Article

Journal of Marketing Research

2023, Vol. 60(1) 155-169
You Should Try These Together: Combinatory © American Marketing Association 2022
Article reuse guidelines:

Recommendations Signal Expertise sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00222437221111344
journals.sagepub.com/home/mrj
and Improve Product Attitudes

Jennifer K. D’Angelo and Francesca Valsesia

Abstract
This work introduces a novel cue that consumption advisers, like stylists and interior designers, can use to signal expertise:
combinatory recommendations. In a combinatory recommendation, a person offers an opinion about compatibility among mul-
tiple products intended for joint usage. Across nine studies conducted in the lab and field, the authors find that offering a com-
binatory recommendation signals greater expertise (Study 1a, Study 2a) and, specifically, greater depth of knowledge (Study 1b),
compared with other types of recommendations involving the same number of products. This effect does not depend on the
helpfulness of the adviser (Study 2b) but is qualified by features of the recommendation itself (Study 3a) as well as the type
of combination recommended (Study 3b). Importantly, the authors find this effect to have important downstream consequences,
as the increased perceptions of expertise that follow a combinatory recommendation improve consumers’ attitudes both toward
products included in the recommendation and toward subsequent recommendations made by the adviser (Study 4, Study 5). The
real-world persuasive value of combinatory recommendations is also tested in a field study (Study 6) that explores the effect of
combinatory recommendations on click-through rates of Instagram advertisements.

Keywords
signaling, expertise, combinations, complements, recommendations
Online supplement: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437221111344

In recent years, brands have made significant investments in
enlisting consumption advisers to recommend their products
to consumers (Gorin 2018; Howland 2018). These advisers
exist in a breadth of product domains, ranging from stylists
who facilitate consumers’ shopping experiences (Bobb 2019;
Davenport et al. 2020) to social media influencers who recom-
mend products to their followers (Libai, Muller, and Peres
2013; Valsesia, Proserpio, and Nunes 2020). Even at the
height of the COVID-19 pandemic, retailers doubled down on
the usage of these advisers. For example, retailers like
Neiman Marcus and John Lewis launched services whereby
consumers could interact with online stylists and interior
designers (Coker 2020; Wilson 2020). Further, in 2020, most
U.S. brands increased their influencer spending despite
cutting a variety of other marketing expenses (Glenday 2020).
Although consumption advisers come in many forms, they
are related in their motivation to signal expertise to gain con-
sumers’ trust and increase their persuasiveness (Alba and
Hutchinson 1987), thereby differentiating their services in the
ever-growing marketplace of online and offline advising ser-
vices. In this work, we introduce a novel cue advisers can
use to signal expertise: combinatory recommendations. In a
combinatory recommendation, a person offers an opinion
about compatibility among multiple products considered for
joint usage (i.e., whether or not these products go well together)
within a single consumption occasion. For instance, a stylist
might discuss how a certain tie pairs well with a dress shirt to
curate an outfit; an interior designer might suggest hanging dif-
ferent pieces of artwork together to create a gallery wall; a
beauty influencer might suggest combining multiple skin-care
products to form a skin-care routine. Combinatory recommen-
dations may also provide opinions about what does not go
well together. For example, a chef might warn against pairing
sparkling wine with spicy fish.
This research focuses on situations where an adviser offers a
consumer an unsolicited combinatory recommendation. We
propose that such combinatory recommendations reflect an
ability to process how multiple products will interact with one
another, which consumers perceive as a demonstration of the
Jennifer K. D’Angelo is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Neeley School of Business,
Texas Christian University, USA (email: jennifer.dangelo@tcu.edu). Francesca Valsesia
(corresponding author) is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Foster School of
Business, University of Washington, USA (email: valsesia@uw.edu).
156
adviser’s depth of knowledge in a product category. Thus, this
adviser signals expertise in the category. Moreover, their rec-
ommendation may garner more favorable attitudes from con-
sumers, consistent with findings that experts are more
influential and persuasive (Alba and Hutchinson 1987;
Gershoff, Broniarczyk, and West 2001).
The literature shows that consumers rely on a variety of cues
to infer others’ expertise, including the individual’s appearance
(Bellezza, Gino, and Keinan 2014), choices (Sela et al. 2019),
and demeanor (Price and Stone 2004; Sniezek and Buckley
1995), as well as the consistency between the individual’s
opinion and other external sources of information (Palmeira
2020). These cues can be used strategically to signal expertise.
Our research extends the literature on signaling and persuasion
by identifying combinatory recommendations as a novel cue
that signals expertise and increases persuasiveness. In doing
so, we also contribute to the literature on consumer knowledge
and expertise. Prior work generally categorizes depth of knowl-
edge as understanding the details of a product’s attributes in
isolation (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). We show that displaying
an understanding of interactions across the attributes of differ-
ent products also contributes to the perception that an individual
has depth of knowledge in a product category, resulting in
greater perceived expertise.
Combinatory recommendations relate to two important
constructs: curation and bundling. The nascent marketing lit-
erature on curation uses the term to refer to the selection,
organization, or presentation of a combination of objects
(Babin and Hulland 2019). Thus, curation does not necessar-
ily imply the presence of an explicit recommendation nor the
inclusion of items intended for joint usage. In this sense, a
combinatory recommendation could be seen as a particular
type of curation. Little is known about consumer responses
to those in charge of curation and to the curated selection
of products. We suggest that exhibiting an ability to curate
products for joint usage can be an effective signal of
expertise.
Bundling, in contrast, refers to “marketing two or more prod-
ucts and/or services in a single package for a special price”
(Guiltinan 1987, p. 74). Our research encompasses a broader
lens, including situations where products are not packaged
together by marketers nor sold at a special price. Nonetheless,
a bundle of complementary products can be characterized as
one type of combinatory recommendation. For this reason,
our work also contributes to the bundling literature. Prior
work largely focuses on consumers’ evaluations of the items
included in a bundle (Karataş and Gürhan-Canli 2020;
Rahinel and Redden 2013) rather than on consumers’ percep-
tions of the bundle curator. Our work is consistent with findings
that consumers tend to favorably evaluate complementary
product bundles over other types of bundles (Popkowski
Leszczyc and Haubl 2010; Zhao and Xia 2020) and offers a
contributory explanation driving these favorable evaluations:
perceived expertise of the bundle curator.
In addition to these theoretical contributions, we make a sub-
stantive contribution by introducing the use of combinatory
Journal of Marketing Research 60(1)
recommendations as a tactic advisers can implement to signal
their expertise to consumers and differentiate themselves in
an increasingly crowded marketplace.
Theoretical Framework
Prior literature highlights how consumers can enjoy products
more when consuming them in combination, especially if
these products appear to be made for each other, provide a
novel consumption experience, or appease intricate preferences
(Hildebrand, Häubl, and Herrmann 2014; Rahinel and Redden
2013; Spence 2020a). With a marketplace surge in customiza-
tion opportunities, consumers now have many opportunities
to combine products for themselves (D’Angelo, Diehl, and
Cavanaugh 2019). Yet, products typically have and continue
to be combined by the marketer (Karataş and Gürhan-Canli
2020; Tellis 1986), alluding to the notion that lay consumers
may lack an understanding of compatibility (i.e., which prod-
ucts go well together), at least in some product categories.
This lack of understanding may stem from the cognitive
demand consumers encounter when simultaneously evaluating
multiple products (Aribarg and Foutz 2009) and the difficulties
in predicting the outcome of product combinations (Deng, Hui,
and Wesley Hutchinson 2010; Petre, Sharp, and Johnson 2006).
Many things could happen when products interact. Indeed, the
outcome of a product’s attributes can differ depending on what
it is combined with, as these attributes could be enhanced,
emphasized, or suppressed (Smith and Redden 2020). The
outcome, in some cases, may even be nonmonotonic, changing
over the course of the consumption occasion. For example,
when combining salt and tonic water, the mixture first tastes
sweet but becomes noticeably saltier over time (Spence
2020b). We thus argue that consumers perceive an individual
who seemingly demonstrates an understanding of product inter-
actions via a combinatory recommendation as having expertise
in a product category.
Dimensions of Expertise Signaled by Combinatory
Recommendations
Experts differ from novices in both the amount and organization
of their domain knowledge, and domain knowledge is usually
measured to assess expertise (for a discussion, see Mitchell
and Dacin [1996]). Two knowledge dimensions contribute to
expertise: breadth and depth of knowledge. Breadth refers to
the diverse knowledge of various options in a category,
whereas depth refers to a focused understanding of each indi-
vidual option (Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli 2013;
Mannucci and Yong 2018; Yang, Jin, and Sheng 2017).
When evaluating someone’s expertise, consumers seek cues
indicating that the individual has a breadth and/or a depth of
knowledge in the category (Sela et al. 2019). We posit that a
combinatory recommendation signals expertise to consumers
because it is perceived as a demonstration of depth of
knowledge.
