Leveraging Underdog Positioning and Consumer Trait Agreeableness for Sustained Marketing Strategy

Abstract

Independent and small businesses often rely on underdog positioning strategies to gain market share against larger and more established companies. However, the effectiveness of these strategies remains unclear. The current study aims to investigate how different consumer personalities may influence their responses towards underdog positioning strategies. Two experimental studies with U.K. consumers (n = 349) show that the relationship between underdog status and positive attitudes is not as straightforward as previously believed. The research uses the lens of self-efficacy theory and found that underdog status positively correlates with perceived effort, consumer preference, and willingness to commit only among consumers with high trait agreeableness. In other words, although consumers generally acknowledge the efforts exerted by underdog providers, our study found that only agreeable consumers are more likely to reciprocate these efforts with increased positive attitudes. These findings contribute to the growing literature that examines the efficacy of the underdog effect. Subsequently, the findings have strong implications in ensuring the sustainability of small businesses by ensuring that marketing spending is optimized to target only the most effective consumer segments.

1. Introduction

The last decade has seen unprecedented turbulence which represented both opportunities and challenges for small businesses. On one hand, the United Nations general assembly has voiced its support and recently recognized the importance of micro, small, and medium enterprises in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) of promoting innovation, creativity, and decent work for all [1]. In parallel, as many industries become more globalized, many new and small businesses have collapsed due to increased competition [2]. The failure of small and new entrants is particularly worrying because small businesses have long been identified as a key ingredient to the health and sustainability of a nation’s economic growth [3]. Several regions have recently identified the need to protect small, local ‘underdog’ businesses against multinational behemoths such as AirBnB [4] or Uber [5]. Thus, many challenges remain to ensure the emergence and sustainability of small enterprises against the increasingly dominant incumbents in many industries.

When judging the outcome of a competition, it would perhaps be more intuitive to favor the side that is stronger, more privileged, or better equipped instead of the smaller or weaker side [6,7]. Nevertheless, an increasingly robust body of research has noted that some consumers may also favor the weaker underdogs who position themselves as passionate and determined, despite their disadvantaged position [8]. In other words, the underdog effect suggests that consumers may show their support to companies who are expected to lose against advantaged opponents but try to fight regardless [9]. The underdog effect has also been documented across Western and Eastern cultures [10]. Consequently, some research has suggested that businesses should adopt an underdog positioning strategy, especially when challenging an incumbent market leader [11].

Consumer research has proposed several alternatives to explain the effectiveness of an underdog positioning strategy. Consumers may support underdogs due to fairness or moral obligation principles [11,12]. Others suggest that consumers may perceive a closeness with the underdog offering when they could reflect aspects of the underdog experience in their own lives [8]. However, in contrast to research that supports the underdog effect, others have argued that its effectiveness is limited. In this view, the success of underdog strategies may largely depend on contextual factors [13,14]. For instance, the underdog appeal may be more effective for hedonic products [15] or for locally made products [16]. Consumer characteristics such as pro-sociality and empathy may also moderate the impact of underdog appeals in influencing consumer attitude [17]. More recently, literature has also pointed to the existence of a top dog effect, where underdog positioning produced more negative consumer response for products perceived to be high risk [18]. These finding illustrate the complexity surrounding the underdog effect, and a significant gap exists where literature cannot yet fully explain the nuances of its efficacy. This gap in knowledge may further increase the risk of costly yet ineffective marketing strategies by small businesses. These businesses are the ones most likely to employ underdog appeals in their positioning against more established competitors but communicating these appeals to the wrong kind of consumers may lead to wasteful losses that small businesses may not be able to recover from.

