeted behavioral adaptation. Conversely, symbolic aspirational groups—such as professional athletes, world-renowned artists, or international aristocracies—frequently remain physically inaccessible to the average observer. In these instances, the aspirational relationship is sustained purely through cognitive identification, media consumption, and symbolic consumption rituals.
The boundary conditions of aspirational groups require careful delineation. A collective ceases to function as an aspirational group if the target individual perceives membership as entirely unappealing (which transforms the collective into a neutral outgroup) or morally reprehensible (which renders it a dissociative or avoidance group). Moreover, if an actor successfully obtains legitimate, sustained membership and internalizes the social roles of that stratum, the collective transitions analytically from an aspirational group to a primary or secondary membership group, altering the psychological mechanisms governing future behavior.
5. Historical Development
The historical trajectory of the aspirational group construct began with the conceptual birth of reference group theory in the early 1940s. Social psychologist Herbert H. Hyman first coined the term reference group in his landmark 1942 monograph, The Psychology of Status. Hyman demonstrated that an individual’s subjective assessment of their own status changed dramatically depending on the specific cohorts they selected as comparative baselines, demonstrating that reference individuals need not inhabit the subject’s immediate physical circle.
The theoretical framework underwent significant maturation in the late 1940s and 1950s through the scholarship of Robert K. Merton and Alice S. Kitt (later Alice Rossi). In their classic analyses of the American Soldier studies (Merton & Kitt, 1950) and Merton’s subsequent work in Social Theory and Social Structure (1957), Merton formalized the distinction between membership groups and non-membership reference groups. Merton articulated the dynamics of anticipatory socialization, demonstrating how lower-ranking soldiers who adopted the norms and orientations of the non-commissioned officer corps exhibited higher promotion rates, albeit while facing potential estrangement from their current peers who viewed them as non-conformists.
Concurrently, sociologists such as Tamotsu Shibutani (1955) expanded the paradigm by highlighting reference groups as distinct perspectives through which actors structure their perceptual field. By the late 1950s and 1960s, the construct migrated decisively into marketing and consumer behavior research. Francis S. Bourne (1957) formulated early empirical models linking reference group influence to product visibility and conspicuous consumption. Later, in the 1970s and 1980s, researchers such as William O. Bearden and Michael J. Etzel (1982) systematized reference group typologies into clear taxonomies: informational, utilitarian, and value-expressive reference groups, explicitly situating aspirational collectives within the value-expressive domain.
In the twenty-first century, the advent of digital communication, algorithmic social feeds, and influencer culture radically accelerated the prominence of aspirational groups. Digital platforms provide uninterrupted, hyper-curated windows into elite lifestyles, subcultures, and professional circles. Contemporary theorists have thus revised the historical framework to address how virtual aspirational groups exert unprecedented influence on subjective well-being, upward social comparison, and identity construction in globally interconnected societies.
6. Theoretical Foundations
The aspirational group construct is anchored in several foundational sociological and psychological frameworks. Foremost among these is Social Identity Theory, formulated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner. Social Identity Theory posits that an individual’s self-concept is heavily derived from perceived membership in relevant social categories. Because individuals possess an innate motive to achieve and maintain positive self-esteem, they actively seek identification with high-status, positively evaluated social categories. When actual membership is absent, identifying with an aspirational group provides psychological capital, allowing individuals to vicariously share in the collective prestige of the admired stratum.
A second crucial pillar is Leon Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory (1954). Festinger argued that individuals possess an inherent drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities. In the absence of objective, physical standards, people compare themselves with others. While downward social comparisons (evaluating oneself against less fortunate individuals) protect subjective well-being, upward social comparisons (evaluating oneself against superior or aspirational cohorts) serve as motivational engines for self-improvement and aspirational striving. Aspirational groups represent formal, institutionalized targets of upward comparison, offering clear models of competence, aesthetic refinement, and social achievement.
