THE IMPACT OF PRODUCT STIGMA ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR ...

THE IMPACT OF PRODUCT STIGMA ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE EFFECTS OF SELF CONCEPT AND ATTITUDES

By

Al Darwan Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Conceptual Paper in the Executive Doctor of Management Program at the Weatherhead School of Management Advisors: Richard J. Boland Jr., Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University Sheri J. Perelli, EDM Nancy Koury-King, EDM

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY May 2008

THE IMPACT OF PRODUCT STIGMA ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE EFFECTS OF SELF CONCEPT AND ATTITUDES

ABSTRACT Qualitative research is proposed to study the derivation and effect of stigma in the marketing domain where it has been observed as an underexposed theoretical construct. The study seeks to build on previous research in the social domain by considering how product stigma derives and if it can be characterized similarly in the marketplace. The study is designed to discover, for example, if consumers, in their responses to product stigma, engage in the same stigma development processes that sociologists and psychologists have described operate in social situations. And we are motivated to shed light on how and to what extent consumer attitudes, fueled by beliefs about stigmatized products and the consequences of their use, influence marketplace behavior. The proposed research relies upon theoretical constructs related to social stigma, self and social identity and well-tested theories about determinants of behavior and attitude/behavior consistency. A consumer-focused examination of market domain attitudes is recommended to promote our understanding of buying and/or shunning behaviors relative to stigmatized products. A conceptual model is presented and a research design, based on the conduct of semi-structured interviews with a defined sample of consumers in the US Midwest is described.

 

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 4 Research Question and Conceptual Model ............................................................................... 5 Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................. 7 Research Design...................................................................................................................... 17 Interview Protocol................................................................................................................... 20 Justification of the Research ................................................................................................... 22 References............................................................................................................................... 23 List of Figures Figure 1: Effects of Self Concept and Attitudes about Stigmatized Products on Consumer Behavior Conceptual Model ....................................................... 6 Figure 2: Link & Phelan Stigma Model of Stigma .................................................... 10    

 

3

INTRODUCTION Long and frequently studied as a social phenomenon, stigma is an underexposed theoretical construct in the marketing domain (Ellen & Bone, 2008). This is surprising in that many consumer products and services suffer marketplace stigma. Tobacco, natural fur and genetically modified or processed foods are some examples. This research proposal recommends a consumer focused examination of marketplace attitudes to promote our understanding of buying and/or shunning behaviors relative to stigmatized products. The proposed study reflects a recent surge of interest in stigma by investigators in diverse fields. Empirical research on stigma, conducted primarily by scholars in such fields as psychology, sociology and public health, has increased significantly during the last decade (LeBel, 2008). Much of this growing literature focuses on social stigma including attitudes toward and by stigmatized individuals and groups. The fulcrum for this line of research was Goffman’s classic 1963 treatise on stigma in which he defined it as a phenomenon that discredits, discriminates and reduces the life chances of individuals. Since that time hundreds of researchers have studied how, why and with what consequences certain individuals and groups of individuals tend to be shunned, avoided and rejected. Our interest is in extending the research on social stigmatization to that of commercial products. For this purpose we adopt the definition of Leary and Schreindorfer (1998) who described stigma as “exclusion” based on assumptions that an entity (for them, people and, for us, by extension, products) may “pose a threat....contribute inadequately to the common good, violate social standards and/or induce aversive emotions.” We propose that products, no less than people, with these characteristics result in social distancing or avoidance. The potential consequences for marketers are obvious.  