The present study aims to increase understanding of the processes underlying the underdog effect by examining the mediating effect of perceived effort and the moderating role of consumer’s trait of agreeableness. Previous studies have implied that consumers are attracted to market offerings that portray themselves as fighting an uphill battle in their biography [8], suggesting that part of the underdog appeal is due to consumers acknowledging and rewarding the efforts of the underdog market offering. However, studies found that although consumers are likely to reciprocate displays of the underdog’s efforts with positive attitudes, the effect dissipates when consumers infer that the effort was motivated by persuasion [19]. In other words, consumers may not appreciate underdog marketing stunts that are seen to be self-serving ploys to increase sales [14]. For instance, in mid-2020, Epic Games criticized the pricing policy of Apple’s digital app store by parodying Apple’s own famous “1984” ad [20]. The original ad portrayed Apple as the underdog that challenged the dominance of IBM, whereas, in the parody, Apple itself had become the tyrant. While this effort produced significant positive awareness and response for Epic, it also drew controversy from others who suspected the company’s ulterior motives [21]. Thus, while the underdog’s signals of high effort may be effective to trigger positive reactions among consumers with certain personalities, it may have the opposite effect on others.

In this study, we focus on the consumer trait of agreeableness [22] as a potential moderator to examine its role in the relationship between the underdog’s perceived effort and consumer preference. Agreeableness is one of the five major dimensions in the Big Five personality inventory, alongside the dimensions of extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and neuroticism [23]. The inventory, also known as the OCEAN model for the acronym of its dimensions is among the most robust and often used theoretical lens to understand behavior in social psychology, as well as marketing [24,25]. Individuals with high agreeableness traits are described to be sympathetic, kind, and harmonious in relation to others [23]. Agreeableness has also been shown to influence consumer behaviors that are arguably kindred to underdog support such as consumer engagement [26] and forgiveness [27]. Conversely, individuals who scored low in agreeableness tend to be described as antagonistic, suspicious, and less likely to get along with others. Thus, in the example above, we might infer that consumers who were critical towards the underdog’s strategy against Apple are likely to have scored low in agreeableness. However, to the best of our knowledge, this important personality trait has not yet been explicitly investigated in the context of underdog positioning.

Building on these past research studies, our research objective is to investigate how consumers’ agreeableness trait interacts with their perceived effort of the underdog offering to influence consumer preference. We then extend this to investigate whether trait agreeableness also influenced consumers’ willingness to sustain their patronage towards underdogs. In doing so, we contribute to the extant literature on the underdog effect by adding empirical findings relating to the role of an important yet previously unexamined variable. Secondly, our findings contribute to the literature that examines the effectiveness of underdog positioning by investigating the limits of the strategy’s efficacy. Lastly, our research adds emphasis to the importance of considering consumer profiles in marketing strategies. Recent studies suggest that market offerings need to adopt attractive personalities to connect with consumers and sustain themselves in the marketplace [28]. While having a strong and favorable personality may result in success [29], adopting appeals that are incompatible with consumers’ views may lead to boycotts and market failures [30]. Our findings would thus inform how underdog small businesses should optimize their marketing strategy so that it reaches the most appropriate consumer segments, thus ensuring the sustainability of their business in the long term.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Underdogs and Consumer Attribution of Effort

Underdogs are defined as the ones who are determined and never give up, associated with the more desirable trait of perseverance and fighting against the odds [9]. Consumers in general interpret these underdog qualities as positive attribute dimensions. For instance, underdogs are often automatically perceived as having strong will or a diligent spirit [31]. Compared to the top dog, recognized as privileged and resource-rich, the condition of the underdog is described as a state of having fewer inherent advantages, being less privileged, and less equipped. Research has suggested a positive feedback loop between the underdog’s demonstration of determination against difficulties and the consumers’ support for the underdog [8]. That is, consumers often expect underdogs to show determination in fighting an uphill battle and form higher positive attitudes when the underdogs demonstrate it.