D’Angelo and Valsesia
Prior work focuses on depth of knowledge of individual
product attributes (e.g., Clarkson, Janiszewski, and Cinelli
2013) and discusses how the ability to analyze attributes is a
manifestation of knowledge depth (Alba and Hutchinson
1987). We build on this work and argue that the ability to
analyze interactions of attributes among multiple products is
a unique form of knowledge depth. This notion is supported
by work in psychology suggesting that some further factor
must be included in cognition when one engages in integrative
thinking about how elements interact (Kallio 2011). For
example, when evaluating the compatibility of paprika and
cumin for joint usage, one considers not only the individual
spices’ attributes but also how these attributes will interact
(e.g., determining whether the combination will result in an
overpowering amount of spiciness). Thus, using combinatory
recommendations, where one seemingly demonstrates the
ability to understand outcomes of product interactions, may
reflect depth of knowledge and thereby signal expertise.
Formally:
H1a: Keeping the number of products constant, providing
recommendations about the joint (vs. nonjoint) usage of
these products signals greater expertise.
H1b: Keeping the number of products constant, providing
recommendations about the joint (vs. nonjoint) usage of
these products reflects greater depth (but not breadth) of
knowledge.
Instead of recommending multiple products for joint usage,
an adviser might make recommendations that do not
discuss joint usage (i.e., using products during separate
consumption occasions or as substitutes). According to
prior literature, which typically dichotomizes products
that share some relation as either complements or substi-
tutes (Diehl, Van Herpen, and Lamberton 2015; Huh,
Vosgerau, and Morewedge 2016; Karataş and
Gürhan-Canli 2020; Shocker, Bayus, and Kim 2004), a
natural comparison to combinatory recommendations
would be substitute recommendations. By our theoretical
account, when evaluating two products intended for use
in separate consumption occasions or when two products’
substitutability is assessed, an understanding of product
interactions is not needed, thus signaling less expertise
than combinatory recommendations signal.
Note that expertise cues are based on lay beliefs of how
an expert should behave but may not necessarily reflect
real expertise (Packard and Wooten 2013). Therefore,
although compatibility can be prescribed by objective orga-
nizing principles (e.g., extent of harmony among the prod-
ucts; Spence 2020a), we argue that merely recommending
products for joint usage, even if the recommendation is
not based on objective principles, may signal expertise to
consumers.
157
Factors That Influence the Signaling Effectiveness
of Combinatory Recommendations
Joint usage could manifest through various means, such as a
blending, fusion, or pairing of multiple, discrete products
(Spence 2020a). Our theoretical account can apply to these
various forms of joint usage, which we assess empirically.
Nonetheless, the extent to which an adviser signals expertise
when providing a combinatory recommendation should
depend on the extent to which the recommendation highlights
the interaction among product attributes. Cue utilization
theory suggests that the extent to which a signal is used by con-
sumers to form an evaluation varies as a function of its ambigu-
ity (Slovic and Lichtenstein 1971). It is therefore reasonable to
expect that an explicit combinatory recommendation, in which
an adviser speaks about the interaction, will more clearly dem-
onstrate depth of knowledge compared with an implicit combi-
natory recommendation.
H2: The same combinatory recommendation leads to
greater expertise perceptions if it explicitly addresses
product attribute interactions.
Moreover, not all combinatory recommendations imply the
same level of interaction between product attributes (Spence
2020a). Think, for instance, of recommending two products
for a meal that are to be consumed simultaneously (two food
items served on the same plate) versus sequentially (two food
items served on different plates, one after the other).
Although both could be framed as a combinatory recommenda-
tion, the temporal distance between individual consumption
acts (eating a food item) within the single consumption occa-
sion (the meal) is longer in the latter case. Similarly, the phys-
ical proximity of the products recommended for joint usage
(pairing a tie with a shirt vs. pairing a tie with socks) affects
the spatial distance between products. We reason that the
greater the distance between products or consumption acts,
the lower the expected interaction between product attributes.
For this reason:
H3: The effect of a combinatory recommendation on per-
ceptions of expertise is reduced the greater the distance
(either temporal or spatial) between individual consump-
tion acts.
The Persuasive Effect of Combinatory Recommendations
Perceived expertise is a peripheral cue known to affect persua-
sive outcomes (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). Therefore, in line
with the literature on expertise (Alba and Hutchinson 1987;
Gershoff, Broniarczyk, and West 2001), we predict that when
an adviser signals expertise by using a combinatory recommen-
dation, they become more persuasive. As such, that adviser
should garner more favorable consumer attitudes toward their
recommendations. This includes products mentioned in the
combinatory recommendation as well as subsequent, unrelated
product recommendations.
158 Journal of Marketing Research 60(1)

H4: An individual who uses a combinatory recommenda- a stronger signal of depth of knowledge. Finding that a combi-
tion (vs. not) is more persuasive because a combinatory natory recommendation has a stronger effect on signaling
recommendation signals expertise. expertise would support our theorizing. Note that although we
include the same quantity of information in the substitute and
This research tests our predictions across nine studies con- combinatory recommendations (see the Web Appendix for a
ducted in the lab and field. We generalize our findings pilot study), these recommendations should be perceived as
across a breadth of product categories, including categories qualitatively different, as a combinatory recommendation
where the products can be experienced (e.g., wall art) and should signal greater expertise.
cannot be experienced (e.g., spices) as the recommendation
is being made. We also generalize our findings across
several types of advisers (e.g., subscription box curator, Method
store associate, interior designer, influencer). Study 1a
A total of 300 participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk
finds that recommending two products that go well together
(MTurk) completed the study for a nominal payment.1
(i.e., a combinatory recommendation) signals greater exper-
Participants on MTurk are known to misrepresent their char-
tise than recommending two products that could be used as
acteristics to meet study eligibility (Chandler and Paolacci
substitutes or recommending a single product (H1a). Study
2017). Therefore, MTurk participants were only allowed
1b digs deeper into the type of expertise signaled and finds
to complete the study if they successfully passed a U.S. cul-
that a combinatory recommendation signals greater depth
tural check question and an attention check question. Full
(but not breadth of knowledge, H1b). Studies 2a and 2b
details of these questions are reported in the Web
address potential alternative accounts for the signaling
Appendix. We also allowed only one response per MTurk
value of combinatory recommendations. Study 2a finds that
ID. If participants attempted the cultural check or the atten-
combinatory recommendations that (1) suggest which prod-
tion check questions multiple times, or entered the study
ucts go well together or (2) warn of which products do not
twice for other reasons, only their first answer, even if
go well together are equally effective in signaling expertise,
incomplete, was considered valid. Subsequent responses
thus showing that the effect of combinatory recommenda-
were excluded from the analysis, resulting in a final
tions on perceived expertise does not depend on the utility
sample of 286 responses (Mage = 39 years, 44% female).
consumers can extract from the purchase. Study 2b shows
The same exclusion criteria were used across all our
that the effect does not depend on whether the recommender
studies conducted online.
is addressing a specific consumer need. Studies 3a and 3b
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three rec-
address the moderating role of explicitness of the combina-
ommendation conditions (combinatory, substitute, single)
tory recommendation (H2) and of the distance between rec-
using a between-subjects design. Participants imagined
ommended consumption acts (H3).
signing up for PantryBox, a monthly subscription box
The next studies explore the downstream consequences
company that delivers a selection of spices and other
of the effect of combinatory recommendations. Study 4
cooking ingredients. The subscription box included a note
finds that a combinatory recommendation improves con-
from Chef Taylor, the curator of the subscription box. The
sumers’ attitudes toward a product from that recommenda-
chef’s note highlighted some of the products included in
tion and provides mediation evidence of perceived
the box. The number of products participants were told
expertise of the adviser as the underlying driver of this
were included in the box did not differ across conditions,
effect (H 4). Study 5 finds that, following an adviser’s com-
although the number of products highlighted in the note
binatory recommendations, consumers’ attitudes toward
did differ (see the Web Appendix for full descriptions of
subsequent, unrelated product recommendations also
stimuli for all studies).
improve. Finally, Study 6 uses an Instagram ad field study
Specifically, in the combinatory condition the chef’s note
to demonstrate the real-world persuasive value of combina-
described two spices, stating, “You have to try our cardamom.
tory recommendations.
It has an addicting, tangy and herby freshness to it. Its flavor
profile pairs beautifully with the sweetness of fenugreek
seeds. Together, they make a balanced combination. Using
Study 1a: Combinatory Recommendations these two complimentary spices together will add great
Signal Expertise flavors to your dish.”
The substitute condition’s note also described two spices.