4

Our study seeks to build on previous research in the social domain by considering whether product stigma derives and can be characterized similarly. We wonder, for example, if consumers, in their responses to stigma in the marketplace, engage in the same stigma development processes that researchers have described in social situations (Link & Phelan, 1995). And we are motivated to shed light on how and to what extent consumer attitudes, fueled by beliefs about stigmatized products and the consequences of their use, influence marketplace behavior. Our specific research questions and conceptual model are introduced in the next section. The study’s conceptual framework, including discussion of pertinent literature on stigma and other constructs instrumental to the study, is presented next. The following section details our research design including a description of the study’s proposed sample and data collection and analysis intentions. We conclude the paper with a justification for the research, including anticipated contributions to both the literature and to practice. RESEARCH QUESTION AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL  

How and to what extent do consumer attitudes, fueled by beliefs about stigmatized products and the consequences of their use, influence marketplace behavior? How are attitudes affected by experience with a stigmatized product, certainty about beliefs relative to it and the opinions of important social referent groups? How are attitudes toward stigmatized products influenced by self-concept?

 

5

FIGURE 1: Effects of Self Concept and Attitudes about Stigmatized Products on Consumer Behavior Conceptual Model  

Power  Certainty Experience

Beliefs about Product

Social Norm

(Labeling, stereotyping, separating, status assignment)

Attitude Consumer Behavior 

Behavioral Beliefs (Beliefs about consequences of product use)

Self Concept (Self identity/social identity)

 

The conceptual model suggests, consistent with ample research on human behavior, that marketplace behavior − in this case toward a stigmatized product − may be influenced by consumer attitude. Attitude, in turn, is depicted as potentially affected by beliefs and by selfconcept. The model distinguishes two categories of belief that may impact attitude − beliefs about the product itself and beliefs about the consequences of its use. These constructs are borrowed from the large literature on reasoned action and planned behavior and are discussed in greater detail in the next section. We propose operationalizing specific beliefs about the product by focusing on how consumers describe the item – i.e. what words and terms they  

6

use to name it, distinguish it from other products and value it. We borrow from the literature on social stigma elements of the stigmatization process (such as labeling, separating and assigning status) which have been documented to influence how stigma related to individuals and social groups is developed and maintained. Our aim is to see if the same process is observable in the market domain. The model also implies that how an individual understands and categorizes himself (self-concept) may influence attitude. We rely on the literature on self-concept, including theories about self-identity and social identity to probe the interplay between understandings about a product and understandings about one’s self. Our aim is to discover how dissonance between product beliefs and self-concept may influence consumer behavior. Finally, our model indicates that the impact of attitude on behavior related to stigmatized products may be moderated by a number of factors. The study will attempt to discover such sources of influence. Provisionally, we rely on the previous literature that suggests that degree of attitudinal certainty, actual experience, and the influence of important social referent groups may be significant. Fuller discussion of these constructs and the literatures supporting them is presented below. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK  

Allport (1935) identified attitude as the single most important construct in social psychology. In the seven decades since, research and the development of theory about the nature, role, and influence of attitude has proliferated. Attitudes have been commonly understood as summary evaluations of objects along a positive to negative continuum (Petty, Wegener & Fabrigar, 1997). But in addition to having an affective component, attitude has  

7

also been characterized as having a cognitive component (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) evidenced by beliefs about the object. Consistency between affective and cognitive aspects of attitude has been associated with attitude/behavior consistency (ABC) (Petty et al., 1997). Attitude theory does not imply that attitudes are the sole determinant of behavior. But, attitude has been viewed as having strong potential to impact and/or predict judgments and behavior (Krosnick & Petty, 1995). In fact, the vast majority of research in psychological literature is devoted to the idea that attitudes serve to guide people’s behavior (Armitage & Christian, 2003). Among various ABC models, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen, Kuhl & Beckmann, 1985) have stimulated the most scholarly inquiry. The latter, described as the most dominant model of attitude behavior relations (Armitage, 2003) has seen applications over a wide variety of disciplines including sociology, psychology, social policy, information technology, management, etc. This well tested theory, as originally designed, suggested that social norm, behavioral beliefs and control and attitude influence behavior and behavioral intent in many domains. A 2003 meta-analysis of 185 TPB studies, in fact, corroborated previous meta-analyses by supporting its efficacy as a general predictor of behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001). However, research informed by TPB has evidenced certain moderators of ABC that increase the predictive power of the theory. These include attitudinal certainty/confidence, affectivecognitive consistency (Krauss, 1995), direct experience (Fazio & Zanna, 1989; Regan & Fazio, 1977) and social norm (Fishbein, Chan, O'Reilly, Schnell, Wood, Beeker & Cohn, 1992; Trafinow, 1994). The latter variable, interestingly, while argued to be the weakest construct in the TPB when used as an independent variable (Ajzen, 1991; Terry & Hogg,  