Additionally, the construct draws heavily from economic sociology, notably Thorstein Veblen’s formulation of conspicuous consumption in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) and Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of distinction (1984). Bourdieu demonstrated that social classes differentiate themselves through cultural capital—tastes, linguistic mannerisms, knowledge, and educational credentials. Within Bourdieu’s framework, aspirational groups define the legitimate taste culture. Non-members who aspire to upward social mobility engage in the deliberate acquisition and display of that cultural capital, seeking to convert symbolic aesthetic practices into tangible social and economic mobility.
Finally, Self-Discrepancy Theory, developed by E. Tory Higgins (1987), elucidates the cognitive-emotional mechanics governing aspirational group emulation. Higgins distinguished between the actual self (the representation of attributes an individual currently possesses) and the ideal self (the representation of attributes an individual hopes, wishes, or aspires to possess). Aspirational groups function as concrete, externalized representations of the individual’s ideal self-guides. Emulating the behavioral scripts and consumption practices of an aspirational group directly serves to close the discrepancy between the actual and ideal self, mitigating chronic self-doubt and fostering psychological coherence.
7. Key Components, Types & Dimensions
The structural composition of aspirational groups can be differentiated across several core subtypes, dimensions, and operational mechanisms:
- Anticipatory Aspirational Groups: Collectives with which an individual expects, intends, or has realistic objective potential to obtain formal membership in the future. Examples include medical students identifying with licensed surgeons, or junior associates orienting their behavior toward senior partners.
- Symbolic (Non-Membership) Aspirational Groups: Collectives where psychological identification is profound, yet the realistic likelihood of acquiring formal, institutionalized membership is negligible or impossible. Examples include dedicated amateur basketball players emulating elite NBA superstars, or working-class consumers adopting the design codes of hereditary European aristocracy.
- Contact Level (Contact vs. Non-Contact): Aspirational groups may be direct/contact-based (e.g., a local neighborhood business circle or high-achieving peer network with which the actor directly interacts) or indirect/mediated (e.g., international tech innovators or creative subcultures accessed exclusively through digital media and literature).
- Normative Influence Dimension: The operational pressure exerted by an aspirational collective that compels an individual to conform to specific moral codes, lifestyle standards, and institutional conventions to signal readiness for group inclusion.
- Comparative Influence Dimension: The informational and benchmark function of the aspirational collective, providing clear standards against which an individual evaluates their intellect, physical fitness, professional trajectory, or creative output.
- Value-Expressive Influence: The psychological utility derived from publicly associating oneself with the aspirational group’s prestige, allowing the actor to communicate an elevated identity to external observers through visible symbols and aesthetic choices.
8. Examples & Illustrative Cases
To understand the aspirational group in real-world contexts, consider the field of professional socialization. In an elite law school, a first-generation student may actively seek to emulate the behavioral norms of corporate appellate attorneys. Although the student currently holds only academic enrollment, they begin dressing in tailored conservative attire, modulating their speech patterns to match courtroom rhetoric, subscribing to specialized judicial publications, and adopting the leisure activities (such as golf or gallery attendance) favored by the senior partners of prominent law firms. In this scenario, the corporate legal elite represents an anticipatory aspirational group driving anticipatory socialization.
A contrasting case appears within contemporary athletic and youth subcultures. A suburban amateur skateboarder or runner may adopt the exact footwear, dietary regimens, technical language, and musical preferences of elite extreme-sports collectives or Olympic marathon runners. The athlete acknowledges that they will never compete on the world stage or join the Olympic team; nevertheless, the elite athletic circle operates as a symbolic aspirational group. By purchasing specialized technical gear and participating in grueling training regimens, the individual satisfies an internal identity need, transforming an everyday hobby into a deeply meaningful personal narrative aligned with a prestigious subculture.