Study 1a tests our core prediction that an adviser who provides
The note read, “You have to try our cardamom. It has an addict-
a combinatory recommendation signals expertise. We compare
ing, tangy and herby freshness to it. If you are not looking for
a combinatory recommendation with a substitute recommenda-
this flavor profile, try the sweetness of fenugreek seeds. They
tion involving the same number of products (i.e., two). We posit
that determining compatibility (compared with substitutability)
requires a more complex processing of interactions among 1
For all studies, we aimed to recruit at least 100 participants per cell. All con-
products, and thus a combinatory recommendation should be ditions are reported, and studies received Institutional Review Board approval.
D’Angelo and Valsesia
are both delicious spices. Using either one of these spices will
add great flavors to your dish.”
Finally, in the single condition, the chef only described the
flavor profile of one spice and how that spice would add great
flavor to a dish. The one spice described in this condition was
counterbalanced as either cardamom or fenugreek seeds. We
included this condition as a baseline for this first study.
Subsequent studies focus exclusively on comparing situations
where the number of products recommended is the same, in
line with our theorizing.
To measure to what extent Chef Taylor’s recommendation
signaled category expertise, participants rated the expertise of
the chef using a three-item measure (person seems like an
expert on food, person seems knowledgeable about food,
person knows what they are talking about) on a nine-point
scale (1 = “Not at all,” and 9 = “Very much”). The items were
averaged into one composite measure of perceived expertise
(α = .96). For all studies, all dependent measures taken are
reported (see the Web Appendix for full wording of all mea-
sures taken).
Results
In the single condition, there was no significant difference in
perceived expertise, regardless of whether the chef described
cardamom or fenugreek seeds (F < 1); thus, responses were col-
lapsed into one condition.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a signif-
icant effect of recommendation on perceived expertise (F(2,
283) = 26.62, p < .001, ω2p = .152). Compared with the single
condition (M = 5.72), perceptions of expertise were greater in
both the combinatory condition (M = 7.37; F(1, 283) = 53.23,
p < .001, ω2p = .155) and the substitute condition (M = 6.57,
F(1, 283) = 13.47, p < .001, ω2p = .042). Importantly, as pre-
dicted, the combinatory recommendation also signaled signifi-
cantly more expertise than the substitute recommendation
(F(1, 283) = 12.45, p < .001, ω2p = .039).
Discussion
Study 1a shows that providing a combinatory recommendation
signals greater expertise than recommending a single product,
perhaps by demonstrating a greater breadth of knowledge of
products in the category. More pertinent to our theorizing,
and in support of H1b, we find that providing a combinatory rec-
ommendation signals greater expertise than recommending the
same number of products as substitutes. Given that the number
of items recommended in these recommendations is the same,
the breadth of knowledge displayed is presumably similar.
We suggest that the difference in expertise perceptions may
come from a combinatory recommendation displaying one’s
understanding of the outcome of interactions among products
and thus demonstrating depth of knowledge. In the next
study, we examine breadth and depth of knowledge to better
understand how combinatory recommendations affect these
components of expertise.
159
Study 1b: Combinatory Recommendations
Affect Depth, but Not Breadth, of Knowledge
Perceptions
We compare a combinatory recommendation with a substitute
recommendation involving the same number of products and
examine the extent to which each cues breadth and depth of
knowledge. We expect combinatory and substitute recommen-
dations to reflect similar levels of breadth of knowledge.
However, providing a combinatory recommendation suggests
that a person can process the outcome of interactions among
products, which we suggest is a stronger cue of depth of
knowledge.
Method
Participants from MTurk (N = 199) completed the study for a
nominal payment. One response from a duplicate ID was
excluded, leaving a sample of 198 responses (Mage = 38
years, 57% female).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two recom-
mendation conditions (combinatory vs. substitute) using a
between-subjects design. They imagined that while they were
browsing wall art at a furniture store, the store’s interior
design adviser provided them with an unsolicited recommenda-
tion. In both conditions, the adviser discussed two pieces of
wall art, one depicting the Isle of Skye and one depicting the
Botallack Tin Mine. Both pieces of art were shown to the
participant.
In the combinatory recommendation condition, the
adviser noted how the Botallack Tin Mine art would be a
good complement to the Isle of Skye art. In contrast, in the
substitute condition, the adviser noted how the Botallack
Tin Mine art would be a good alternative to the Isle of
Skye art. After reading the recommendation, participants
rated the depth of knowledge possessed by the interior
designer using a three-item measure (person understands a
lot about these pieces of wall art, person seems to know
many details about these pieces of wall art, person has a deep
understanding of these pieces of wall art) on a seven-point
scale (1 = “Strongly disagree,” and 7 = “Strongly agree”).
Participants then rated the breadth of knowledge possessed by
the interior designer using a three-item measure (person is
familiar with many wall art options, person seems to know at
least a little bit about lots of different types of wall art, person
has some knowledge about a great number of wall art pieces)
on a seven-point scale (1 = “Strongly disagree,” and 7 =
“Strongly agree”). We validated these depth and breadth
items as separate factors in a pilot study reported in the Web
Appendix.
Results
The Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion for discriminant
validity requires the average variance extracted (AVE) of
both constructs to be greater than the squared correlation
160
between the two constructs. In this case, the depth AVE is
.86, the breadth AVE is .88, and the squared correlation
between the two variables is .38, meeting this criterion
and suggesting discriminant validity between breadth and
depth of knowledge. Thus, the three depth-related items
were averaged into one composite measure of depth of
knowledge (α = .94) and the three breadth-related items
were averaged into one composite measure of breadth of
knowledge (α = .95).
Supporting H1b, a one-way ANOVA revealed that perceived
depth of knowledge was greater in the combinatory recommen-
dation condition (M = 5.19), compared with the substitute rec-
ommendation condition (M = 4.71, F(1, 196) = 5.52, p =
.020, ω2p = .022). Importantly, breadth of knowledge did not
differ between the combinatory (M = 4.43) and substitute
conditions (M = 4.58; F < 1).
Discussion
Study 1b demonstrates that the depth, but not breadth, compo-
nent of expertise is heightened when comparing a combinatory
recommendation with a substitute recommendation.
Yet, there may be some alternative accounts for why a com-
binatory recommendation signals greater expertise. For one, the
bundling literature suggests that complementary items have
superadditive utilities, whereas substitute items do not. That
is, the utility that consumers extract from a bundle with comple-
mentary items is greater than the sum of utilities provided by
each item in isolation (Guiltinan 1987; Karataş and
Gürhan-Canli 2020). Thus, it is possible that when one provides
a combinatory recommendation, one may be demonstrating an
ability to create superadditive utility of a purchase. One’s ability
to create superadditive utility, in turn, may signal expertise.
Another alternative explanation for the results of Study 1a
may be that, while it was not explicitly mentioned, respon-
dents might have believed their goal when getting a subscrip-
tion box was to purchase multiple products for joint usage, and
a combinatory recommendation helps achieve that goal more
so than a substitute recommendation. If so, respondents in
that study may have perceived the adviser as being more
helpful, which, in turn, drove perceptions of expertise.
Although it is possible that, in some situations, these elements
would contribute to combinatory recommendations’ ability to
signal expertise, our next two studies show that our findings
from Study 1a hold in situations where combinatory recom-
mendations do not provide superadditive utility and are not
helpful to the consumer.
Study 2a: Both Positive and Negative
Combinatory Recommendations Signal
Expertise
In the previous studies, we focused on a positive combinatory
recommendation, where the products recommended were
described as compatible. Study 2a tests whether a positive
Journal of Marketing Research 60(1)
combinatory recommendation differs in signaling expertise
compared with a negative combinatory recommendation,
where products are described as incompatible. Both types of
combinatory recommendations could demonstrate depth of
knowledge (i.e., one is able to determine whether or not the
interactions among the products would lead to positive con-
sumption outcomes). Thus, we predict that both types of com-
binatory recommendations can signal greater expertise
compared with a substitute recommendation. If, however,
expertise is signaled because of one’s ability to create superad-
ditive utility, one should signal expertise with a positive combi-
natory recommendation but not with a negative combinatory
recommendation.
Method
Undergraduate students from two universities (N = 337, Mage =
20 years, 47% female) completed an online study within a
one-week period. Sample size was determined by the number
of students who signed up to take the study for course credit.
There were no significant differences across the two universi-
ties; therefore, results were collapsed across universities.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three recom-
mendation conditions (positive combinatory, negative combi-
natory, substitute) using a between-subjects design. As in
Study 1a, participants read Chef Taylor’s note describing two
spices. Across conditions, the note’s description of the individ-
ual characteristics of cardamom and fenugreek seeds was held
constant. However, in the positive combinatory condition, the
note also described how the characteristics of the two spices
paired beautifully and recommended using the spices together
in a dish. In the negative combinatory condition, the note
instead described how the characteristics of the two spices did
not pair well together and recommended not using these
spices together in a dish. In the substitute condition, the note
described how the characteristics of the two spices were
equally delicious and recommended using either one in a
dish. Participants completed the same perceived expertise
measure used in Study 1a (α = .94).