8

1996), is of considerably more value when used as a moderator (Armitage & Conner, 1997). It relates to the effect on a respondent of the opinions of important social referent groups and the respondent’s assessment of the significance to him/her of those opinions and his/her motivation to comply with them. The inclusion of self-identity in TPB research has also garnered merit (Hogg, Terry & White, 1995). People, it has been found, are inclined to engage in identity related behaviors and adopt particular behaviors that reflect norms of behaviorally relevant group memberships (Terry & Hogg, 1995). Our conceptual model borrows from the voluminous work on ABC and incorporates the cognitive aspect of attitude (beliefs about an object and beliefs about the consequences of behavior related to it) from TPB. It also considers self-identity as a potential co-driver of behavior, and adds moderating variables (direct experience, certainty/confidence and social norm) argued in previous TPB-inspired research to strengthen ABC. With respect to attitude, we conceptualize consumer attitudes (positive/negative) about a stigmatized product may be influenced by cognitive considerations relative to it − beliefs, for example about consequences of behavior associated with the project (such as using or consuming it) and beliefs about the product itself – evidenced, for example, by how the consumer labels, typifies and assigns status to it. Previous research suggests that labeling, typifying, and assigning status to an object may lead to its stigmatization (Link & Phelan, 2001). When objects are “labeled, set apart, and linked to undesirable characteristics, a rationale is constructed for devaluing, rejecting, and excluding them. Thus, (objects) are stigmatized when the fact that they are labeled, set apart, and linked to undesirable characteristics leads them to experience status loss and discrimination” (Link & Phelan, 2001: 370).  

9

In conceptualizing stigma, Link& Phelan expanded on the seminal work of Goffman (1963) in which the latter observed that stigma can be seen as the relationship between an “attribute and a stereotype.” Goffman also described stigma as a sign or a mark that designates the bearer as “spoiled” and “blemished” and therefore a candidate for avoidance. Even though Goffman advised that we needed “a language of relationships, not attributes”, stigma researchers that followed him often transformed stigmas into attributes of persons or groups (Fine & Ash, 1988). The stigma is seen as something in the person rather than a designation that others attach to the person. Rather than focusing our attention on the stigmatizer like we do in the area of “discrimination”, with stigma research we tend to focus on the stigmatized. Figure 00 below demonstrates the process of stigmatization as perceived by Link & Phelan’s interpretation of Goffman: FIGURE 2: Link & Phelan Stigma Model of Stigma  

Labeling

Stereotyping

Power  

Separation

Status Loss + Discrimination

 

Stigma

Labeling and Stereotyping In the model presented above, stigmatization starts by the “labeling” of an entity in such a way that it is linked to a set of undesirable characteristics that form a stereotype (Link & Phelan, 2001). Numerous studies (Link, Cullen, Frank & Wozniak, 1987) have indicated that substantial oversimplification is required to create labels and stereotypes. According to   10

