The Hive Effect and Breakout Strategies of Fashion Brand Marketing under the Herd Mentality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61173/zgy35v84Keywords:
herd mentality, hive effect, sense of social belonging, breakout strategyAbstract
With the popularity of social media and e-commerce platforms, consumer decision-making is increasingly influenced by group behavior, resulting in the phenomenon of “convergent consumption”. Against this background, this study focuses on the phenomenon of herd mentality in fashion consumption in the digital era based on social psychology theories. Through experiments and questionnaires, this study found that explicit social pressure (e.g., sales ranking) has a 42% stronger influence on purchase intention than implicit cues; the herd effect of KOL is 2.3 times higher than that of the general group; and the sense of social belonging plays a key role as a mediator in the combination of “explicit pressure + KOL” (β=0.68). These findings not only enrich the application of social identity theory in the field of consumption, but also provide practical guidelines for brands to strengthen the follower effect by accurately designing social proof signals, or differentiate themselves by cultivating subcultural identities. The limitation of this study lies in the cultural homogeneity of the samples. In the future, the present study this paper can expand cross-cultural comparative studies and explore the boundaries of the effect under different product categories.
References
Psychology, 2006, 57, 529-545. A multi-analytic approach. Journal of Business Research, 2021, [2] Henrich J, & Gil-White FJ. The evolution of prestige: Freely 137: 305-317. conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits [9] Nguyen T T, & Lim S. Gen Z vs. Millennials: How social
of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2001, media usage patterns differ across generations in the post- 22(3): 165-196. pandemic era. Computers in Human Behavior, 2023, 142: [3] Tajfel H, & Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup 107634.
conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 1979, [10] Chen Y, & Wang R. Social media influencers and impulsive 33(47): 74. buying in collectivist cultures: The role of face-saving and group [4] Cialdini R B, Reno R R, & Kallgren C A. A focus theory of conformity. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2022, 41(4): 789- normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce 802. littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social [11] Jin S V, & Ryu E. Instagram vs. TikTok: Social media
Psychology, 1990, 58(6): 1015-1026. platform comparison in terms of ad avoidance and ambivalence. [5] Cialdini R B, & Goldstein, N J. Social influence: Compliance Journal of Marketing Communications, 2022, 28(3): 245-263.
and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 2004, 55: 591- [12] Lee E J, & Shin S Y. When algorithms backfire: 621. Understanding psychological reactance to AI-driven content [6] Lee J E, & Watkins B. YouTube vloggers‘ influence on recommendations. New Media & Society, 2024, 26(1): 45-62. consumer luxury brand perceptions. International Journal of [13] White K, Habib R, & Hardisty D J. How social norms shape
Information Management, 2016, 36(5): 684-691. sustainable consumption: Evidence from Twitter and Weibo. [7] Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2023, 85: 101915. social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 by the authors.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