Results
A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of recommenda-
tion on perceived expertise (F(2, 334) = 5.01, p = .007, ω2p = .023).
A substitute recommendation (M = 6.25) signaled significantly
less expertise than both a positive combinatory (M = 6.77;
F(1, 334) = 7.05, p = .008, ω2p = .018) and negative combina-
tory (M = 6.81; F(1, 334) = 8.02, p = .005, ω2p = .020) recom-
mendation. Importantly, positive and negative combinatory
recommendations signaled similar levels of expertise (F < 1).
Discussion
Study 2a’s findings suggest that the display of one’s ability to
process both what is and what is not compatible can equally
signal expertise more so than a substitute recommendation.
D’Angelo and Valsesia
Thus, even when one’s combinatory recommendation does not
demonstrate an ability to create superadditive utility, as was the
case with the negative combinatory recommendation, one can
still use the recommendation to signal expertise.
For the remaining studies, we focus on positive combinatory
recommendations, as marketers may be inclined to discuss the
positive aspects of their products and encourage, rather than dis-
suade, consumers from purchasing multiple products.
Study 2b: Combinatory Recommendations
Signal Greater Expertise Even When They
Are Less Helpful Than Substitute
Recommendations
Study 2b tests whether expertise is contingent on the help-
fulness of the recommendation. When providing a combina-
tory recommendation, we expect that an adviser should be
able to demonstrate their depth of knowledge of the prod-
ucts in the recommendation, even if the information pro-
vided is not particularly helpful to the consumer. Thus, we
predict that a combinatory recommendation can signal
greater expertise compared with a substitute recommenda-
tion independent of how helpful the recommendation is to
the consumer.
Method
Undergraduate students (N = 262; Mage = 20 years, 47%
female) completed a lab study within a two-week period.
Sample size was determined by the number of students who
signed up to take the study for course credit. Participants
were randomly assigned to one of two recommendation condi-
tions (combinatory vs. substitute) using a between-subjects
design.
All participants were asked to imagine having some empty
wall space in their bedroom that they wanted to fill with a
piece of art. This empty wall space could accommodate, at
most, one 18′′ × 24′′ piece of art. Participants then imagined
shopping at a store to find a piece of 18′′ × 24′′ art. While
they were shopping, the store’s interior design adviser provided
them with a recommendation. Similar to Study 1b, in both con-
ditions, the adviser discussed two pieces of wall art, one depict-
ing the Isle of Skye and one depicting the Botallack Tin Mine.
Both pieces of art measured 18′′ × 24′′ . Thus, the participant
would only be able to fit one of these pieces in their
bedroom. In the combinatory recommendation condition, the
adviser noted how the two pieces should be hung together. In
contrast, in the substitute condition, the adviser noted that the
participant could hang either of these pieces on their empty
wall.
Participants then rated their perceived expertise of the inte-
rior designer using the three-item scale used in our previous
studies (α = .94). In addition, they rated how helpful the interior
designer was in finding art to fill the participant’s empty wall
space (1 = “Not at all,” and 9 = “Very”).
161
Results and Discussion
Consistent with our previous studies, the interior designer
signaled significantly more expertise when providing a com-
binatory recommendation (M = 6.69) than when providing
a substitute recommendation (M = 5.59; F(1, 260) = 30.17,
p < .001, ω2p = .100). This was in spite of the interior designer
being perceived as significantly less helpful in the combinatory
recommendation condition (M = 6.31) than in the substitute
condition (M = 7.32; F(1, 260) = 21.77, p < .001, ω2p = .073).
Thus, even in situations where an adviser is less helpful in
achieving the consumer’s goal, the use of combinatory recom-
mendations can signal greater expertise.
So far, we focused on comparing combinatory recommenda-
tions with substitute recommendations. However, to further test
our theorizing and demonstrate boundary conditions of combi-
natory recommendations, the next two studies examine other
comparison conditions beyond substitutes. First, to test H2,
we focus specifically on combinatory recommendations and
vary how the recommendation is formulated.
Study 3a: Explicit Combinatory
Recommendations Signal Greater Expertise
Than Implicit Combinatory
Recommendations
Study 3a examines what happens when an adviser makes (or
does not make) their knowledge about interactions explicitly
known. In other words, the combination of products recom-
mended remains the same, but the emphasis put on the
product interactions varies. We expect that emphasizing
product interactions in a combinatory recommendation will
make the recommendation a more diagnostic signal. In other
words, explicitly demonstrating an understanding of relation-
ships among multiple products will signal greater expertise.
Method
Participants from MTurk (N = 301) completed the study for a
nominal payment. Nine responses from duplicate IDs were
excluded, leaving a sample of 292 responses (Mage = 41
years, 52% female). Participants were randomly assigned to
one of two combinatory recommendation conditions (explicit
vs. implicit) using a between-subjects design.
Participants imagined dining at a restaurant, where their
waiter offered a three-course meal recommendation. In the
implicit condition, the waiter emphasized each dish’s individual
features, recommending the spring salad, followed by the king
salmon, and finally a chocolate and strawberry crepe dessert. In
the explicit condition, the waiter made the same recommenda-
tion but also explicitly mentioned that the three dishes go
well together, putting emphasis on the interactions across the
dishes. Thus, although both conditions offered the same combi-
natory recommendation, resulting in the same meal experience,
the waiter in the explicit condition exhibited more knowledge
162
about the relationships among the dishes. Participants then rated
the waiter’s expertise using the three-item scale used in our pre-
vious studies (α = .94).
Results
A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of the com-
binatory recommendation on perceived expertise, where per-
ceptions of expertise were greater in the explicit condition
(M = 6.90) than in the implicit condition (M = 5.90; F(1,
290) = 34.56, p < .001, ω2p = .103).
Discussion
In support of H2, we find that even in situations where multiple
products are expected to be consumed together, explicitly
acknowledging the compatibility of these products can be
more effective in signaling expertise. In the next study, we
test H3 and establish a boundary condition for when a combina-
tory recommendation signals expertise.
Study 3b: Greater Temporal Distance
Between Consumption Events Reduces
Perceptions of Expertise
Although products in a combinatory recommendation are
expected to be jointly used during a single consumption occa-
sion, what qualifies as a consumption occasion might vary
across different situations. We expect this to affect the nature
of the interaction between product attributes and, ultimately,
the effectiveness of a combinatory recommendation. For
instance, the time between when each individual product is con-
sumed (i.e., the individual consumption act) within the con-
sumption occasion can vary. On one extreme, the products
recommended could be consumed with the individual acts
spread out in time. On the other, the products could be con-
sumed jointly or in close succession. Study 3b tests whether
the temporal distance between the individual consumption
acts of the products included in a combinatory recommendation
affects perceptions of expertise. We reason that the shorter the
distance between consumption acts, the more consumers expect
interactions between product attributes. Thus, we predict that
the shorter the temporal intervals suggested in a combinatory
recommendation, the more an adviser signals expertise.
Method
Participants from MTurk (N = 301) completed the study for a
nominal payment. Four responses from duplicate IDs were
excluded, leaving a sample of 297 responses (Mage = 41
years, 52% female). Participants were randomly assigned to
one of three recommendation conditions (close joint usage,
distant joint usage, substitute) using a between-subjects design.
Participants imagined striking up a conversation with a DJ
who offered a recommendation about what music to play to
Journal of Marketing Research 60(1)
fill downtime at an event. In both joint usage conditions, the
DJ recommended three contemporary songs to play at an
event because they have rhythms that complement one
another. However, in the close joint consumption condition,
the DJ stated that the transitions between the songs (i.e., the
end of one song and the beginning of the next) could be
blended. Thus, the three songs would be consumed immedi-
ately after one another as a combined entity. In contrast, in
the distant joint usage condition, the DJ stated that each song
could be played at different points of downtime at the event.
Therefore, each song would be consumed separately, but
within the same overall consumption occasion (i.e., the
event). In the substitute condition, the DJ recommended
playing any one of the three contemporary songs during down-
time because the rhythms of the songs were good alternatives.
Participants then rated their perceived expertise of the DJ using
the three-item scale used in our previous studies (α = .96). They
also rated the extent to which they expected that the songs in
the recommendation would interact with one another (1 = “Not
at all,” and 9 = “Very much”).
Results
The songs in the close joint usage condition (M = 7.81) were
perceived as interacting significantly more than those in the
distant joint usage condition (M = 7.01; F(1, 294) = 10.05,
p = .002, ω2p = .030) and substitute condition (M = 6.29;
F(1, 294) = 36.88, p < .001, ω2p = .108), confirming the effec-
tiveness of our manipulation.
A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of recom-
mendation on perceived expertise (F(2, 294) = 5.40, p = .005,
ω2p = .029). The close joint usage recommendation (M = 7.45)
signaled significantly more expertise than a distant joint usage
recommendation (M = 6.76; F(1, 294) = 10.70, p = .001, ω2p =
.032). Thus, recommending shorter temporal intervals
between the songs signaled greater expertise.