those studies, categories and stereotypes are often “automatic” and facilitate “cognitive efficiency.” Social psychologists have frequently characterized stereotypes as energy-saving devices that serve the important cognitive functions of simplifying information processing and response generation (e.g., Allport, 1954; Andersen, Klatzky & Murray, 1990; Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein, 1987; Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Tajfel, 1969). Lippman (1922), for example, argued that reality is too complex for any person to represent accurately. Stereotypes, Macrae et al. (1994) conclude, serve to simplify perception, judgment, and action. As energy-saving devices, they spare perceivers the ordeal of responding to an almost incomprehensibly complex social world. As Fiske and Neuberg (1990: 14) noted, "we are exposed to so much information that we must in some manner simplify our social environment . . . for reasons of cognitive economy, we categorize (for example) others as members of particular groups − groups about which we often have a great deal of generalized, or stereotypic, knowledge.” Individuation, in its many guises, is a rather time consuming and effortful affair (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986). Stereotyping, in contrast, relies only on the execution of some rather rudimentary skills: most notably, the ability to assign people or things to meaningful categories (see Hamilton, 1979; Hamilton & Sherman, in press; Hamilton, Sherman, & Ruvolo, 1990; Hamilton & Trolier, 1986). Once achieved, this categorization provides perceivers with a veritable wealth of stereotypic information. Separation This feature of the stigma process occurs when social labels connote a separation of one entity from another or of “us” from “them” (Morone, 1997; Devine, Plant & Harrison,  

11

1999). Link and Phelan suggest that the linking of labels to undesirable attributes becomes the rationale for believing that negatively labeled entities are fundamentally different from those who don’t share the label. If the entity is a person, a negative label identifies her as a member of a group that threatens the self esteem of the labeler. Tajfel and Turner (1986) argued that positive self-esteem is achieved and maintained through intergroup comparisons along characteristics that favor the ingroup. As a result, differences favoring the ingroup are exaggerated, while differences favoring the outgroup are minimized or ignored. At the same time, when labeled persons are believed to be distinctly different, stereotyping can be smoothly accomplished because there is little harm in attributing all manner of bad characteristics to “them.” Estroff (1989) posits that incumbents are thought to “be” the thing they are labeled. Some people are described by perceivers as “schizophrenics” “retards” as opposed to describing them as having schizophrenia or mental illness. According to: Goffman (1963: 5): “We use specific stigma terms such as ‘cripple’, ‘bastard’, ‘moron’ in our daily discourse as a source of metaphor and imagery, typically without giving thought to the original meaning.” Status Loss/Discrimination What sociologists mean by the term “status” is the prestige accorded to individuals because of the abstract positions they occupy rather than because of immediately observable behavior (Gould, 2002). In Goffman’s (1963: 5) words: “By definition, of course, we believe the person with a stigma is not quite human. On this assumption we exercise varieties of discrimination, through which we effectively, if often unthinkingly, reduce his life chances.” Most definitions of stigma do not reference status. Link and Phelan (2001), however, argue that the term stigma cannot hold the meaning we commonly assign to it when this aspect is  

12

left out. They further argue that the lower placement in a status hierarchy can have effects of its own on a person’s life chances and consequently the lower status itself becomes the basis of discrimination. They reason that stigmatized entities are labeled, set apart, and linked to undesirable characteristics that lead them to experience status loss and discrimination. Power In answer to the question “Why do individuals comply with the actual or implied desires, requests, orders, or demands of other individuals?” Kemper (1981: 28), answers that we are either coerced (power), or comply voluntarily. If someone has power, he/she receives involuntary compliance. If someone has status, he/she receives voluntary compliance. Kemperfurther explains that the mode of power use could include insults, disrespect, and/or deprivation of accustomed goods and services. Link and Phelan (2001: 14) posit that “stigma is entirely dependent on social, economic, and political power – it takes power to stigmatize. They argue that without power, stigma becomes a very different and much broader concept that may be applied to lawyers, politicians, Wall Street investors, and white people. In other words, people do not possess the power to reduce the life chances of all lawyers by boycotting them even though they label them, stereotype them, separate them, and disrespect them. Consequently, according to Link and Phelan, lawyers are not considered to be stigmatized as a group of people. In other words, they conclude that unless the people who might stigmatize have the power to control access to major life domains like educational institutions, jobs, housing, health care, and in our case purchasing power, in order to put really consequential teeth into the distinction they draw, what we generally mean by stigma cannot be expected to result.

