consumer behavior research paper example

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

ConsumerBehavior →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

The past, present, and future of consumer research

• Published: 13 June 2020
• Volume 31 , pages 137–149, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Maayan S. Malter   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0383-7925 1 ,
• Morris B. Holbrook 1 ,
• Barbara E. Kahn 2 ,
• Jeffrey R. Parker 3 &
• Donald R. Lehmann 1  

45k Accesses

36 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this article, we document the evolution of research trends (concepts, methods, and aims) within the field of consumer behavior, from the time of its early development to the present day, as a multidisciplinary area of research within marketing. We describe current changes in retailing and real-world consumption and offer suggestions on how to use observations of consumption phenomena to generate new and interesting consumer behavior research questions. Consumption continues to change with technological advancements and shifts in consumers’ values and goals. We cannot know the exact shape of things to come, but we polled a sample of leading scholars and summarize their predictions on where the field may be headed in the next twenty years.

Similar content being viewed by others

Consumer Behavior Research Methods

Consumer dynamics: theories, methods, and emerging directions

Understanding effect sizes in consumer psychology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Beginning in the late 1950s, business schools shifted from descriptive and practitioner-focused studies to more theoretically driven and academically rigorous research (Dahl et al. 1959 ). As the field expanded from an applied form of economics to embrace theories and methodologies from psychology, sociology, anthropology, and statistics, there was an increased emphasis on understanding the thoughts, desires, and experiences of individual consumers. For academic marketing, this meant that research not only focused on the decisions and strategies of marketing managers but also on the decisions and thought processes on the other side of the market—customers.

Since then, the academic study of consumer behavior has evolved and incorporated concepts and methods, not only from marketing at large but also from related social science disciplines, and from the ever-changing landscape of real-world consumption behavior. Its position as an area of study within a larger discipline that comprises researchers from diverse theoretical backgrounds and methodological training has stirred debates over its identity. One article describes consumer behavior as a multidisciplinary subdiscipline of marketing “characterized by the study of people operating in a consumer role involving acquisition, consumption, and disposition of marketplace products, services, and experiences” (MacInnis and Folkes 2009 , p. 900).

This article reviews the evolution of the field of consumer behavior over the past half century, describes its current status, and predicts how it may evolve over the next twenty years. Our review is by no means a comprehensive history of the field (see Schumann et al. 2008 ; Rapp and Hill 2015 ; Wang et al. 2015 ; Wilkie and Moore 2003 , to name a few) but rather focuses on a few key thematic developments. Though we observe many major shifts during this period, certain questions and debates have persisted: Does consumer behavior research need to be relevant to marketing managers or is there intrinsic value from studying the consumer as a project pursued for its own sake? What counts as consumption: only consumption from traditional marketplace transactions or also consumption in a broader sense of non-marketplace interactions? Which are the most appropriate theoretical traditions and methodological tools for addressing questions in consumer behavior research?

2 A brief history of consumer research over the past sixty years—1960 to 2020

In 1969, the Association for Consumer Research was founded and a yearly conference to share marketing research specifically from the consumer’s perspective was instituted. This event marked the culmination of the growing interest in the topic by formalizing it as an area of research within marketing (consumer psychology had become a formalized branch of psychology within the APA in 1960). So, what was consumer behavior before 1969? Scanning current consumer-behavior doctoral seminar syllabi reveals few works predating 1969, with most of those coming from psychology and economics, namely Herbert Simon’s A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice (1955), Abraham Maslow’s A Theory of Human Motivation (1943), and Ernest Dichter’s Handbook of Consumer Motivations (1964). In short, research that illuminated and informed our understanding of consumer behavior prior to 1969 rarely focused on marketing-specific topics, much less consumers or consumption (Dichter’s handbook being a notable exception). Yet, these works were crucial to the rise of consumer behavior research because, in the decades after 1969, there was a shift within academic marketing to thinking about research from a behavioral or decision science perspective (Wilkie and Moore 2003 ). The following section details some ways in which this shift occurred. We draw on a framework proposed by the philosopher Larry Laudan ( 1986 ), who distinguished among three inter-related aspects of scientific inquiry—namely, concepts (the relevant ideas, theories, hypotheses, and constructs); methods (the techniques employed to test and validate these concepts); and aims (the purposes or goals that motivate the investigation).