We forward that the relationship between underdog positioning and perceived effort can be fruitfully examined using the lens of self-efficacy theory [32]. Self-efficacy is one of the fundamental concepts of human agency, which is defined as the individual’s beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their own functioning and over events that affect their lives [32]. Individuals who are efficacious in exercising control and mastery over themselves, others, and their environment are generally referred to as empowered individuals [33]. Therefore, improving and achieving high levels of efficacy is generally a desired state that people actively pursue due to the enjoyment associated with it [34]. Bandura [32] stated that one of the key methods of building self-efficacy in addition to one’s own personal successful experiences is through the vicarious experiences provided by others. That is, role models play an important function in building a person’s sense of efficacy because role models demonstrate that a desired outcome is possible and achievable [35]. Given that individuals may actively pursue experiences that provide them with a sense of mastery and overcoming challenges, they may also actively seek these sensations vicariously by associating themselves with others they expect to demonstrate these efforts, such as sports teams [7]. Returning to the current context, underdogs are also associated with demonstrating effort to prevail against challenges. Furthermore, the disadvantages facing the underdog signifies both higher need to exert more effort and potentially a more emotionally satisfying victory in the end [11]. In other words, the status of underdogs confers a positive halo effect of being more hardworking compared to its top dog counterpart. Formally, we state:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

The underdog condition will positively influence a consumer’s perception of perceived effort.

2.2. Mediation Effect of Perceived Underdog Effort

Traditionally, consumer effort has been defined as the physical, emotional, and financial resources expended to obtain a product [36]. In this study, the focus is instead on consumers’ perception of the underdog’s effort (i.e., their perception of the underdog’s exertion to achieve success). The current research posits that the relationship between the underdog condition and consumers’ preferences will be mediated by the intervening variable, perceived effort. That is, because the underdog can be perceived as fulfilling their responsibilities to work hard, it will trigger an enhanced recognition of perceived effort, which in turn leads to a higher consumer preference for said underdog. Positively perceived efforts have been found to play a significant impact on consumer preferences and serve as causes of decision making [37,38]. Previous research shows that the interaction between effort and the reward process is consistent with attribution theory, where the perception of effort has a positive relationship with consumers’ preference to purchase that offering [19]. For the underdog context, the present research argues that the positive perception of effort derived from the persevering underdogs will influence a causal-reasoned cognitive process. That is, consumers may identify the cause of their preference toward underdogs by acknowledging the perceived effort when engaging in attributional search. Consumers observing exertive underdogs will engage in an attributional search to figure out what motivates the underdogs to strive to their utmost. In line with the principles of attributional theory [37], consumers recognize that underdogs exert effort and as a result give positive evaluation towards the underdogs for upholding their responsibility to work hard. This study hence assumes the mediating effects of perceived effort on the relationship between underdogs and consumer intentions, formalized as follows:

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Perceived effort will mediate the relationship between the underdog positioning and consumer preference.

2.3. Moderating Effect of Consumer Agreeableness Level on the Perceived Effort–Preference Relationship

Our previous hypotheses regarding consumer reciprocation of effort can be likened to the classic adage of one good turn deserves another. However, we argue that consumers’ reactions towards the underdog’s action may not be so uniformly positive. Here, we propose that consumers’ trait agreeableness will impact the mediating effects of perceived effort in affecting consumer preference towards the underdog. Our argument is based on the Big Five personality theory and the reasoning of consumer decision-making processes [22,23]. We forward that perceived effort will be an important determinant of consumer preference only when the consumer’s personality is characterized by a high level of the agreeableness trait.

Marketing research has acknowledged the significant role of personality traits in explaining the consumer decision-making process, as personalities influence the determination of a person’s values and preferences [39,40]. In this framework, agreeableness as one of the Big Five personality dimensions refers to an individual’s tendency to be sympathetic, generous, and helpful towards others [23,41]. Agreeableness is also positively linked to the concept of an individual’s prosocial disposition and empathically induced motivations [25]. Moreover, agreeableness personality influences consumers’ response towards market offerings because consumers with a high agreeableness trait make their emotional investments in perceptions such as perseverance and enduring effort of others in need of help [10]. This line of thought implies that consumers with high agreeableness personalities have a stronger empathic response to the underdog conditions and a more appreciative attitude to the effort made by the underdog. In contrast, consumers with a lower level of agreeableness personality produce less emotional response and compassion and are less sensitive to the emotional states of others [42]. Furthermore, low agreeableness has been linked with less tolerant attitudes towards diversity [41] and are less trusting of others [43]. In the context of underdogs, we posit that consumers with low agreeableness are therefore more likely to be suspicious of the underdog’s effort and interpret it in a more negative light relative to those with high agreeableness. Formally, we state:

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

The personality trait of agreeableness will moderate the effects of perceived effort on consumer preferences of underdogs.

The research framework of the current study is depicted in Figure 1. To summarize the hypotheses, H1 examines the relationship between underdog conditions and perceived effort. Then, H2 tests the mediating effects of perceived effort on the relationship between underdog conditions and consumer preferences. H3 further investigates the moderating effects of consumers’ levels of high vs. low agreeableness personality trait on the relationship explained by H2.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study 1: Investigating the Role of Trait Agreeableness towards Underdog Preference

The objective of the first experimental study is to test the mediating role of consumers’ perceived effort on the preference for underdogs. We recruited 200 participants based in the U.K. from the online research panel Prolific, and each were paid USD 2 for their participation. A total of 201 participants responded to the survey, with 2 participants failing to complete all the focal measures and were dropped from the analysis. From the 199 qualified responses, 53% of participants were female and the mean age was 35.8 (SD = 9.78), median age = 35. The median age of our sample was younger than the population median (40.8), but the gender representativeness of our sample was found to be comparable to the overall U.K. population (51.4% female) [44].

At the start of the study, participants were first asked to answer the measure for the Big Five personality trait with other questions under the guise of a screener test to determine their roles in the main study. Afterwards participants were told to read and imagine themselves undergoing a scenario, ostensibly as part of an attention check of the survey. The scenario asked them to imagine intending to hire a personal fitness trainer, and they needed to read two reviews of the same candidate. In actuality, participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions with different scenarios. In the underdog condition, participants read reviews given in Appendix A. For the top dog condition, all visual elements were kept constant and only small parts of the text were altered to incorporate top dog elements adapted from [8] (e.g., “he came from a family of rich and successful trainers” vs. “he’d grown up in a tough neighborhood with few opportunities”; “he comes from a privileged background and determined to show us the good stuff” vs. “Although he doesn’t come from a privileged background, his determination really shows”). Importantly, we designed both conditions to depict the trainer as equally capable and qualified, with the reviews across both conditions rated the trainers as five stars. After the scenario, participants were asked to fill in the dependent measures and demographic information before being debriefed and exited the study.

To assess participants’ levels of agreeableness, a three-item personality trait scale was adopted from Big Five personality dimensions [22]. The measurement items include “I see myself as someone who (1) is rarely rude to others; (2) assumes the best of people; (3) is considerate and kind to almost everyone” (α = 0.78), and participants rated these items on a seven-point scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The rest of the Big Five personality dimensions [22] were also included to serve as covariates in the analysis. Participants were asked to indicate their preference on a two-item seven-point scale: (1) “How likely are you to choose this personal trainer”; (2) “How likely are you to sign up with this personal trainer? (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely)”. Responses were averaged to form an index for preference (α = 0.98, SD = 3.82). Participants’ perception of the effort of the personal trainer was also measured on a two-item seven-point scale adapted from past literature [19,45]: (1) “From that review, I think this personal trainer is a hard worker”; (2) “I think this personal trainer does his best to do what is expected of him (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)” (α = 0.86, SD = 1.12).

Table 1. Scale items and descriptive statistics.