Consistent with our previous findings, the close joint usage
recommendation also signaled marginally more expertise than
the substitute recommendation (M = 7.06; F(1, 294) = 3.58,
p = .059, ω2p = .009). Interestingly, there was no significant dif-
ference between the distant joint usage and substitute recom-
mendation conditions (F = 1.94, p = .165). It thus appears that
recommending the joint consumption of products where the
consumption acts are significantly spaced apart might function
as a boundary of combinatory recommendations’ advantage in
signaling expertise. This may be because there is more ambigu-
ity about the advisers’ understanding of interactions or because
the depth of knowledge required to understand product interac-
tions in distant joint usage occasions is modest.
Discussion
In support of H3, we find that temporal distance between con-
sumption acts in a combinatory recommendation affects con-
sumers’ perceived expertise of the adviser. We conceptually
replicate our findings by manipulating spatial distance (see
D’Angelo and Valsesia
Appendix for full study write-up). An adviser’s combinatory
recommendation that pairs products consumed close in spatial
distance (i.e., pairing a pindot tie with an oxford shirt) signals
greater expertise than one that pairs products farther in spatial
distance (i.e., pairing a pindot tie with a pair of oxford socks;
F(1, 195) = 6.97, p = .009, ω2p = .029).
Notably, in this study we also introduce a boundary condi-
tion for combinatory recommendations, where larger temporal
intervals between consumption acts may attenuate a combina-
tory recommendation’s ability to signal expertise above and
beyond a substitute recommendation.
The next studies investigate the practical importance of a
combinatory recommendation by examining its impact on con-
sumers’ product attitudes and behavior.
Study 4: Combinatory Recommendations
Improve Product Attitudes via Expertise
Signals
Study 4 explores several important questions. First, we test
whether a combinatory recommendation affects consumers’
attitudes toward products included in the recommendation.
Second, we examine whether the effect of combinatory recom-
mendations on product attitudes is driven by perceptions of
expertise or other alternative explanations, namely perceptions
that the recommender innately has good taste (rather than
knowledge-based expertise) or that making a combinatory rec-
ommendation highlights the versatility of the products included
in the recommendation. Finally, this study examines whether
one’s own expertise plays a role in the effect of combinatory
recommendations on product attitudes. Although consumers
may often perceive expertise from an individual’s combinatory
recommendation, this expertise signal may be weakened if con-
sumers themselves have knowledge of product interactions. For
these consumers, an individual’s combinatory recommendation
could be considered less diagnostic of their unique expertise.
Method
Participants from MTurk (N = 200) completed the study for a
nominal payment. Eight responses from duplicate IDs were
excluded, leaving a sample of 192 responses (Mage = 41
years, 60% female).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two recom-
mendation conditions (combinatory vs. substitute) using a
between-subjects design. We used the same stimuli from
Study 1b but collected different measures. Participants rated
their attitudes toward the Isle of Skye art using three items
(how positive are your impressions of, how much do you
like, and how likely are you to try out the Isle of Skye art) on
a nine-point scale (1 = “Not at all,” and 9 = “Very much”).
The three items were averaged into one composite measure of
product attitude (α = .90). Participants also rated their perceived
expertise of the interior designer using the three-item scale used
in our previous studies (α = .97). The perceived expertise AVE
163
is .86, the product attitude AVE is .79, and the squared correla-
tion between the two variables is .33, meeting the Fornell and
Larcker (1981) criterion for discriminant validity.
Participants then responded to measures of potential alterna-
tive drivers of product attitudes. They rated to what extent the
interior design adviser has good taste when it comes to art on
a seven-point scale (1 = “Not at all,” and 7 = “Very much”)
and to what extent they perceived the art to be versatile on a
seven-point scale (1 = “Not at all,” and 7 = “Very much”).
Finally, participants rated to what extent they would describe
themselves as an interior design expert (1 = “Not at all,” and
7 = “Very much”).
Results
The Isle of Skye wall art was rated more positively in the com-
binatory recommendation condition (M = 7.35) than in the sub-
stitute recommendation condition (M = 6.80; F(1, 190) = 7.86,
p = .006, ω2p = .034). The interior designer in the combinatory
recommendation condition was perceived as having greater
expertise (M = 7.75) than in the substitute condition (M =
6.55; F(1, 190) = 30.69, p < .001, ω2p = .134). There was no dif-
ference between conditions for taste (F(1, 190) = 1.09, p = .297)
and versatility (F < 1).
Importantly, a mediation analysis (10,000 bootstraps;
PROCESS Model 4; Hayes 2017) was conducted, testing
expertise, taste, and versatility as potential drivers of product
attitudes. The analysis revealed that the effect of the combi-
natory recommendation on wall art attitude was driven by
perceived expertise of the adviser (indirect effect: b = .23,
SE = .09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [.07, .41])2 but not
taste (indirect effect: b = .11, SE = .11, 95% CI: [−.09, .34])
or versatility (indirect effect: b = .00, SE = .02, 95% CI:
[−.04, .04]). Thus, using a combinatory recommendation
increased perceptions of expertise of the adviser, which in
turn, increased attitudes toward the wall art included in the
combinatory recommendation.
We also analyzed whether the effect of combinatory recom-
mendations on perceived expertise of the adviser depended on
one’s own self-perceived expertise in interior design (10,000
bootstraps; PROCESS Model 7; Hayes 2017). The interaction
of recommendation and self-perceived expertise on perceived
expertise of the adviser was marginally significant (F(1, 188)
= 3.24, p = .073). Furthermore, the Johnson–Neyman technique
(Spiller et al. 2013) revealed that a combinatory recommen-
dation significantly increased perceptions of the adviser’s
expertise for values of self-perceived expertise less than
4.32 (bJN = .70, SE = .35, t = 1.97, p = .05), which represents
90% of our sample. That is, the combinatory recommendation
had a stronger effect on perceptions of the adviser’s expertise
among those who had less expertise in interior design. The
index of moderated mediation was not significant at the 95%
2
The direct effect was not significant (t = −.27, p = .786), indicating full medi-
ation (Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010).
164
confidence level (index = −.143, 95% CI: [−.32, .02]) but was
significant at the 90% confidence level (90% CI: [−.29, −.01]).
Discussion
In Study 4, we conceptually replicate our finding that a combi-
natory recommendation signals expertise. Furthermore, we find
that this signal of expertise, in turn, can increase consumers’
attitudes toward the products included in the combinatory rec-
ommendation, supporting H4. At the same time, we address
alternative explanations of taste and product versatility. It
appears that combinatory recommendations do not affect per-
ceptions that the recommender innately has good taste nor
change how versatile the products included in the recommenda-
tion are expected to be.
Although these results do not reach full statistical signifi-
cance, we also find that the effect of combinatory recommenda-
tions on expertise is somewhat weaker among those who
perceive themselves to have expertise in that category. It may
be that those who have prior knowledge in a category are less
likely to consider external cues when making judgments
(Miller and Curry 2013).
In the next study, we extend the findings of Study 4 to
another important type of adviser, social media influencers,
and show that the persuasive effects of combinatory recommen-
dations extend beyond consumers’ attitudes toward the prod-
ucts included in the recommendation.
Results
Study 5: Expertise Signals from Combinatory
The influencer signaled greater expertise when using a combi-
Recommendations Improve Subsequent natory recommendation (M = 6.93) than when using a substi-
Product Recommendations tute recommendation (M = 5.44; F(1, 498) = 100.15, p < .001,
Although we rule out the role of versatility in Study 4, in
Study 5 we tackle the broader question of whether the effect
of combinatory recommendations on product attitudes
depends on consumers making different inferences about the
qualities of the items recommended. If consumers’ product atti-
tudes improve because combinatory recommendations affect
perceptions of a product’s qualities, a combinatory recommen-
dation should not improve consumers’ attitudes toward prod-
ucts not included in the recommendation. However, if
expertise signals are indeed a driver of improved product atti-
tudes, consumers’ attitudes toward subsequent recommenda-
tions not included in the original combinatory
recommendation should improve. That is, once a person has
established category expertise via a combinatory recommenda-
tion, their subsequent product recommendations in that cate-
gory, even those not included in a combinatory
recommendation, should be viewed more favorably. This
study tests this prediction.
Method
We recruited Instagram users from MTurk who completed the
study for a nominal payment. Following a preregistered
Journal of Marketing Research 60(1)
procedure (https://aspredicted.org/7XX_NGZ), we collected
responses from unique IDs until we reached our desired
sample of 500 complete responses (Mage = 36 years, 56%
female). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two rec-
ommendation conditions (combinatory vs. substitute).