A final illustrative case occurs in luxury brand management. Premier automotive manufacturers, haute horlogerie watchmakers, and fashion houses rarely direct their advertising solely at current verified purchasers. Instead, they broadcast their brand iconography to broad populations of aspirational consumers. When an emerging young professional purchases an entry-level luxury watch or an entry-tier designer accessory, they are not merely acquiring an object; they are utilizing a tangible talisman that signals cognitive affiliation with an aspirational economic cohort, publicly projecting their upward trajectory to their immediate peers.
9. Measurement & Assessment
Empirical assessment of aspirational group influence requires robust psychometric and sociometric methodologies. Researchers within social psychology, organizational studies, and marketing have developed validated psychometric scales to measure both reference group susceptibility and the intensity of psychological identification with non-membership groups.
A foundational tool in this domain is the Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence Scale developed by William O. Bearden, Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel (1989). This multi-item, 7-point Likert instrument assesses two distinct dimensions: informational influence (the tendency to accept information from others as evidence of reality) and normative/value-expressive influence (the desire to enhance image through alignment with admired groups). High scores on value-expressive items (e.g., “To make an impression on other people, I often purchase the brands that I see a certain group using”) indicate strong vulnerability to aspirational group standards.
In addition to broad susceptibility scales, researchers operationalize aspirational groups through Self-Brand Connection Scales and Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scales adapted for group-level analysis (Escalas & Bettman, 2003, 2005). Using pictorial Venn-diagram instruments or multi-item semantic differential questions, participants quantify the perceived degree of overlap between their current self-concept, their ideal self-concept, and the characteristics of designated reference groups. Greater overlap between the ideal self and the target group, combined with minimal overlap between the actual self and that group, empirically identifies the presence of an aspirational reference dynamic.
In sociological network analysis, aspirational ties are mapped via sociometric nomination techniques. Researchers ask participants within an organization or social ecosystem to nominate individuals or cliques whose status, lifestyle, or professional performance they admire and seek to emulate. By cross-referencing these nominations with formal network graphs, sociologists calculate structural distance, network centrality, and directional influence, measuring how aspirational hierarchies govern the dissemination of information and cultural practices across communities.
10. Applications & Practical Significance
The practical implications of aspirational group mechanics span across multiple organizational, commercial, and educational fields:
- Strategic Marketing and Brand Positioning: Brand managers utilize aspirational groups to generate brand equity. By featuring culturally prestigious cohorts (such as elite adventurers, intellectual tastemakers, or high-performing entrepreneurs) in narrative campaigns, companies transform utilitarian consumer products into aspirational lifestyle badges. Consumers purchase these items to psychologically connect with the admired collective.
- Workforce Development and Organizational Mentorship: Human resource leaders and organizational psychologists structure corporate mentorship programs to leverage aspirational dynamics. By connecting junior employees with high-performing senior leadership circles, firms accelerate professional socialization, clarify corporate values, and stimulate productive role emulation, which fosters talent retention and career advancement.
- Higher Education and Educational Equity: Universities design transition programs for first-generation students that expose them to aspirational academic communities. Introducing students to successful alumni who share similar socioeconomic backgrounds reframes the collegiate environment from an intimidating, unfamiliar space into an accessible aspirational target, thereby increasing self-efficacy and graduation rates.
- Public Health and Behavioral Interventions: Behavioral scientists deploy aspirational group dynamics to promote preventative health practices. Rather than framing healthy habits around negative warnings, campaigns associate healthy behaviors (such as physical fitness, mindful consumption, or preventative screenings) with dynamic, respected aspirational peers, tapping into normative emulation to shift public behaviors.
11. Research & Empirical Evidence
Decades of empirical literature confirm that aspirational groups exert substantial leverage over individual cognition and economic decisions. A pioneering line of inquiry by Jennifer Edson Escalas and James R. Bettman (2003, 2005) investigated how reference groups shape the construction of self-identities through consumer brands. Their laboratory and field studies demonstrated that consumers actively build connections to brands that are perceived to be used by aspirational reference groups. Crucially, Escalas and Bettman proved that this effect is mediated by the individual’s need for self-enhancement: when an individual’s self-esteem is challenged, their psychological reliance on aspirational brand markers increases dramatically.