Construct	Items	Study 1		Study 2
		Mean	STD	Mean	STD
	I see myself as someone who:
Neuroticism	Worries a lot	4.65	1.80	4.63	1.68
	Gets nervous easily	4.25	1.80	4.33	1.68
	Have problems remaining calm in tense situation	3.66	1.68	3.63	1.58
Extraversion	Is talkative	4.23	1.69	4.15	1.67
	Often show my emotions	4.30	1.65	4.17	1.72
	Is outgoing and sociable	3.97	1.60	3.94	1.63
Openness	Is original, comes up with new ideas	4.86	1.34	4.57	1.42
	Has an active imagination	5.45	1.31	5.25	1.31
	Values new experiences	5.47	1.18	5.40	1.05
Conscientiousness	Does a thorough job	5.86	0.95	5.91	0.91
	Is not lazy	5.05	1.47	5.09	1.41
	Does things efficiently	5.65	1.03	5.71	0.98
Agreeableness	Is rarely rude to others	5.56	1.40	5.61	1.47
	Assumes the best of people	4.75	1.55	5.06	1.35
	Is considerate and kind to almost everyone	5.51	1.18	5.59	1.04
Perceived effort	I think this personal trainer is a hard worker.	5.51	1.29	5.36	1.24
	I think this personal trainer does his best to do what is expected of him	5.58	1.12	5.47	1.09
Preference	How likely are you to choose this personal trainer	4.55	1.93	N/A	N/A
	How likely are you to sign up with this personal trainer?	4.44	1.92	N/A	N/A
Willingness to commit	How likely are you to sign up if this personal trainer offers a 10-session package deal?	N/A	N/A	4.29	1.78

details the instruments of the current study.

3.2. Study 2: Investigating the Role of Trait Agreeableness towards Sustained Patronage

Research has suggested that trait agreeableness is positively linked to people’s willingness to commit to a relationship [46] and to persist in those relationships [47]. These findings increase the potential value of agreeable consumers for small, underdog businesses looking to optimize their marketing strategies. Specifically, underdog businesses with limited marketing budgets might be more sustainable if agreeable consumers not only prefer underdogs but are also more willing to stay with underdogs. Thus, the next study aims to investigate whether the agreeable consumers’ appreciation of underdog’s effort also extends to willingness to commit on a long-term basis compared to top dogs.

We recruited 150 U.K.-based participants from the same online research portal as Study 1. All participants completed the focal measures and were retained for the analysis. The sample consists of 61% female participants, and the mean age for the entire sample was 36.1 (SD = 8.72). To provide robustness of the underdog effect among high agreeableness trait consumers, instruments of the second study largely replicate the first study we conducted. Participants were initially asked to answer the measure for the Big Five personality trait [22] under the guise of a screener test. Afterwards, participants were given the same scenario as the previous study and answered the same questions relating to perceived effort [19,45]. The key difference in the second study is that instead of participants being asked their likelihood of choosing the trainer, we asked their willingness to commit by answering the question “How likely are you to sign up if this personal trainer offers a 10-session package deal?” (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely).

4. Results

4.1. Results for Study 1

As a manipulation check, participants were asked three questions adopted from the underdog dimensions of external disadvantage, passion, and determination [8] on a seven-point scale anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. An independent sample t-test revealed that the perceived valences of each condition differed significantly. Those who read the reviews of the underdog condition rated it as having more external disadvantage (M_underdog = 6.17, M_topdog = 1.40, t (197) = −28.54, p < 0.01) but also more passionate (M_underdog = 6.19, M_topdog = 4.83, t (197)= −9.22, p < 0.01) and determined: (M_underdog = 6.24, M_topdog = 4.76, t (197)= −9.84, p < 0.01). Therefore, this implies the manipulation of the underdog condition was successful.

We used the PROCESS macro [48] in SPSS to test for the mediation and moderated mediation proposed in the research framework (Model 14). PROCESS produces bootstraps for the indirect effect and confidence intervals, and indirect paths are significant when the confidence interval excludes zero [48]. In both the mediation and moderated mediation analyses, this research employs bootstrapping and confidence intervals to test the relationship between the two manipulated conditions of top dog (coded as 0) and underdog (coded as 1), perceived effort (mediator), preference (dependent variable), and agreeableness (moderator).