In both conditions, participants read three Instagram posts
from a food influencer. Each post recommended two
food-related items. In the combinatory condition, the influencer
recommended that these two items be paired together (e.g., one
post recommended pairing apples and kiwifruit for a healthy
snack; see the Web Appendix for all posts). In the substitute
condition, the influencer recommended that these items could
be good alternatives (e.g., one post recommended eating
apples or kiwifruit for a healthy snack).
Participants rated the influencer’s food expertise using the
same three item-measure from Study 1a (α = .96). Next, partic-
ipants across conditions viewed the same fourth post from the
influencer, where the influencer recommended a type of
cookie with no recommendation of a compatible or substitute
item. Thus, there was no cue of additional qualities of this
cookie in either condition. Participants then rated their attitude
toward this brand of cookie using the same product attitude
measure used in Study 4 (α = .90). The perceived expertise
AVE is .83, the product attitude AVE is .75, and the squared
correlation between the two variables is .38, suggesting dis-
criminant validity.
ω2p = .17).
Product attitude toward the cookie was also rated more
positively after the influencer used the combinatory recom-
mendation (M = 6.57), compared with the substitute recom-
mendation (M = 5.95; F(1, 498) = 18.87, p < .001, ω2p =
.035). Importantly, a mediation analysis (10,000 bootstraps;
PROCESS Model 4) revealed that the effect of recommenda-
tion on product attitude was driven by perceived expertise of
the influencer (indirect effect: b = .86, SE = .10, 95% CI:
[.67, 1.06]).3
Discussion
This study provides additional evidence that a combinatory rec-
ommendation can signal expertise and that this expertise signal
can subsequently improve consumers’ attitudes, not just toward
the products included in the combinatory recommendation, but
also toward products included in a subsequent recommenda-
tion. Next, we use a field study measuring real behavior to dem-
onstrate how combinatory recommendations can benefit firms.
3
The direct effect was marginally significant (t = −1.92, p = .055).
D’Angelo and Valsesia
Study 6: Combinatory Recommendations
Influence Real Behavior
In Study 6, we partnered with a skin-care company that hosts an
online skin-care advice platform. The company specifically
asks skin-care advice givers to post recommendations of multi-
ple skin-care products that work well together in a skin-care
routine (i.e., provide combinatory recommendations). The
company believes it is uniquely positioned in the marketplace
with its use of combinatory recommendations since most
other beauty-related review platforms only provide recommen-
dations for individual skin-care products. Using an Instagram
A/B test, Study 6 examines whether consumers will find skin-
care advertising featuring combinatory recommendations from
advice givers more appealing than similar advertising where
advice givers recommend the same products without combina-
tory recommendations. From the findings in our previous
studies, we reason that skin-care advice givers who use combi-
natory recommendations signal greater expertise. Thus, we
predict that consumers will be more likely to visit the skin-care
advice platform knowing that the advice givers on that platform
have expertise.
Method
Facebook Ad Manager (which places advertisements on
Instagram, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, and other plat-
forms) has an A/B split test feature, which enables marketers
to compare the effectiveness of different advertisements. We
used Facebook Ad Manager to run ads on Instagram only.
We created advertisements with the following settings: split
test on creative; four-day test;4 age 18 years and up; women;
location: United States; maximum daily budget: $66;5 interests:
cosmetics, beauty, skin care, self-care; optimization: link clicks;
bid strategy: lowest cost; placement: Instagram; charged: cost
per click. We chose the carousel format, in which the ad con-
sists of multiple images a consumer can swipe through,
because Facebook recommended this format to increase click-
through rates (Facebook for Business 2015). These settings
hold all elements constant except for the messaging in the
advertisement.
Each ad version (combinatory recommendation: present vs.
absent) consisted of three carousel cards (i.e., three images). In
the ad with the combinatory recommendation present, each card
quoted and depicted one skin-care advice giver’s recommenda-
tion for which products go well together in a skin-care routine.
In the ad without the combinatory recommendation, each card
quoted and depicted the same skin-care advice giver’s
4
Facebook recommends a four-day test for the most reliable results when con-
ducting a split test (Facebook 2020).
5
The $66/day budget ($264 total) is split evenly across two versions of the
advertisement. When we entered our desired settings for the split test, $66
was computed as Facebook’s daily budget recommendation for conducting a
split test with at least 80% power. Our actual expense came in slightly under
budget at $257.17.
165
product recommendations, but the quote did not mention
whether the products go well together in a skin-care routine
(see the Web Appendix for ads used).
Furthermore, a caption appeared below the carousel card
image. In the ad with the combinatory recommendation
present, the caption emphasized how the advice givers on the
skin-care platform could help consumers find the best combina-
tion of products for their skin. In the ad without the combinatory
recommendation, the caption emphasized how the advice givers
on the platform could help consumers find the best types of
products for their skin.
In both conditions, when an Instagram user clicked on the
ad, they were directed to the same front page of the skin-care
platform website. Following Paharia (2020), for our statistical
analyses, we used the number of impressions for each ad as
the N. We examined three distinct dependent variables: click-
through rate (CTR), sign-up rate, and cost per click. These var-
iables are described subsequently.
Click-through rate. We measured the number of clicks on each
ad and used the CTR (number of ad clicks divided by number
of impressions) as the key DV.
Sign-up rate. In each ad, URL parameters were added to allow
us to capture how many Instagram users, among those who
clicked the ad, ended up signing up for the skin-care advice
platform. We used sign-up rate (number of sign-ups divided
by number of ad clicks) as another measure of analysis.
Cost per click. Finally, we examined the average cost of an ad
click (number of ad clicks divided by total dollar amount
spent). A lower cost per click implies a more effective ad
campaign.
Results
Click-through rate. A logistic regression predicting CTR
revealed that the ad with the combinatory recommendation
present led to significantly more clicks (1.52%, n = 43,331)
than the ad without the combinatory recommendation (1.26%,
n = 36,966; b = −.19, SE = .06, Wald χ2(1) = 9.92, p = .002).
The same statistical conclusions apply for CTR when we
used reach, instead of impressions, as our N (see the Web
Appendix for supplementary analysis).
Sign-up rate. Among those who clicked on the ad to visit the
skin-care website, the sign-up rate was greater among those
who came from the ad with the combinatory recommendation
(7.12%; 47 sign-ups, n = 660) than among those who came
from the ad without the combinatory recommendation
(4.51%; 21 sign-ups, n = 466; b = −.49, SE = .27, Wald χ2(1)
= 3.24, p = .072). Although this difference is marginally signif-
icant, the effect of the combinatory recommendation on the
sign-up rate is still notable, as this effect may have been weak-
ened from users in both conditions landing on the same home
page featuring combinatory recommendations.
166
Cost per click. Finally, in terms of cost per click, the ad with the
combinatory recommendation (CPC = $.19) outperformed the
ad without the combinatory recommendation (CPC = $.28).
Discussion
This Instagram field experiment demonstrates the external
validity of our findings, measuring real consumer behavior.
We note that given Facebook’s proprietary algorithms, the ad
optimization strategy remains a black box. Therefore, if a par-
ticular advertisement performs better on an A/B test, it is
unclear whether the advertisement performed better overall or
whether it optimized better (see Hardisty and Weber [2020]
for an in-depth discussion). However, our experimental
methods from Studies 4 and 5, coupled with this field study,
suggest that combinatory recommendations can be effective
signals of expertise, which subsequently lead to important
downstream consequences, including improved product atti-
tudes and website traffic.
General Discussion
In recent years, retailers have made significant investments in
hiring individuals (e.g., stylists, designers, chefs, sponsored
social media influencers) to advise consumers on what to pur-
chase across a number of product domains, from food to cloth-
ing to interior design. These consumption advisers want to
establish themselves as trusted experts in their field, particularly
as the number of advisers available to consumers proliferates.
This research identifies combinatory recommendations as a
novel cue advisers can use to signal category expertise to con-
sumers. Across nine studies, we find that using combinatory
recommendations has a positive effect on expertise perceptions.
When advisers make a combinatory recommendation, they
display their understanding of how product attributes interact
and the outcome of such interactions. Thus, keeping the
number of items recommended constant, combinatory recom-
mendations can increase perceived depth (but not breadth) of
knowledge in a product category.
Signals of advisers’ expertise matter, as these signals
improve consumers’ attitudes toward the products recom-
mended by these advisers. This effect includes products in the
combinatory recommendation and extends to other, subse-
quently recommended, products that were not part of a combi-
natory recommendation.