In an influential experimental investigation, White and Dahl (2006, 2007) explored the interplay between aspirational and dissociative groups. Their findings revealed that while consumers actively seek out goods associated with aspirational groups, this tendency is sharply governed by the terror of being categorized into a dissociative group. The empirical data highlighted that men, in particular, would aggressively reject products associated with female or non-prestigious consumer groups even when the product demonstrated objective utility, illustrating that the drive to achieve aspirational status is matched by a potent psychological defense against downward social miscategorization.
Sociological studies focusing on occupational social systems, such as research on medical residency socialization by Bosk (1979) and subsequent studies of Wall Street investment banking cohorts (Ho, 2009), document how young professionals rapidly change their personal mannerisms, moral calculus, and spending habits within months of joining institutional tracks. These empirical findings substantiate Merton’s initial formulation of anticipatory socialization, proving that individuals systematically adopt the unwritten behavioral codes of aspirational senior cohorts long before achieving formal promotion or professional autonomy.
12. Cultural & Cross-Cultural Considerations
The operational mechanics of aspirational groups display considerable variation across diverse cultural landscapes, particularly when analyzed through the lens of individualism versus collectivism, and power distance (Hofstede, 2011). In highly individualistic societies (such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia), aspirational groups are often conceptualized around individual autonomy, self-made entrepreneurship, creative non-conformity, and personal mastery. Aspirational emulation in these cultures often emphasizes uniqueness within an elite framework, with consumers selecting markers that highlight personal distinction.
Conversely, in collectivist cultures (such as Japan, South Korea, and various East Asian and Latin American nations), aspirational dynamics are heavily mediated by social harmony, family honor, and consensus-driven status hierarchies. Aspirational groups in these contexts often embody institutional prestige, recognized familial lineage, and undisputed societal standing. In South Korea and urban China, for example, the concept of face (mianzi or chemyon) elevates the importance of socially validated luxury goods; emulating the consumption patterns of the urban high-status group is not viewed merely as personal self-expression, but as a critical social responsibility to project stability and respectability for one’s family network.
Societies with high power distance accept distinct status boundaries more readily than egalitarian cultures. In high power-distance contexts, aspirational groups maintain pronounced social distance, and their lifestyle symbols are universally recognized as indicators of structural authority. In low power-distance societies (such as the Scandinavian nations), strong societal adherence to egalitarian norms (exemplified by cultural concepts like the Law of Jante) inhibits the public, conspicuous display of aspirational affiliation. In these cultures, aspirational striving is pursued through understated, subtle cultural capital—such as environmental stewardship, intellectual engagement, and sustainable design—rather than overt material displays of wealth.
13. Criticisms, Debates & Limitations
Despite its theoretical richness and widespread adoption, the aspirational group construct faces notable methodological and conceptual criticisms. One prominent critique concerns the risk of psychological reductionism. Marxist and structural sociologists argue that mainstream reference group theory overemphasizes individual psychological identification while ignoring the rigid economic barriers, class ceilings, and institutional gatekeeping that prevent upward mobility. From this perspective, framing upward striving purely around individual aspiration can obscure systemic inequalities, fostering the illusion that adopting bourgeois aesthetic tastes is equivalent to securing actual structural advancement.
A second major debate centers on the psychological hazards of perpetual aspirational striving. Clinical and developmental psychologists point out that chronic upward social comparison, exacerbated by modern algorithmic media feeds, can foster persistent feelings of relative deprivation, financial anxiety, and body dysmorphia. When individuals relentlessly orient their self-worth around elite, often digitally manipulated symbolic aspirational groups, the persistent gap between their actual self and their ideal self can trigger chronic depression, imposter syndrome, and crippling debt accrued through compensatory consumption.