 

13

Self-Concept, Stigma and the Attitude/Behavior Link Researchers attempting to measure individual’s perceptions of stigma have followed several approaches that include the consideration of beliefs about the stigmatized entity and beliefs related to one’s self and social identity (LeBel, 2008). Our conceptual model includes both of these constructs as independent variables. The contribution of beliefs about stigmatized phenomenon was discussed above. Here we address the second, the role of identity on attitudes that influence behavior. Over the last two decades a number of variables have been proposed as useful additions to the theory of planned behavior. As Ajzen (DATE) himself expressed, "The theory of planned behavior is, in principle, open to the inclusion of additional predictors if it can be shown that they capture a significant proportion of the variance in intention or behavior...” Sparks & Guthrie (1998), for example, cite evidence for the usefulness of selfidentity as a predictor of behavior. Their research, involving members of the general population in the UK, (n = 235), (and subsequent replication studies), demonstrated that selfidentification as a health-conscious consumer had a predictive effect on actual consumption behavior. Additional studies based on both the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior have similarly indicated a link between self-identity and behavior. In a number of studies self-identification as a person to whom a particular behavior is important has been positively correlated with intentions to perform it (Biddle, Bank & Slavings, 1987; Charng, Piliavin & Callero, 1988; Granberg & Holmberg, 1990). Self-identity theory conceives of the self as being socially defined. “Self” identity (perception of the self as having specific characteristics and assuming particular roles) has  

14

been seen to be related to “social” identity (perception of the self in terms of membership in specific social groups). As (Hogg et al., 1995) point out, identity theory and social identity theory are “two remarkably similar perspectives on the dynamic mediation of the socially constructed self between individual behavior and social structure.” Both self-identity and social identity theories suggest, for example, that “people are motivated to engage in identityrelated behavior (that) serves to validate an important component of the self concept.” (Terry et al., 1999): 229). Self-concept refers to the way in which one perceives oneself (Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton, 1976) and is influenced by “attribution” − how individuals explain their own and others behaviors and the consequences of them (Kelley & Michela, 1980). Self identity has also been linked to perceptions of an individual about the norms of important social referent groups, although the direct effect of subjective norm on behavior has not been consistently agreed upon (Terry & Hogg, 1996). While evidence that the perceived norm of a behaviorally relevant reference group is related to behavioral intention, for example, the literature suggests this seems to be true only for individuals who identify very strongly with the group in question. Therefore, more recent studies based on TPB, ours among them, have positioned social norm as having a moderating rather than direct effect on behavior or behavioral intent. Dunning (2007) has argued that consumer decision making may be “...construed as a process of belief harmonization in which people arrange their preferences and beliefs into a harmonious web of cognitions.” In particular, Dunning notes the need of individuals to harmonize with other beliefs those he calls “sacrosanct beliefs” about the self. People, the argument holds, shape their beliefs and judgments of the social (and presumably commercial)  

15

world to maintain these sacrosanct beliefs of the self. In our model, self-concept is meant to encompass the set of sacrosanct beliefs individuals hold about themselves. It has been suggested that when a person’s self concept and his/her beliefs about a phenomenon are incongruent, cognitive dissonance results. We conjecture, therefore, that while beliefs about a product and the consequences of its use, as suggested by the TPB, may be useful; they may also be insufficient predictors of consumer attitude and behavior. As Dunning (2007: 243) notes, “recent developments in the consumer psychology literature provide strong hints that self-image motives may also influence decisions in the marketplace.” Thus, our model adds self concept and considers the potential conflict between beliefs about the self and beliefs about a stigmatized product as a potentially richer way to understand consumer response to this genre of product. Actual experience with a stigmatized product may impact one’s attitude toward it (Link, Struening, Rahav, Phelan & Nuttbrock, 1997; Markowitz, 1998). And, as earlier mentioned and well documented in the literature, we recognize that subjective norm (the value an individual places on others’ opinions about a phenomenon), may have a moderating effect on attitude. The proposed research seeks to shed light on the relationship of the various constructs discussed above as they relate to behavioral responses to stigmatized products. Hence, our approach is to probe: •

What characterizes the respondent’s “self-concept”? o What are the individual’s “sacrosanct beliefs” about himself? o What “roles” are most important to the individual?