Although we find that the effects identified generally hold
across different types of combinations and interactions (e.g.,
blended combinations, such as drinks; temporal combinations,
such as skin-care routines), the extent to which a combinatory
recommendation can be an effective signal of expertise can
depend on a variety of factors. Our theorizing suggests that
combinatory recommendations work as expertise signals
because they highlight one’s ability to understand attribute
interactions. Thus, both the understanding of the interaction dis-
played in the recommendation (implicit versus explicit) and
Journal of Marketing Research 60(1)
nature of the combination recommended (the extent to which
products are expected to interact) can affect the effectiveness
of combinatory recommendations as signals. We also find
some evidence that one’s own knowledge in a product category
may weaken the adviser’s expertise signal. To further explore
this possibility, we ran an additional study testing whether rec-
ommendation conventionality affects perceived expertise. We
find that at high and low levels of conventionality, consumers
feel more knowledgeable about how products will interact
with one another. Thus, consumers perceive less expertise for
these kinds of recommendations. For example, recommending
a combination of lemonade with iced tea (also known as an
Arnold Palmer), which consumers already know interact well
with each other, will not be as strong of a signal of expertise.
At the same time, recommending a mixture of lemonade with
milk, which consumers anticipate will not interact well with
each other, will also not signal expertise. However, at moderate
levels of conventionality, consumers feel less certain about the
interaction outcome and thus are more likely to see combinatory
recommendations as signals of expertise (see the Web
Appendix for full study write-up).
Our work makes important contributions to several streams
of literature. For one, we add to the literature on signaling by
identifying a cue that signals expertise and renders more persua-
sive recommendations. Importantly, the cue we identify may be
more readily actionable than some of the cues identified in prior
work. For instance, projecting a confident attitude might be
natural to some but might be very hard for others.
Our work also extends the literature on persuasion in two
important ways. First, we identify a novel persuasive tactic
and explore when and why this tactic is effective. Second,
Hardesty, Bearden, and Carlson (2007) find that consumers’
persuasion knowledge may be activated when marketers
bundle multiple items together to increase revenue over what
would have been obtained had the products been priced sepa-
rately. Thus, one could reason that consumers perceive an
adviser’s combinatory recommendation as an upselling tactic,
ultimately undermining the persuasiveness of the adviser.
Interestingly, we find that this is not the case, as a combinatory
recommendation generally improves, rather than undermines,
an adviser’s persuasiveness.
Importantly, we also contribute to the bundling literature
and the nascent literature on curation. Prior work predomi-
nantly focuses on evaluating the products included in the
bundle, but not the perceptions of the curator of bundle. We
offer a new contributory explanation for the well-established
finding that bundling complementary products improves con-
sumers’ product attitudes. That is, we show that these
improved attitudes may be driven by the bundle curator
being perceived as an expert. Further, whereas most work
on product complementarity examines the pairing of true com-
plements, like chips and salsa (Huh, Vosgerau, and
Morewedge 2016; Karataş and Gürhan-Canli 2020; Rahinel
and Redden 2013), we examine products that could be per-
ceived as either complements or substitutes on the basis of
the recommendation type. We show that simply framing
D’Angelo and Valsesia
products as complements can also yield improved product
attitudes.
Managerial Implications
Our work also informs both retailers and individual advisers of
the effectiveness of using combinatory recommendations to
establish one’s expertise. Retailers should consider training
advisers, be they sponsored influencers or salespeople, to use
combinatory recommendations to improve perceptions of exper-
tise and, ultimately, attitudes toward recommended products. At
the same time, retailers should emphasize these advisers’ ability
to create combinations through their marketing communications.
For instance, Nordstrom’s personal styling service, Trunk Club,
simply lists “Advice putting outfits together” as one of six ser-
vices offered by its stylists. Nordstrom could consider prioritiz-
ing this aspect of the service in its marketing communications
as a way of signaling the expertise of its stylists. Similarly, indi-
viduals, such as social media influencers trying to break through
the clutter, may consider using combinatory recommendations to
position themselves as category experts.
These managerial recommendations come with an important
caveat. We have learned that not all combinatory recommenda-
tions function in the same way, and that both the language used
in making the recommendation and the expected interactions
between products recommended matter, highlighting that com-
binatory recommendations actually need to display depth of
knowledge in order to be effective signals of expertise.
Our research also bears potentially important managerial
insights beyond the type of consumption advice studied in
this work. For instance, retailers could consider using direct
mail and personalized communication to provide combinatory
recommendations. In this vein, fashion retailer Mango sends
follow-up emails that contain suggestions of clothing pieces
consumers could wear their recent purchase with. Similarly,
review platforms could prompt combinatory recommendations
from consumers. A clothing retailer could ask consumers to fill
out the question “What did you wear this with?” when submit-
ting a review. Online clothing retailers could also encourage
consumers to post outfit photos, a practice already implemented
by retailers like Rent the Runway and Old Navy. That way,
other consumers can get a better idea of which clothing items
are compatible with each product. Our findings from Study 6
suggest that these types of recommendations should generate
consumer interest and differentiate the online platform.
Future Research
Future research could examine different compositions of com-
binatory recommendations. In our studies, we intentionally
held the number of products in our combinatory and substitute
recommendations constant to control for category breadth.
However, future research could compare combinatory recom-
mendations involving varying numbers of products.
According to our theorizing, a person who can recommend
many compatible products may exhibit a deeper ability to
167
process interactions among products. Would this signal
greater expertise and lead to other positive outcomes, including
greater engagement with the adviser? We find initial evidence
to support this prediction from Smart Closet, an online platform
where users post clothing pieces that one could wear together.
An analysis of the nonduplicate posts displayed on the first
page (N = 399) reveals a significant correlation between the
number of clothing pieces in the post and the number of likes
the post received (r = .14, p = .004). Future research could
also explore whether there are limits to the number of compat-
ible items included in a recommendation a consumer finds
believable.
Although we examined compatibility among multiple prod-
ucts, another direction for future research might explore combi-
natory recommendations that offer opinions about compatibility
among a product and the traits of the consumer. For example,
does recommending whether a skin-care product goes well
with oily skin or whether a dress complements a pear-shaped
body signal expertise? These types of combinatory recommen-
dations may require a more complex processing of relationships
between the nonalignable attributes of the product and the con-
sumer. Thus, one could reason that these types of combinatory
recommendations might signal even greater expertise than the
combinatory recommendations explored in this research.
One might be concerned that recommending the joint usage
of two or more products might be perceived as an upselling
technique, triggering consumers’ persuasion knowledge and
skepticism (Friestad and Wright 1994) and leading to lower
purchase intentions. Interestingly, we find no evidence of
these potential negative consequences in our work. It is none-
theless possible that, under certain situations, a combinatory
recommendation might indeed trigger a negative reaction in
consumers. If and when this could happen may be another
potentially interesting question for future research.
Finally, there is growing interest in how consumers interact
with artificial intelligence (AI) and the extent to which percep-
tions of people extend to perceptions of AI agents. Future
research might thus explore whether AI recommendation
agents can signal expertise using the same tactics as human
advisers. These future directions for research will help
uncover additional conditions in which combinatory recom-
mendations are most likely to signal expertise.
Appendix: Greater Spatial Distance Between
Products in a Combinatory Recommendation
Reduces Perceptions of Expertise
This study tests whether spatial distance between the products in
a combinatory recommendation affects perceptions of expertise.
Method
Participants from MTurk (N = 201) completed the study for a
nominal payment. Four responses from duplicate IDs were
168
excluded, leaving a sample of 197 responses (Mage = 37 years,
49% female). Participants were randomly assigned to one of
two combinatory recommendation conditions (close vs.
distant) using a between-subjects design.
Participants imagined that a sales associate provided a com-
binatory recommendation. In the close condition, the sales asso-
ciate recommended pairing a pindot tie with an oxford shirt
because they go well together. In the distant condition, the
sales associate recommended pairing a pindot tie with a pair
of oxford socks.
Participants then completed our three-item measure of per-
ceived expertise by rating the expertise of the sales associate
(1 = “Not at all,” and 9 = “Very much”; α = .94). Participants
also rated the spatial distance between the products recom-
mended (1 = “The pieces are worn very far apart,” and 9 =
“The pieces are worn very close together”).
Results and Discussion
Confirming the effectiveness of our manipulation, the clothing
pieces in the close condition were perceived as closer (M =
7.95) than those in the distant condition (M = 3.84; F(1, 195)
= 225.95, p < .001, ω2p = .533).
A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of combi-
natory recommendation on perceived expertise, where percep-
tions of expertise were greater in the close condition (M =
7.23) than in the distant condition (M = 6.72; F(1, 195) =
6.97, p = .009, ω2p = .029).
These results suggest that products consumed more closely
in terms of spatial distance, such that the interaction of the prod-
ucts is likely more intertwined, can amplify the effectiveness of
a combinatory recommendation in signaling expertise.
Associate Editor
James Bettman
Author Note
The authors contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of
Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 411–54.
Aribarg, Anocha and Natasha Zhang Foutz (2009), “Category-Based
Screening in Choice of Complementary Products,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 46 (4), 518–30.
Journal of Marketing Research 60(1)
Babin, Jessica and John Hulland (2019), “Exploring Online Consumer
Curation as User-Generated Content,” Spanish Journal of
Marketing–ESIC, 23 (3), 325–37.