2.1 Key concepts in the late - 1960s

During the late-1960s, we tended to view the buyer as a computer-like machine for processing information according to various formal rules that embody economic rationality to form a preference for one or another option in order to arrive at a purchase decision. This view tended to manifest itself in a couple of conspicuous ways. The first was a model of buyer behavior introduced by John Howard in 1963 in the second edition of his marketing textbook and quickly adopted by virtually every theorist working in our field—including, Howard and Sheth (of course), Engel-Kollat-&-Blackwell, Franco Nicosia, Alan Andreasen, Jim Bettman, and Joel Cohen. Howard’s great innovation—which he based on a scheme that he had found in the work of Plato (namely, the linkages among Cognition, Affect, and Conation)—took the form of a boxes-and-arrows formulation heavily influenced by the approach to organizational behavior theory that Howard (University of Pittsburgh) had picked up from Herbert Simon (Carnegie Melon University). The model represented a chain of events

where I = inputs of information (from advertising, word-of-mouth, brand features, etc.); C = cognitions (beliefs or perceptions about a brand); A = Affect (liking or preference for the brand); B = behavior (purchase of the brand); and S = satisfaction (post-purchase evaluation of the brand that feeds back onto earlier stages of the sequence, according to a learning model in which reinforced behavior tends to be repeated). This formulation lay at the heart of Howard’s work, which he updated, elaborated on, and streamlined over the remainder of his career. Importantly, it informed virtually every buyer-behavior model that blossomed forth during the last half of the twentieth century.

To represent the link between cognitions and affect, buyer-behavior researchers used various forms of the multi-attribute attitude model (MAAM), originally proposed by psychologists such as Fishbein and Rosenberg as part of what Fishbein and Ajzen ( 1975 ) called the theory of reasoned action. Under MAAM, cognitions (beliefs about brand attributes) are weighted by their importance and summed to create an explanation or prediction of affect (liking for a brand or preference for one brand versus another), which in turn determines behavior (choice of a brand or intention to purchase a brand). This took the work of economist Kelvin Lancaster (with whom Howard interacted), which assumed attitude was based on objective attributes, and extended it to include subjective ones (Lancaster 1966 ; Ratchford 1975 ). Overall, the set of concepts that prevailed in the late-1960s assumed the buyer exhibited economic rationality and acted as a computer-like information-processing machine when making purchase decisions.

2.2 Favored methods in the late-1960s

The methods favored during the late-1960s tended to be almost exclusively neo-positivistic in nature. That is, buyer-behavior research adopted the kinds of methodological rigor that we associate with the physical sciences and the hypothetico-deductive approaches advocated by the neo-positivistic philosophers of science.

Thus, the accepted approaches tended to be either experimental or survey based. For example, numerous laboratory studies tested variations of the MAAM and focused on questions about how to measure beliefs, how to weight the beliefs, how to combine the weighted beliefs, and so forth (e.g., Beckwith and Lehmann 1973 ). Here again, these assumed a rational economic decision-maker who processed information something like a computer.

Seeking rigor, buyer-behavior studies tended to be quantitative in their analyses, employing multivariate statistics, structural equation models, multidimensional scaling, conjoint analysis, and other mathematically sophisticated techniques. For example, various attempts to test the ICABS formulation developed simultaneous (now called structural) equation models such as those deployed by Farley and Ring ( 1970 , 1974 ) to test the Howard and Sheth ( 1969 ) model and by Beckwith and Lehmann ( 1973 ) to measure halo effects.

2.3 Aims in the late-1960s

During this time period, buyer-behavior research was still considered a subdivision of marketing research, the purpose of which was to provide insights useful to marketing managers in making strategic decisions. Essentially, every paper concluded with a section on “Implications for Marketing Managers.” Authors who failed to conform to this expectation could generally count on having their work rejected by leading journals such as the Journal of Marketing Research ( JMR ) and the Journal of Marketing ( JM ).