 

16

o What membership groups are key to him/her?) •

What are the respondent’s beliefs about the product and the consequences of its use?

•

How does he/she “label” it? Categorize it (stereotype)?) To what extent does he/she “separate it from other products of its ilk”? What status does he/she assign to it? Does he/she posses some degree of “power” that can affect the product? How does the respondent think others view the product? How important are the opinions of these others? o How does the respondent think he/she would be viewed as a user of the product?

•

How resonant/dissonant are the respondent’s beliefs about the product and his/her self-concept? What strategies does he/she use to resolve the dissonance? Are the beliefs and self-concept in harmony or not? RESEARCH DESIGN

 

Methodology According to Maxwell (2005), qualitative research is an appropriate methodology for the revelation of individual’s understandings about various phenomena and for the generation of grounded theory relative to them. Glaser and Strauss (1990) note that theory cannot be divorced from the process by which it is generated and that the process drives its clarity, parsimony, density, scope, fit and ability to work. Generating a theory grounded in data, they elaborate, means that it is systematically worked out during the course of data collection and analysis. Our goal in the proposed research is not to verify existing theory, but to generate new understandings about consumer behavior, an objective thus representative of Maxwell and Glaser and Strauss’ recommendations for the use of qualitative methods. Our research design relies upon the use of semi-structured interviews for the collection of data. Semi-structured interviews provide general direction to research  

17

respondents without narrowly controlling the breadth of responses. Providing opportunity for open-ended expression is intended to maximize “discovery” during the research process, emphasizing that our conceptual model is merely a research guide and not an object to be “verified.” Accordingly, our research will provide participants the freedom to express their opinion with minimum interference by the researcher. As noted by Miles and Huberman (1994), highly inductive, loosely designed studies facilitate the examination of understudied phenomena and complex social phenomena. Sample Twenty-four consumers, selected by purposeful sampling, will comprise the sample. Purposeful sampling is a strategy in which particular settings, persons, or activities are selected deliberately in order to provide information that can't be obtained as effectively using other methods such as probability (random) sampling and convenience sampling (Paton, 1990). All participants will be middle class middle-aged-or-over heads of households residing in the US Midwest. The sample will be split by gender and segmented by age. Three age categories will be targeted: 30-39, 40-59, 60-79. Eight women and eight men in each age category will participate in the study. The Census Bureau does not have an official definition of the "middle class," but it does derive several measures related to the distribution of income and income inequality. Traditionally, the Census Bureau uses two of the more common measures of income inequality: the shares of aggregate income received by households (or other income recipient units such as families) and the Gini index (or index of income concentration). In the shares  

18

approach, they rank households from lowest to highest on the basis of income and then divide them into equal population groups, typically quintiles. They then divide the aggregate income of each group by the overall aggregate income to derive shares. In 2003 the Census Bureau shows the middle 20% of the country earning between $40,000 and $95,000 annually. The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a non-partisan and non-profit organization, reports that the middle class has conventionally come to mean families with incomes between $25,000 and $100,000 each year (2003). According to statistics from the National Opinion Research Center (2003), large numbers of Americans define themselves as "working class" or "middle class," including: 50% of those families who earn between $20,000 and $40,000 annually; 38% of those families who earn between $40,000 and $60,000 annually; 16.8% of those families who earn over $110,000 annually. For the purposes of this research, and because the study is going to be conducted in the US Midwest, middle class is defined as the households that fall in the middle quintile of the country as estimated by the US Census Bureau. No further criteria such as education, job type, etc. will be imposed. We will select respondents who reside in Midwest communities with household incomes ranging between $40,000 and $100,000 in the vicinity of Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit. These individuals will be referred to the researcher by professional associates familiar with those markets. None of the respondents will be personally known to the researcher.