To test H1 and H2, we first conducted a simple mediation analysis without inserting agreeableness as a moderator (PROCESS Model 4).

Table 2. Test of indirect effect of underdog status on preference through perceived effort.

	Outcome: Effort
	b	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Underdog	0.590	0.033	17.871	0.000	0.525	0.655
Gender	−0.010	0.094	−0.108	0.914	−0.195	0.175
Model	R2		F	P
	0.624		108.048	0.000
	Outcome: Preference
	b	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Underdog	0.466	0.097	4.796	0.000	0.274	0.657
Effort	0.701	0.130	5.401	0.000	0.445	0.957
Gender	−0.010	0.1702	−0.590	0.559	−0.435	0.236
Model	R2		F	P
	0.568		63.780	0.000

and Figure 2 show the results of this procedure. Importantly, the analysis revealed that the direct effect of the underdog condition on perceived effort is significant (b = 0.590, SE = 0.033, p < 0.001), and the direct effect of perceived effort on preference is also significant (b = 0.701, SE = 0.130, p < 0.001). The direct effect of underdog on preferences is significant (c = 0.466, SE = 0.097, p < 0.01), and the indirect effect is significant (c’ = 0.413, SE = 0.093; 95%, LLCI: 0.238 to ULCI: 0.604), which indicates that the relationship of underdog to greater preferences is carried indirectly (partly mediated), through perceived effort.

To test the moderated mediation, we conducted a second analysis using the Model 14 template in PROCESS. Agreeableness was placed as the moderating variable between perceived effort and preference, while gender and the four other dimensions of the Big Five (conscientiousness, openness to new experience, extraversion, and neuroticism) served as covariates for this analysis. The results of this analysis are presented in

Table 3. Moderated mediation on the effect of underdog condition on preference.

	b	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Underdog condition	0.679	0.223	3.039	0.003	0.238	1.119
Effort	0.260	0.387	0.671	0.051	−0.503	1.023
Agreeableness	−0.809	0.413	−1.644	0.057	−1.494	0.135
Effort × Agreeableness	0.155	0.073	1.979	0.036	0.001	0.290
Neuroticism	0.061	0.063	0.964	0.3360	−0.063	0.185
Extraversion	0.084	0.072	1.155	0.249	−0.0596	0.228
Openness	−0.075	0.097	−0.776	0.438	−0.268	0.116
Conscientiousness	0.141	0.115	1.2227	0.223	−0.086	0.369
Gender	−0.142	0.176	−0.809	0.420	−0.489	0.205
Model	R2		F	P
	0.554		29.54	<0.001

. A bootstrapping analysis with 10,000 samples revealed support for the moderated mediating effect of perceived effort. The interaction between perceived effort and personality trait of agreeableness was significant (b = 0.155, SE = 0.073, p = 0.03). The direct effect of agreeableness on preference was marginally above the threshold of significance (b = −0.805, SE = 0.410, p = 0.06). Additionally, no covariates were shown to be significant in the analysis.

Table 4. Conditional indirect effect of underdog condition on consumer preferences.

Level of Agreeableness	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Low (−1 SD)	1.077	0.194	0.744	1.503
High (+1 SD)	1.522	0.230	1.042	1.945

provides the conditional indirect effects at the differing values of low and high agreeableness, and the analysis revealed that the moderated mediation index was significant (Index = 0.19, SE = 0.09, LLCI = 0.02 ULCI = 0.38). Figure 3 illustrates the interaction between perceived effort and agreeableness in influencing preferences. We also did not find that agreeableness significantly interacted with the underdog manipulation (B = −0.111, 95% CI (−0.336, 0.114) p = 0.33). Overall, the findings suggest that consumers uniformly perceived underdogs as exerting more effort but that the effect of perceived effort towards consumer preference is significantly strengthened among respondents with high agreeableness relative to those with low agreeableness.