2.4 Summary—the three R’s in the late-1960s

Starting in the late-1960s to the early-1980s, virtually every buyer-behavior researcher followed the traditional approach to concepts, methods, and aims, now encapsulated under what we might call the three R’s —namely, rationality , rigor , and relevance . However, as we transitioned into the 1980s and beyond, that changed as some (though by no means all) consumer researchers began to expand their approaches and to evolve different perspectives.

2.5 Concepts after 1980

In some circles, the traditional emphasis on the buyer’s rationality—that is, a view of the buyer as a rational-economic, decision-oriented, information-processing, computer-like machine for making choices—began to evolve in at least two primary ways.

First, behavioral economics (originally studied in marketing under the label Behavioral Decision Theory)—developed in psychology by Kahneman and Tversky, in economics by Thaler, and applied in marketing by a number of forward-thinking theorists (e.g., Eric Johnson, Jim Bettman, John Payne, Itamar Simonson, Jay Russo, Joel Huber, and more recently, Dan Ariely)—challenged the rationality of consumers as decision-makers. It was shown that numerous commonly used decision heuristics depart from rational choice and are exceptions to the traditional assumptions of economic rationality. This trend shed light on understanding consumer financial decision-making (Prelec and Loewenstein 1998 ; Gourville 1998 ; Lynch Jr 2011 ) and how to develop “nudges” to help consumers make better decisions for their personal finances (summarized in Johnson et al. 2012 ).

Second, the emerging experiential view (anticipated by Alderson, Levy, and others; developed by Holbrook and Hirschman, and embellished by Schmitt, Pine, and Gilmore, and countless followers) regarded consumers as flesh-and-blood human beings (rather than as information-processing computer-like machines), focused on hedonic aspects of consumption, and expanded the concepts embodied by ICABS (Table 1 ).

2.6 Methods after 1980

The two burgeoning areas of research—behavioral economics and experiential theories—differed in their methodological approaches. The former relied on controlled randomized experiments with a focus on decision strategies and behavioral outcomes. For example, experiments tested the process by which consumers evaluate options using information display boards and “Mouselab” matrices of aspects and attributes (Payne et al. 1988 ). This school of thought also focused on behavioral dependent measures, such as choice (Huber et al. 1982 ; Simonson 1989 ; Iyengar and Lepper 2000 ).

The latter was influenced by post-positivistic philosophers of science—such as Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Richard Rorty—and approaches expanded to include various qualitative techniques (interpretive, ethnographic, humanistic, and even introspective methods) not previously prominent in the field of consumer research. These included:

Interpretive approaches —such as those drawing on semiotics and hermeneutics—in an effort to gain a richer understanding of the symbolic meanings involved in consumption experiences;

Ethnographic approaches — borrowed from cultural anthropology—such as those illustrated by the influential Consumer Behavior Odyssey (Belk et al. 1989 ) and its discoveries about phenomena related to sacred aspects of consumption or the deep meanings of collections and other possessions;

Humanistic approaches —such as those borrowed from cultural studies or from literary criticism and more recently gathered together under the general heading of consumer culture theory ( CCT );

Introspective or autoethnographic approaches —such as those associated with a method called subjective personal introspection ( SPI ) that various consumer researchers like Sidney Levy and Steve Gould have pursued to gain insights based on their own private lives.

These qualitative approaches tended not to appear in the more traditional journals such as the Journal of Marketing , Journal of Marketing Research , or Marketing Science . However, newer journals such as Consumption, Markets, & Culture and Marketing Theory began to publish papers that drew on the various interpretive, ethnographic, humanistic, or introspective methods.

2.7 Aims after 1980

In 1974, consumer research finally got its own journal with the launch of the Journal of Consumer Research ( JCR ). The early editors of JCR —especially Bob Ferber, Hal Kassarjian, and Jim Bettman—held a rather divergent attitude about the importance or even the desirability of managerial relevance as a key goal of consumer studies. Under their influence, some researchers began to believe that consumer behavior is a phenomenon worthy of study in its own right—purely for the purpose of understanding it better. The journal incorporated articles from an array of methodologies: quantitative (both secondary data analysis and experimental techniques) and qualitative. The “right” balance between theoretical insight and substantive relevance—which are not in inherent conflict—is a matter of debate to this day and will likely continue to be debated well into the future.