 

19

Data Collection Participants will be approached in person, by phone, or by e-mail to determine their willingness to participate in a 60-minute interview Each participant will be asked to sign an informed consent form. Face-to-face interviews will be conducted at a location of the participant’s choosing preferably in an enclosed, private, comfortable office with conference table or at their home, in order to mitigate interruption or ambient noise The participants will be informed that they can exit the interview at any time and that data is confidential. A printed survey will be used to collect demographic and psychographic data. All interviews will be audio-recorded with the respondent’s permission. Interview questions will seek to reveal respondent’s self concepts including both self and social identity as well as their beliefs, understandings and evaluations about social norm. The interview will also seek to capture attitudes about several products which respondents may perceive as stigmatized. How interviewees understand these products (if and how they label them, distinguish them from other products, and assign status to them) will be probed. The interview protocol is presented below. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL  

1. A. I’d like to start today by learning about you. Please tell me about yourself (fullness in response should be encouraged– education, work experience, family, outside interests, etc.) B. If someone were to really understand you, what 3 or 4 things would they need to know? (Targets self-concept). C. If someone knows you very well, what 3 statements can they say about you? D. Everyone plays multiple roles. What are some of yours? (Father, husband, employee, community volunteer, etc.) Tell me about the roles that are the most  

20

important in your life. In what way do those roles conflict. In what way do they seem in harmony? E. Tell me about groups of people you belong to or associate with that are especially important to you and why. 2. On the table, I’ve placed several items. (SPAM, Bologne, and hotdog) A. Tell me about what you see. B. What do these products mean to you? What do you think about when you see a package of SPAM? Bologne? Salami? C. Tell me about the kinds of people who eat these products. (Probe for full description of consumer—what kind of people are they? Where do they live, what do they do, etc.) D. Tell me a story about a personal experience you or someone you know has had involving SPAM. Tell me about a personal experience involving Bologne. Tell me a story about a personal experience related to salami. 3. A. Earlier you mentioned ___________ as a group of people with whom you associated. What do you think members of that group think about these products? What do they call them? How do they use them? How do their opinions about these products affect your own? What would be their opinion of you if they knew you used SPAM? Bologne? Salami? Why? B. What about ___________, another group you mentioned as important to you. (Repeat questions) C. How would people important to you think about you if they knew you ate SPAM? Bologne? Salami? (Probe using the roles and groups mentioned in question #1.) 4. What benefits might be obtained by using these products? Spam? Hotdog? Bologne? Are there any negative consequences you can think of? Data Analysis All audio recorded interviews will be transcribed into a written format using a professional transcription service. The data will then be coded using methods described by  

21

Maxwell (2005). In the first iteration of coding, the data will be “open” coded, a process in which the text is read and all noteworthy statements, regardless of their association with the conceptual model, are captured and categorized. Multiple iterations of subsequent coding will then be performed, earmarking textual fragments that refer to or reflect constructs in the conceptual model as well as newly emerging constructs of interest. For convenience in storing, managing and manipulating the data, coding software (Qualrus) will be used. The software will facilitate recognition of meaningful patterns in the data that will lead to research findings. JUSTIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH  

Many products are culturally stigmatized. For instance, processed meats such as Spam®, nuclear energy, genetically modified food products, chemical industry, plastics, natural fur, and EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems) are some of the products that evoke negative attitudes among some consumers. The literature on stigmatized products is surprisingly limited. Understanding product stigma and its effects on consumer behavior may help manufacturers to more effectively market such goods. , or conversely, important social gains may be realized by fortifying stigma related to certain products with deleterious social impact such as tobacco, drugs, junk food or energy inefficient vehicles. The surprising inattention in the marketing literature to stigma suggests an opportunity to contribute not only to practice but to the creation of knowledge. We hope to make a meaningful advance to the literature by extending what is known about stigma in the social domain to the marketing domain.