4.2. Results for Study 2

Respondents were subjected to the same three-item manipulation check as in Study 1, and the results again confirm the differences between the two conditions. Participants who read the underdog condition rated it as having more external disadvantage (M_underdog = 6.15, M_topdog = 1.31, t (148) = −29.05, p < 0.001) but also more passionate (M_underdog = 6.14, M_topdog g = 4.65, t (148) = −8.75, p < 0.001) and determined: (M_underdog = 6.04, M_topdog = 4.62, t (148) = −7.81, p < 0.001), implying that the manipulation of underdog condition was successful.

We again used the PROCESS macro [48] in SPSS to test for the moderated mediation (Model 14) as in Study 1. The manipulated conditions of top dog (coded as 0) and underdog (coded as 1) is placed as the independent variable, perceived effort as the mediator, willingness to commit as the dependent variable, and agreeableness as moderator. Gender and the four other dimensions of the Big Five were again placed as covariates. The results of this analysis are presented in

Table 5. Moderated mediation on the effect of underdog condition on willingness to commit.

	b	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Underdog condition	0.278	0.296	0.938	0.349	−0.307	0.864
Effort	−0.751	0.682	−1.101	0.273	−2.101	0.597
Agreeableness	−1.045	0.633	−1.651	0.101	−2.296	0.206
Effort × Agreeableness	0.268	0.116	2.310	0.023	0.038	0.498
Neuroticism	−0.069	0.087	−0.795	0.427	−0.242	0.103
Extraversion	0.096	0.089	1.071	0.285	−0.081	0.278
Openness	−0.078	0.134	−0.585	0.559	−0.343	0.186
Conscientiousness	−0.271	0.146	1.2227	0.223	−0.086	0.369
Gender	−0.022	0.172	−0.132	0.895	−0.363	0.318
Model	R2		F	P
	0.414		11.01	<0.001

and

Table 6. Conditional indirect effect of underdog condition on willingness to commit.

Agreeableness	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Low (−1 SD)	1.016	0.233	0.574	1.495
High (+1 SD)	1.106	0.192	0.748	1.487

. A bootstrapping analysis with 10,000 samples revealed support for the moderated mediating effect of perceived effort towards willingness to commit. The interaction between perceived effort and the personality trait of agreeableness was significant (b = 0.268, SE = 0.116, p = 0.02). No other variables and covariates were shown to be significant in the analysis. The analysis on conditional indirect effects at the differing values of low and high agreeableness revealed that the moderated mediation index was significant (Index = 0.34, SE = 0.16, LLCI = 0.011, ULCI = 0.628). Figure 4 illustrates the interaction between perceived effort and agreeableness in influencing willingness to commit. Similar to the results of Study 1, results show that consumers with high trait agreeableness are more sensitive towards demonstrations of effort and show higher willingness to commit.

5. Discussion

Research examining the roles of psychological and personality factors as moderators of the underdog effect has greatly intensified within the last decade (see [18] Appendix 1 for a table of recent research). Past findings have suggested that some consumers are likely to reciprocate displays of efforts [19], while others may regard such displays as self-serving and respond negatively [14]. Thus, what remains unclear are the nuances surrounding the effectiveness of underdog displays of effort among consumers with differing personality traits.

To close this gap, the current research explored the mediated relationships between the underdog condition, perceived effort, trait agreeableness and preferences. We found that the underdog conditions resulted in an increased positive perception of effort compared to top dogs despite both being described as achieving similar levels of success. Subsequently, we found evidence to suggest that consumers’ perceptions of effort act as a mediator between underdog positioning and consumer preference. Importantly, we established an important qualification on the underdog effect on consumer preferences by showing that the positive influence of underdog positioning strategies is strengthened among consumers with high agreeableness. That is, we show that not all consumers equally generate positive reactions towards the efforts that underdogs are perceived to possess relative to top dog offerings. We arrived at these results after considering the possible confounding factors of gender as well as the other personality traits in the Big Five personality model, namely, neuroticism, extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness. We further extended these findings and found that consumers with high trait agreeableness are also more likely to sustain long term patronage towards underdogs.