2.8 Summary—the three I’s after 1980

In sum, beginning in the early-1980s, consumer research branched out. Much of the work in consumer studies remained within the earlier tradition of the three R’s—that is, rationality (an information-processing decision-oriented buyer), rigor (neo-positivistic experimental designs and quantitative techniques), and relevance (usefulness to marketing managers). Nonetheless, many studies embraced enlarged views of the three major aspects that might be called the three I’s —that is, irrationality (broadened perspectives that incorporate illogical, heuristic, experiential, or hedonic aspects of consumption), interpretation (various qualitative or “postmodern” approaches), and intrinsic motivation (the joy of pursuing a managerially irrelevant consumer study purely for the sake of satisfying one’s own curiosity, without concern for whether it does or does not help a marketing practitioner make a bigger profit).

3 The present—the consumer behavior field today

3.1 present concepts.

In recent years, technological changes have significantly influenced the nature of consumption as the customer journey has transitioned to include more interaction on digital platforms that complements interaction in physical stores. This shift poses a major conceptual challenge in understanding if and how these technological changes affect consumption. Does the medium through which consumption occurs fundamentally alter the psychological and social processes identified in earlier research? In addition, this shift allows us to collect more data at different stages of the customer journey, which further allows us to analyze behavior in ways that were not previously available.

Revisiting the ICABS framework, many of the previous concepts are still present, but we are now addressing them through a lens of technological change (Table 2 )

. In recent years, a number of concepts (e.g., identity, beliefs/lay theories, affect as information, self-control, time, psychological ownership, search for meaning and happiness, social belonging, creativity, and status) have emerged as integral factors that influence and are influenced by consumption. To better understand these concepts, a number of influential theories from social psychology have been adopted into consumer behavior research. Self-construal (Markus and Kitayama 1991 ), regulatory focus (Higgins 1998 ), construal level (Trope and Liberman 2010 ), and goal systems (Kruglanski et al. 2002 ) all provide social-cognition frameworks through which consumer behavior researchers study the psychological processes behind consumer behavior. This “adoption” of social psychological theories into consumer behavior is a symbiotic relationship that further enhances the theories. Tory Higgins happily stated that he learned more about his own theories from the work of marketing academics (he cited Angela Lee and Michel Pham) in further testing and extending them.

3.2 Present Methods

Not only have technological advancements changed the nature of consumption but they have also significantly influenced the methods used in consumer research by adding both new sources of data and improved analytical tools (Ding et al. 2020 ). Researchers continue to use traditional methods from psychology in empirical research (scale development, laboratory experiments, quantitative analyses, etc.) and interpretive approaches in qualitative research. Additionally, online experiments using participants from panels such as Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific have become commonplace in the last decade. While they raise concerns about the quality of the data and about the external validity of the results, these online experiments have greatly increased the speed and decreased the cost of collecting data, so researchers continue to use them, albeit with some caution. Reminiscent of the discussion in the 1970s and 1980s about the use of student subjects, the projectability of the online responses and of an increasingly conditioned “professional” group of online respondents (MTurkers) is a major concern.

Technology has also changed research methodology. Currently, there is a large increase in the use of secondary data thanks to the availability of Big Data about online and offline behavior. Methods in computer science have advanced our ability to analyze large corpuses of unstructured data (text, voice, visual images) in an efficient and rigorous way and, thus, to tap into a wealth of nuanced thoughts, feelings, and behaviors heretofore only accessible to qualitative researchers through laboriously conducted content analyses. There are also new neuro-marketing techniques like eye-tracking, fMRI’s, body arousal measures (e.g., heart rate, sweat), and emotion detectors that allow us to measure automatic responses. Lastly, there has been an increase in large-scale field experiments that can be run in online B2C marketplaces.

3.3 Present Aims

Along with a focus on real-world observations and data, there is a renewed emphasis on managerial relevance. Countless conference addresses and editorials in JCR , JCP , and other journals have emphasized the importance of making consumer research useful outside of academia—that is, to help companies, policy makers, and consumers. For instance, understanding how the “new” consumer interacts over time with other consumers and companies in the current marketplace is a key area for future research. As global and social concerns become more salient in all aspects of life, issues of long-term sustainability, social equality, and ethical business practices have also become more central research topics. Fortunately, despite this emphasis on relevance, theoretical contributions and novel ideas are still highly valued. An appropriate balance of theory and practice has become the holy grail of consumer research.