Bellezza, Silvia, Francesca Gino, and Anat Keinan (2014), “The Red
Sneakers Effect: Inferring Status and Competence from Signals
of Nonconformity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 35–54.
Bobb, Brooke (2019), “Karla Welch, Stylist to Megan Rapinoe,
Tracee Ellis Ross, and More, Launched an Online Styling
App,” Vogue (September 25), https://www.vogue.com/article/
karla-welch-wishi-app-personal-stylist.
Chandler, Jesse J. and Gabriele Paolacci (2017), “Lie for a Dime:
When Most Prescreening Responses Are Honest but Most Study
Participants Are Impostors,” Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 8 (5), 500–508.
Clarkson, Joshua J., Chris Janiszewski, and Melissa D. Cinelli (2013),
“The Desire for Consumption Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 39 (6), 1313–29.
Coker, James (2020), “Covid-19: John Lewis Launches Virtual
Consultations for Customers,” Essential Retail (April 14), https://
www.essentialretail.com/news/covid-19-john-lewis-virtual/.
D’Angelo, Jennifer K., Kristin Diehl, and Lisa A. Cavanaugh (2019),
“Lead by Example? Custom-Made Examples Created by Close
Others Lead Consumers to Make Dissimilar Choices,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 46 (4), 750–73.
Davenport, Thomas, Abhijit Guha, Dhruv Grewal, and Timna Bressgott
(2020), “How Artificial Intelligence Will Change the Future of
Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 (1), 24–42.
Deng, Xiaoyan, Sam K. Hui, and J. Wesley Hutchinson (2010),
“Consumer Preferences for Color Combinations: An Empirical
Analysis of Similarity-Based Color Relationships,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 476–84.
Diehl, Kristin, Erica Van Herpen, and Cait Lamberton (2015),
“Organizing Products with Complements Versus Substitutes:
Effects on Store Preferences as a Function of Effort and
Assortment Perceptions,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 1–18.
Facebook (2020), “Best Practices for A/B Testing,” (accessed March 22,
2020), https://www.facebook.com/business/help/290009911394576.
Facebook for Business (2015), “Improving Ad Performance with the
Carousel Format,” (accessed March 22, 2020), https://www.
facebook.com/business/news/carousel-ads.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Structural Equation Models
with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and
Statistics,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 382–88.
Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge
Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1–31.
Gershoff, Andrew D., Susan M. Broniarczyk, and Patricia M. West (2001),
“Recommendation or Evaluation? Task Sensitivity in Information
Source Selection,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 418–38.
Glenday, John (2020), “Three-Quarters of Brands Have Upped
Influencer Spend Despite Pandemic,” The Drum (October 1),
https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/10/01/three-quarters-brands-
have-upped-influencer-spend-despite-pandemic.
Gorin, Amy (2018), “The Rise of the Supermarket Nutritionist,” Food
Network, https://www.foodnetwork.com/healthyeats/news/2018/
supermarket-rds.
D’Angelo and Valsesia
Guiltinan, Joseph P. (1987), “The Price Bundling of Services: A
Normative Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 74–85.
Hardesty, David M., William O. Bearden, and Jay P. Carlson (2007),
“Persuasion Knowledge and Consumer Reactions to Pricing
Tactics,” Journal of Retailing, 83 (2), 199–210.
Hardisty, David J. and Elke U. Weber (2020), “Impatience and
Savoring vs. Dread: Asymmetries in Anticipation Explain
Consumer Time Preferences for Positive vs. Negative Events,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30 (4), 598–613.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and
Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach.
New York: Guilford Press.
Hildebrand, Christian, Gerald Häubl, and Andreas Herrmann (2014),
“Product Customization via Starting Solutions,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 51 (6), 707–25.
Howland, Daphne (2018), “Wayfair Draws up Interior Design
Services,” Retail Dive (August 16), https://www.retaildive.com/
news/wayfair-draws-up-interior-design-services/530237/.
Huh, Young Eun, Joachim Vosgerau, and Carey K. Morewedge
(2016), “Selective Sensitization: Consuming a Food Activates a
Goal to Consume Its Complements,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 53 (6), 1034–49.
Kallio, Eeva (2011), “Integrative Thinking Is the Key: An Evaluation
of Current Research into the Development of Adult Thinking,”
Theory & Psychology, 21 (6), 785–801.
Karataş , Mustafa and Zeynep Gürhan-Canli (2020), “When
Consumers Prefer Bundles with Noncomplementary Items to
Bundles with Complementary Items: The Role of Mindset
Abstraction,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30 (1), 24–39.
Libai, Barak, Eitan Muller, and Renana Peres (2013), “Decomposing the
Value of Word-of-Mouth Seeding Programs: Acceleration Versus
Expansion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 161–76.
Mannucci, Pier Vittorio and Kevyn Yong (2018), “The Differential
Impact of Knowledge Depth and Knowledge Breadth on
Creativity over Individual Careers,” Academy of Management
Journal, 61 (5), 1741–63.
Miller, Banks and Brett Curry (2013), “Experts Judging Experts: The
Role of Expertise in Reviewing Agency Decision Making,” Law &
Social Inquiry, 38 (1), 55–71.
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Peter A. Dacin (1996), “The Assessment of
Alternative Measures of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 23 (3), 219–239.
Packard, Grant and David B. Wooten (2013), “Compensatory
Knowledge Signaling in Consumer Word-of-Mouth,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 23 (4), 434–50.
Paharia, Neeru (2020), “Who Receives Credit or Blame? The Effects
of Made-to-Order Production on Responses to Unethical and
Ethical Company Production Practices,” Journal of Marketing,
84 (1), 88–104.
Palmeira, Mauricio (2020), “Advice in the Presence of External Cues:
The Impact of Conflicting Judgments on Perceptions of Expertise,”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 156
(January), 82–96.
Petre, Marian, Helen Sharp, and Jeffrey Johnson (2006), “Complexity
Through Combination: An Account of Knitwear Design,” Design
Studies, 27 (2), 183–222.
169
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), “The Elaboration
Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in Communication and
Persuasion. New York: Springer, 1–24.
Popkowski Leszczyc, Peter T.L. and Gerald Häubl (2010), “To Bundle
or Not to Bundle: Determinants of the Profitability of Multi-Item
Auctions,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (4), 110–24.
Price, Paul C. and Eric R. Stone (2004), “Intuitive Evaluation of
Likelihood Judgment Producers: Evidence for a Confidence
Heuristic,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17 (1), 39–57.
Rahinel, Ryan and Joseph P. Redden (2013), “Brands as Product
Coordinators: Matching Brands Make Joint Consumption Experiences
More Enjoyable,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1290–99.
Sela, Aner, Liat Hadar, Sian Morgan, and Michal Maimaran (2019),
“Variety-Seeking and Perceived Expertise,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 29 (4), 671–79.
Shocker, Allan D., Barry Bayus, and Namwoon Kim (2004), “Product
Complements and Substitutes in the Real World: The Relevance of
Other Products,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 28–40.
Slovic, Paul and Sarah Lichtenstein (1971), “Comparison of Bayesian
and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing
in Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
6 (6), 649–744.
Smith, Robert W. and Joseph P. Redden (2020), “The Role of Holistic
Processing in Simultaneous Consumption,” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 91, 104023.
Sniezek, Janet A. and Timothy Buckley (1995), “Cueing and Cognitive
Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making,” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62 (2), 159–74.
Spence, Charles (2020a), “Food and Beverage Flavour Pairing: A
Critical Review of the Literature,” Food Research International,
133 (July), 109124.
Spence, Charles (2020b), “Multisensory Flavour Perceptions:
Blending, Mixing, Fusion, and Pairing Within and Between the
Senses,” Foods, 9 (4), 447–29.
Spiller, Stephen A., Gavan J. Fitzsimons, John G. Lynch Jr., and Gary
H. McClelland (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic
Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 277–88.
Tellis, Gerard J. (1986), “Beyond the Many Faces of Price: An Integration
of Pricing Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, 50 (4), 146–60.
Valsesia, Francesca, Davide Proserpio, and Joseph C. Nunes (2020),
“The Positive Effect of Not Following Others on Social Media,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (6), 1152–68.
Wilson, Marianne (2020), “Neiman Marcus Launches New Online Services,
Experiences,” Chain Store Age (July 23), https://chainstoreage.com/
neiman-marcus-launches-new-online-services-experiences.
Yang, Defeng, Lu Jin, and Shibin Sheng (2017), “The Effect of
Knowledge Breadth and Depth on New Product Performance,”
International Journal of Market Research, 59 (4), 517–36.
Zhao, Min and Lan Xia (2020), “Joint or Separate? The Effect of
Visual Presentation on Imagery and Product Evaluation,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38 (4), 935–52.
Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch Jr., and Qimei Chen (2010),
“Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths About
Mediation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2),
197–206.