Stanford University research proved this.
Why do people become fans of others?
Sharing your private life every day, conveying your personality, replying to comments, saying funny things—
Today, I will talk about the three types of fan-building.
Before we get to the main topic, one announcement.
"Complete Guide to Instagram x Content Sales" 120-minute video is being given away for free right now.
Receive it here:
👉https://utage-system.com/line/open/kVVp89lnbKa5?mtid=DNs9phnmOfRQ
1. There are 3 Types of Fan-Building
The reasons why people buy from you can be roughly divided into three categories.
❶ They like the person themselves
They like your personality. They like your way of thinking. They want to support you for no particular reason.
❷ They want to be like you
They admire you. They want that kind of lifestyle. They want to work in that way.
❸ They trust you
You seem knowledgeable. What you say seems correct. You don't seem like a liar.
What's important here is that ❸ contains zero "liking."
You don't need to know their personality. You don't need to be funny. It still becomes a reason to buy.
2. How is ❶ "I Like This Person" Created?
The conditions under which people fall in love with someone have been extensively studied in psychology.
We Like Those Who Are Similar
In 1961, Donn Byrne conducted an experiment.
Subjects were shown profiles of strangers' opinions and asked to evaluate them. The results were as follows:
People liked those whose opinions were similar to their own.
That wasn't all. Similar partners were judged as "more intelligent, more informed, and more moral."
Just by having similar opinions, you appear smarter. This is one mechanism behind why people who broadcast their values gain support.
Talking About Yourself Creates Closeness
In 1997, Arthur Aron et al. published a study.
They paired strangers and had them answer increasingly personal questions for "45 minutes." This is the famous "36 Questions."
The control group engaged in normal small talk.
Result: The pairs who answered the questions reported higher intimacy after the session.
Self-disclosure works.
However, there is a "continuation worth writing honestly" in this study. In Studies 2 and 3, they added manipulations such as "making sure opinions match," "expecting mutual liking," and "setting getting along as a goal"—
None of these had additional effects.
It was "self-disclosure itself" that worked.
Feeling "Responded To" Creates Intimacy
Harry Reis et al. at the University of Rochester organized the essence of intimacy as follows:
Believing that "the other person pays attention to my core self and responds supportively."
To put it simply, feeling "understood, validated, and cared for."
On social media, picking up comments, answering questions, and verbalizing readers' worries work because of this mechanism.
Those who focus on ❶ build this foundation.
Self-disclosure, values, daily life, interaction with readers.
However—this is the entry point to today's discussion.
❶ takes quite a bit of time and energy.
3. ❷ "I Want to Be Like You" Has a Trap
Next is the admiration type.
People evaluate themselves by comparing with others. This is "Social Comparison Theory," proposed by Leon Festinger in 1954.
The original text states:
"Humans have a drive to evaluate their own opinions and abilities."
"When objective means are unavailable, humans evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparing themselves with others."
You don't know where you stand unless you look at others. So you compare.
The problem starts here.
When looking at someone above them, people split into two groups:
Those who ignite with "I want to be like that too."
Those who deflate with "It's impossible for me."
There is a study that directly tested this fork in the road.
Results Flip Based on "Attainability"
In 1997, Penelope Lockwood and Ziva Kunda at the University of Waterloo published a study titled "Superstars and Me."
Let's introduce "Experiment 2."
Freshmen and seniors in the Accounting department read an article about a senior student with stellar grades.
For freshmen, there are still three years left. It feels "attainable."
For seniors, graduation is imminent. It feels "too late."
The results:
82% of freshmen said they felt "inspired," while only 6% of seniors did.
Reading the same article created a "difference of more than 13 times."
Furthermore, freshmen showed increased "self-esteem" after reading (average 8.19→8.90, statistically significant). Seniors showed a slight decrease, but it was not statistically significant.
The conclusion section of the paper states:
"Ideal role models appear to be slightly older than the individual, at a slightly later career stage, and having achieved what the individual desires. Someone who has achieved excellence but not impossible success."
Too close or too far doesn't work.
This is the difficulty of ❷. The more success you broadcast, the more some readers feel "it's impossible for me."
Moreover, you cannot control how much distance they perceive.
4. ❸ "I Trust This Person" Is the Most Reproducible
Here is the main topic.
Credibility has been a theme studied in persuasion research for over 70 years.
Credibility Consists of Two Elements
B.J. Fogg et al. at Stanford University wrote in a 1999 paper:
"Most researchers agree that credibility has two important components: trustworthiness and expertise."
"Highly credible sources are perceived as high in both."
One is "Expertise." Knowledgeable, experienced, capable.
The other is "Trustworthiness." Honest, unbiased, well-intentioned.
These definitions originate from Carl Hovland et al. at Yale University in 1953.
・"Expertise" = "The degree to which a source is perceived as knowing the truth."
・"Trustworthiness" = "The degree of confidence that the person intends to communicate what they believe to be true."
They look similar, but they are different.
It's the difference between "knowing the right thing" and "intending to say the right thing."
This Is the Most Overlooked Point
Listing achievements alone raises expertise but does not raise trustworthiness.
If you keep posting "Achieved ¥XX million monthly sales!", you look knowledgeable. But the suspicion "Is this person only telling convenient truths?" remains.
A study directly investigated this.
In 2020, Laura Wallace et al. at Ohio State University concluded in their paper:
"Source bias negatively affects persuasion and credibility independently of dishonesty, lack of expertise, and low likability."
In other words, "not trusted because you're not knowledgeable" and "not trusted because you're biased" are separate routes.
Listing only achievements crushes the former while leaving the latter unaddressed.
Conversely, Admitting Disadvantages Builds Trust
There is a classic experiment from 1966.