The effects of the current trends in real-world consumption will increase in magnitude with time as more consumers are digitally native. Therefore, a better understanding of current consumer behavior can give us insights and help predict how it will continue to evolve in the years to come.

4 The future—the consumer behavior field in 2040

The other papers use 2030 as a target year but we asked our survey respondents to make predictions for 2040 and thus we have a different future target year.

Niels Bohr once said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” Indeed, it would be a fool’s errand for a single person to hazard a guess about the state of the consumer behavior field twenty years from now. Therefore, predictions from 34 active consumer researchers were collected to address this task. Here, we briefly summarize those predictions.

4.1 Future Concepts

While few respondents proffered guesses regarding specific concepts that would be of interest twenty years from now, many suggested broad topics and trends they expected to see in the field. Expectations for topics could largely be grouped into three main areas. Many suspected that we will be examining essentially the same core topics, perhaps at a finer-grained level, from different perspectives or in ways that we currently cannot utilize due to methodological limitations (more on methods below). A second contingent predicted that much research would center on the impending crises the world faces today, most mentioning environmental and social issues (the COVID-19 pandemic had not yet begun when these predictions were collected and, unsurprisingly, was not anticipated by any of our respondents). The last group, citing the widely expected profound impact of AI on consumers’ lives, argued that AI and other technology-related topics will be dominant subjects in consumer research circa 2040.

While the topic of technology is likely to be focal in the field, our current expectations for the impact of technology on consumers’ lives are narrower than it should be. Rather than merely offering innumerable conveniences and experiences, it seems likely that technology will begin to be integrated into consumers’ thoughts, identities, and personal relationships—probably sooner than we collectively expect. The integration of machines into humans’ bodies and lives will present the field with an expanding list of research questions that do not exist today. For example, how will the concepts of the self, identity, privacy, and goal pursuit change when web-connected technology seamlessly integrates with human consciousness and cognition? Major questions will also need to be answered regarding philosophy of mind, ethics, and social inequality. We suspect that the impact of technology on consumers and consumer research will be far broader than most consumer-behavior researchers anticipate.

As for broader trends within consumer research, there were two camps: (1) those who expect (or hope) that dominant theories (both current and yet to be developed) will become more integrated and comprehensive and (2) those who expect theoretical contributions to become smaller and smaller, to the point of becoming trivial. Both groups felt that current researchers are filling smaller cracks than before, but disagreed on how this would ultimately be resolved.

4.2 Future Methods

As was the case with concepts, respondents’ expectations regarding consumer-research methodologies in 2030 can also be divided into three broad baskets. Unsurprisingly, many indicated that we would be using many technologies not currently available or in wide use. Perhaps more surprising was that most cited the use of technology such as AI, machine-learning algorithms, and robots in designing—as opposed to executing or analyzing—experiments. (Some did point to the use of technologies such as virtual reality in the actual execution of experiments.) The second camp indicated that a focus on reliable and replicable results (discussed further below) will encourage a greater tendency for pre-registering studies, more use of “Big Data,” and a demand for more studies per paper (versus more papers per topic, which some believe is a more fruitful direction). Finally, the third lot indicated that “real data” would be in high demand, thereby necessitating the use of incentive-compatible, consequential dependent variables and a greater prevalence of field studies in consumer research.

As a result, young scholars would benefit from developing a “toolkit” of methodologies for collecting and analyzing the abundant new data of interest to the field. This includes (but is not limited to) a deep understanding of designing and implementing field studies (Gerber and Green 2012 ), data analysis software (R, Python, etc.), text mining and analysis (Humphreys and Wang 2018 ), and analytical tools for other unstructured forms of data such as image and sound. The replication crisis in experimental research means that future scholars will also need to take a more critical approach to validity (internal, external, construct), statistical power, and significance in their work.

