INTRODUCTION:
In the marketplace, products are often categorized by their appeal, with broad-appeal options catering to mainstream tastes, while narrow-appeal options targeting niche segments. Prior research has focused on consumers by examining when and why they prefer broad- or narrow-appeal options. However, little is known about how observers interpret consumers' preferences based on such choices.


PURPOSE:
This research focuses on observers, investigating how and why they infer consumer preference strength based on choices of broad- or narrow-appeal options. We hypothesize that choosing narrow-appeal (vs. broad-appeal) options signals a stronger preference for those options because consumers who choose narrow-appeal options are considered to be less susceptible to informational influence.


METHOD:
We conducted six scenario-based experiments. In the basic paradigm, participants were randomly assigned to either the broad- or narrow-appeal condition. Knowing that a target had chosen a broad- or narrow-appeal option, participants rated how much the target liked their chosen option (1 = not at all, 9 = very much) and how much they resisted informational influence (1 = not at all, 9 = very much).


RESULTS:
First, the inferred preference was stronger in the narrow-appeal condition than in the broad-appeal condition. Second, the target was considered to resist informational influence more in the narrow-appeal condition than in the broad-appeal condition. Third, informational influence resistance mediated the effect of choice on preference inference.


CONCLUSIONS:
Choosing narrow-appeal options signals a stronger preference for those options than choosing broad-appeal options. This occurs because people believe that someone who chooses a narrow-appeal option resists informational influence to a greater extent.