People who make arguments "against" their own interests saw their "trustworthiness ratings increase and persuasiveness improve, even when expertise remained the same."
"This method isn't suitable for certain people."
"I can't do this."
"I failed here."
Such statements seem disadvantageous in the short term. But "in terms of credibility, they are clearly positive."
Fogg et al.'s Large-Scale Survey
Fogg et al. also investigated how credibility is actually judged.
In a 2002 survey, 2,684 people evaluated 100 real websites. The most frequently mentioned factor was "visual design appearance," accounting for 46.1% of comments.
In a previous 2001 survey (over 1,400 participants), factors that "increase" credibility included "expertise," "trustworthiness," and "individualized service," while factors that "decrease" it included "exposed commercial intent" and "amateurishness."
If sales pitches are transparent, credibility drops. This is also empirically proven.
5. Why Does ❸ Work Even If You Aren't Popular?
From here on, this is my marketing interpretation.
I'll state honestly upfront: I could not confirm a definitive study directly comparing "❸ sells best among the three." A related study exists, but it was specific to airline advertising, and I couldn't verify the full text.
So please read this as practical advice, not research findings.
I believe ❸ is reproducible for three reasons.
Reason ①: It works without revealing your personality.
❶ requires self-disclosure. ❷ requires showing your life.
❸ builds solely on the topic you handle.
Reason ②: No need to adjust distance.
❷ failed if too close or too far. But ❸ doesn't have this problem.
"Knowledgeable and honest" works whether you are distant or close.
Reason ③: It's the judgment made right before purchase.
What people think just before buying is usually:
"Is what this person says true?"
Before liking you, they must pass this check to buy.
Therefore, even those building ❶ and ❷ ultimately need ❸. "❸ is the foundation for the other two."
6. What Should You Post Tomorrow?
To build ❸, "listing achievements alone is insufficient," as discussed so far.
You need this order:
Achievements → Reasons → Knowledge → Replicability → Credibility
Let's look at each step.
① Show Achievements (Expertise)
First, this is necessary. If people don't know what you can do, the conversation doesn't start.
② Explain Why Those Results Occurred (Expertise)
This is where differences emerge. Those who stop at "Monthly sales were ¥XX million" vs. those who explain "why it happened."
Only those who can explain prove it wasn't luck.
③ Make It Replicable (Expertise)
Turn your case into a procedure others can use. Only then do you become someone who can teach.
④ Provide Specific Examples (Expertise)
Abstract theories can't be verified. "Who," "in what situation," "did what," "and what happened."
⑤ Share Failures (Trustworthiness)
Here begins the second half, the trustworthiness part.
Things that didn't go well, things you tried and discarded. Those who share these are trusted more than those who only share successes.
⑥ Provide Evidence (Trustworthiness)
Data, research, sources. Don't end with "I think so."
Citing sources creates a state where "you will be corrected if wrong." That itself is proof of honesty.
⑦ Honestly Say What You Can't Do (Trustworthiness)
"This method isn't suitable for certain people."
"This isn't my specialty."
This works best. As the 1966 experiment showed.
①–④ are Expertise, ⑤–⑦ are Trustworthiness.
Neither alone constitutes credibility.
①–④ alone makes you "seem impressive but possibly exaggerated."
⑤–⑦ alone makes you "seem honest but possibly unknowledgeable."
Save This: Summary of the Article
Three Types of Fan-Building
・❶ Like the person (Self-disclosure, Similarity, Responsiveness)
・❷ Want to be like them (Only works at an "attainable" distance)
・❸ Trust them (Expertise × Trustworthiness)
Confirmed by Research
・Similar opinions lead to liking and judgments of intelligence/morality (1961)
・Self-disclosure creates intimacy; it was "disclosure itself" that worked (1997)
・Role models inspired "82% of freshmen vs. 6% of seniors" (1997)
・Credibility consists of "Trustworthiness and Expertise" (1999, Stanford)
・"Bias lowers credibility via a separate route from lack of expertise" (2020)
・Admitting disadvantages increases credibility even with same expertise (1966)
Do This Tomorrow
Achievements → Reasons → Knowledge → Replicability → (Then Trustworthiness) → Failures → Evidence → Stating Limitations
Finally
Those struggling with broadcasting usually think ❶ is the only right answer.
Sharing private life daily, conveying personality, being funny, being liked by everyone.
If unsuitable people do this, they won't last.
But there are three reasons to buy.
You don't have to be liked.
You don't have to be admired.
You don't have to be funny.
Just be knowledgeable and honest.
And unlike becoming popular, "knowledgeable and honest" has a clear accumulation method.
Write what you know. Explain why it happens. Write about failures. Provide evidence. Say what you can't do.
That's it.
You don't have to be popular to be chosen.
Lastly
How to create an Instagram presence that overwhelmingly builds fans will be introduced exclusively to registered users going forward.
"Complete Guide to Instagram x Content Sales" 120-minute video is being given away for free right now.
Receive it here:
👉https://utage-system.com/line/open/kVVp89lnbKa5?mtid=DNs9phnmOfRQ
References
・Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713–715. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044721
・Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234003
・Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (pp. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
・Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
・Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.91
・Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.51
・Fogg, B. J., & Tseng, H. (1999). The elements of computer credibility. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '99), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303001
・Fogg, B. J., et al. (2001). What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. CHI 2001 Conference Proceedings, 61–68.
・Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. Proceedings of DUX '03, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997097
・Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. Yale University Press.
・Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191
・Wallace, L. E., Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (2020). When sources honestly provide their biased opinion: Bias as a distinct source perception with independent effects on credibility and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219858654
・Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2(4), 325–342.
※The studies introduced in this article show average trends across populations.