Methodologically, measuring aspirational group influence remains challenging due to social desirability bias and post-hoc rationalization. In survey and interview settings, participants are often reluctant to admit that their choices in clothing, career, or artistic tastes are driven by a desire to emulate high-status elites, preferring to characterize their decisions as personal and authentic. Consequently, researchers must rely on indirect projective techniques or sophisticated experimental manipulations, leaving certain empirical models vulnerable to divergent interpretations regarding whether observed behaviors stem from aspirational emulation or independent personal preferences.
14. Related Terms & Distinctions
To avoid conceptual ambiguity, the aspirational group must be systematically differentiated from related sociological and psychological constructs:
- Aspirational Group vs. Membership Group: A membership group is a social collective in which an individual has formal, verified belonging (such as an enrolled student body, a professional union, or a family). An aspirational group is an outgroup from the perspective of formal standing; the individual lacks institutional membership and desires either inclusion or symbolic identification.
- Aspirational Group vs. Dissociative (Avoidance) Group: A dissociative group is an outgroup whose values, norms, and behaviors an individual actively rejects and avoids. Individuals deliberately adjust their conduct to create maximum psychological and social distance from dissociative groups, whereas they actively minimize distance from aspirational groups.
- Aspirational Group vs. Primary Group: A primary group (a concept formulated by Charles Horton Cooley) consists of small, intimate, face-to-face associations characterized by deep emotional ties and mutual cooperation, such as families or close peer cliques. Aspirational groups are frequently large, impersonal, and mediated through cultural representations rather than intimate face-to-face contact.
- Aspirational Group vs. Ingroup: An ingroup is any social collective toward which an individual feels a sense of belonging and “we-ness.” While an aspirational group holds deep positive cognitive valence, it remains technically an outgroup (a “they-group”) until formal assimilation and mutual social recognition take place.
- Aspirational Group vs. Reference Individual (Role Model): A role model or reference individual is a single person whose specific achievements, ethics, or skills are emulated. An aspirational group represents an aggregate collective, culture, or social stratum whose collective norms, aesthetics, and behavioral scripts govern the individual’s broader worldview.
15. Summary & Key Takeaways
The aspirational group represents a central pillar of modern sociological and behavioral inquiry, illuminating how individuals navigate status, construct prospective identities, and articulate personal ambitions. Rather than remaining passive recipients of their immediate environments, human beings continuously look beyond their current horizons, projecting their ideals onto social collectives that embody achievement, prestige, and cultural refinement. Through anticipatory socialization, upward social comparison, and symbolic consumption, individuals close the psychological gap between who they are today and who they aspire to become tomorrow.
Understanding the dynamics of aspirational groups provides critical insights for multiple disciplines. For marketers and organizational architects, aspirational mechanics reveal the cultural codes that drive economic decision-making and professional advancement. For sociologists and psychologists, the construct highlights the delicate interplay between individual human agency and broader cultural stratification. As digital connectivity continues to reshape how social strata are observed and experienced globally, the study of aspirational groups remains indispensable for analyzing the evolving pathways of human ambition and social mobility.
References
- Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1086/208911
- Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1086/209186
- Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
- Bourne, F. S. (1957). Group influence in marketing and public relations. In R. Likert & S. P. Hayes (Eds.), Some applications of behavioural research (pp. 217–255). UNESCO.
- Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers’ connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_14
- Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1086/497549
- Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
- Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
- Hyman, H. H. (1942). The psychology of status. Archives of Psychology, 269, 5–94.
- Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure (rev. and enl. ed.). Free Press.
- Merton, R. K., & Kitt, A. S. (1950). Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior. In R. K. Merton & P. F. Lazarsfeld (Eds.), Continuities in social research: Studies in the scope and method of “The American Soldier” (pp. 40–105). Free Press.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
- White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not to be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_11
- White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2007). Are all out-groups created equal? Consumer identity and dissociative influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1086/520077