 

22

REFERENCES  

Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, 11: 39. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2): 179-211. Ajzen, I., Kuhl, J. and Beckmann, J. 1985. Action-control: From cognition to behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior: 11-39. New York: Springer. Allport, G. W. 1935. Attitudes. Handbook of Social Psychology, 2: 798–844. Allport, G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Andersen, S. M., Klatzky, R. L. and Murray, J. 1990. Traits and social stereotypes: Efficiency differences in social information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (2): 192-201. Armitage, C. J. 2003. Beyond attitudinal ambivalence: effects of belief homogeneity on attitude-intention-behaviour relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33 (4): 551-563. Armitage, C. J. and Christian, J. 2003. From attitudes to behaviour: Basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Current Psychology, 22 (3): 187-195. Armitage, C. J. and Conner, M. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A metaanalytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (4): 471-499. Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J. and Slavings, R. L. 1987. Norms, preferences, identities and retention decisions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50 (4): 322-337. Charng, H. W., Piliavin, J. A. and Callero, P. L. 1988. Role identity and reasoned action in the prediction of repeated behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51 (4): 303-317. Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A. and Harrison, K. 1999. The problem of "us" versus "them" and AIDS stigma. American Behavioral Scientist, 42 (7): 1229. Dunning, D. 2007. Self-image motives and consumer behavior: How sacrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (4): 237249. Ellen, P. S. and Bone, P. F. 2008. Stained by the label? Stigma and the case of genetically modified foods. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27 (1): 69-82.  

23

Estroff, S. E. 1989. Self, identity, and subjective experiences of schizophrenia: in search of the subject. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 15 (2): 189-96. Fazio, R. H. and Zanna, M. P. 1981. Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14 (1): 161-202. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Fishbein, M., Chan, D. K-S, O'Reilly, K., Schnell, D., Wood, R., Beeker, D., and Cohn, D. 1992. Attitudinal and normative factors as determinants of gay men's intentions to perform AIDS-related sexual behaviors: A multisite analysis 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (13): 999-1011. Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gould, R. V. 2002. The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test 1. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (5): 1143-1178. Granberg, D. and Holmberg, S. 1990. The intention-behavior relationship among US and Swedish voters. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53 (1): 44-54. Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J. and White, K. M. 1995. A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 (4): 255-269. Kelley, H. H. and Michela, J. L. 1980. Attribution theory and research. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 31 (1): 457-501. Kemper, T. D. 1981. Social constructionist and positivist approaches to the sociology of emotions. American Journal of Sociology, 87 (2): 336. Krosnick, J. A. and Petty, R. E. 1995. Attitude strength: An overview. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences: 1–24. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Leary, M.R. and Schreindorfer, L.S. 1998. The stigmatization of HIV and AIDS: rubbing salt in the wound. In V.J. Derlega & A.P. Barbee, (Eds.), HIV and Social Interaction: 12-29. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. LeBel, T. P. 2008. Perceptions of and responses to stigma. Sociology Compass, 2 (2): 409432.

 

24

Link, B. G., Cullen, F. T., Frank, J. and Wozniak, J. F. 1987. The social rejection of former mental patients: Understanding why labels matter. The American Journal of Sociology, 92 (6): 1461-1500. Link, B. G. and Phelan, J. C. 2001. Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (1): 363-385. Link, B. G., Struening, E. L., Rahav, M., Phelan, J. C. and Nuttbrock, L. 1997. On stigma and its consequences: evidence from a longitudinal study of men with dual diagnoses of mental illness and substance abuse. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38 (2): 177-90. Markowitz, F. E. 1998. The effects of stigma on the psychological well-being and life satisfaction of persons with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39 (4): 335-347. Maxwell, J. A. 2005. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications Inc. Morone, J. A. 1997. Enemies of the people: The moral dimension to public health. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 22 (4): 993. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T. and Fabrigar, L. R. 1997. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48 (1): 609-647. Regan, D. T. and Fazio, R. 1977. On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 (1): 28-45. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J. and Stanton, G. C. 1976. Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46 (3): 407-441. Terry, D. J. and Hogg, M. A. 1996. Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (8): 776. Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A. and White, K. M. 1999. The theory of planned behaviour: Selfidentity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38 (3): 225-244.

 

25