Taken together, the current research has several implications for the literature on the underdog effect. First, recent research [49] found that consumers with strong ‘growth mindsets’ [50] who value hard work and effort as routes to success were more likely to have empathetic feelings towards underdogs compared to those who considered success to be predetermined. Our research extends this by establishing the underlying process of how the underdog positioning of market offerings evokes higher perceptions of effort. We further demonstrate that this increased perception of effort plays a mediating role that positively drives consumer preference as well as willingness to commit towards underdogs. Second, a growing stream of contemporary research has been dedicated to examining the boundary conditions of the underdog effect [13,17,51]. For instance, [51] found that the underdog effect is stronger only among consumers who also perceive themselves as underdogs or victims of unfair circumstances. The study of [13] found links between consumers’ perception of their own power and underdog preference. Meanwhile, [17] found that consumers with prosocial orientations prefer underdogs but only at certain scarcity conditions in the marketplace. Overall, these findings illustrate that consumer traits and personalities have significant impacts on the underdog effect. Our findings add to this stream of literature by providing evidence that the underdog effect is more efficacious among consumers with high trait agreeableness. Lastly, as previously mentioned, the big five personality model is among the most robust and widely used psychometric inventory [52]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet explicitly examined consumer responses towards underdogs using this important theoretical lens. Our study may thus serve as a springboard for future research attempting to shine light on the nuances of the underdog effect.

The findings of this study also provide meaningful managerial implications. First, our study adds further support to the effectiveness of an underdog positioning strategy. However, we also show the importance of perceived effort as one of the pillars of such strategies. As such, marketers should focus on emphasizing the perception of efforts when positioning the underdog. Second, in contrast to what we term as the ‘David vs. Goliath’ strategy where the underdog is framed in relation to a powerful and hostile competitor [53], our design shows that consumers’ positive reactions may also be cultivated through the underdog’s mere display of effort, without the need to cast a competitor in a negative light. Lastly, our findings that consumers with high agreeableness respond more favorably to underdogs indicate the importance of targeting marketing communications towards certain segments over others. Recent news reports document that firms are increasingly adept at profiling consumer personalities and characteristics based on their digital footprints [54]. Thus, businesses that would like to convey underdog messages may benefit from these techniques to make sure that their messages are being received by the right kind of consumers. Using these refined marketing strategies is likely to contribute to the sustainability of small businesses who often have limited budgets.

Our findings and past literature suggest that there may be other conditions that either reverse or diminish the underdog effect. As with most studies, this research has several limitations. First, we employed scenario-based experiments, which limit the generalizability of the results to real-world. Further research might consider employing a field study to further extend the current finding’s validity. Second, our context of individual service providers (e.g., personal trainers) who are not yet established in the marketplace may not fully translate in situations where already established companies employ underdog biographies to persuade consumers. Lastly, although the underdog effect has been established across differing cultures, future research should consider the intercultural aspect of agreeableness as its moderator. Agreeableness entails the affinity to be pleasant and cooperative in social situations [23]. Thus, individuals’ manifestation of agreeableness in collectivist societies may differ to those in individualist societies [55]. Future research may wish to investigate whether perceived effort results in uniformly positive reactions among different types of offerings such as hedonic and utilitarian products or professional services. Second, investigating the influence of personality traits on different types of underdog strategies may provide meaningful results. As mentioned, underdogs sometimes portray themselves as victims of mistreatment against more powerful top dogs. Such strategies may appear to be effective to invite sympathy, especially among consumers who can identify themselves with the relatively powerless underdogs. However, past research has found that consumers who feel powerless wish to restore their feelings of superiority and thus may show greater support for dominant market offerings that denigrate others in their marketing messages [56]. Given that underdog strategies are often utilized by smaller firms, more research is needed to better guide these businesses in utilizing their limited resources.