4.3 Future Aims

While there was an air of existential concern about the future of the field, most agreed that the trend will be toward increasing the relevance and reliability of consumer research. Specifically, echoing calls from journals and thought leaders, the respondents felt that papers will need to offer more actionable implications for consumers, managers, or policy makers. However, few thought that this increased focus would come at the expense of theoretical insights, suggesting a more demanding overall standard for consumer research in 2040. Likewise, most felt that methodological transparency, open access to data and materials, and study pre-registration will become the norm as the field seeks to allay concerns about the reliability and meaningfulness of its research findings.

4.4 Summary - Future research questions and directions

Despite some well-justified pessimism, the future of consumer research is as bright as ever. As we revised this paper amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that many aspects of marketplace behavior, consumption, and life in general will change as a result of this unprecedented global crisis. Given this, and the radical technological, social, and environmental changes that loom on the horizon, consumer researchers will have a treasure trove of topics to tackle in the next ten years, many of which will carry profound substantive importance. While research approaches will evolve, the core goals will remain consistent—namely, to generate theoretically insightful, empirically supported, and substantively impactful research (Table 3 ).

5 Conclusion

At any given moment in time, the focal concepts, methods, and aims of consumer-behavior scholarship reflect both the prior development of the field and trends in the larger scientific community. However, despite shifting trends, the core of the field has remained constant—namely, to understand the motivations, thought processes, and experiences of individuals as they consume goods, services, information, and other offerings, and to use these insights to develop interventions to improve both marketing strategy for firms and consumer welfare for individuals and groups. Amidst the excitement of new technologies, social trends, and consumption experiences, it is important to look back and remind ourselves of the insights the field has already generated. Effectively integrating these past findings with new observations and fresh research will help the field advance our understanding of consumer behavior.

Beckwith, N. E., & Lehmann, D. R. (1973). The importance of differential weights in multiple attribute models of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (2), 141–145.

Article   Google Scholar  

Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry Jr., J. F. (1989). The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 1–38.

Dahl, R. A., Haire, M., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1959). Social science research on business: product and potential . New York: Columbia University Press.

Ding, Y., DeSarbo, W. S., Hanssens, D. M., Jedidi, K., Lynch Jr., J. G., & Lehmann, D. R. (2020). The past, present, and future of measurements and methods in marketing analysis. Marketing Letters, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09527-7 .

Farley, J. U., & Ring, L. W. (1970). An empirical test of the Howard-Sheth model of buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (4), 427–438.

Farley, J. U., & Ring, L. W. (1974). “Empirical” specification of a buyer behavior model. Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (1), 89–96.

Google Scholar  

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research . Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: design, analysis, and interpretation . New York: WW Norton.

Gourville, J. T. (1998). Pennies-a-day: the effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 395–408.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30 , 1–46.

Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior . New York: Wiley.

Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (1), 90–98.

Humphreys, A., & Wang, R. J. H. (2018). Automated text analysis for consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (6), 1274–1306.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 995–1006.

Johnson, E. J., Shu, S. B., Dellaert, B. G., Fox, C., Goldstein, D. G., Häubl, G., et al. (2012). Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Marketing Letters, 23 (2), 487–504.

Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34 , 311–378.

Lancaster, K. (1966). A new theory of consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 74 , 132–157.

Laudan, L. (1986). Methodology’s prospects. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1986 (2), 347–354.

Lynch Jr., J. G. (2011). Introduction to the journal of marketing research special interdisciplinary issue on consumer financial decision making. Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (SPL) Siv–Sviii.

MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2009). The disciplinary status of consumer behavior: a sociology of science perspective on key controversies. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (6), 899–914.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224–253.

Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 (3), 534–552.

Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17 (1), 4–28.

Rapp, J. M., & Hill, R. P. (2015). Lordy, Lordy, look who’s 40! The Journal of Consumer Research reaches a milestone. Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 19–29.

Ratchford, B. T. (1975). The new economic theory of consumer behavior: an interpretive essay. Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (2), 65–75.

Schumann, D. W., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Davidson, E. (2008). History of consumer psychology. In Haugtvedt, C. P., Herr, P. M., & Kardes, F. R. eds.  Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 3-28). New York: Erlbaum.

Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 158–174.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–463.

Wang, X., Bendle, N. T., Mai, F., & Cotte, J. (2015). The journal of consumer research at 40: a historical analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 5–18.

Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2003). Scholarly research in marketing: exploring the “4 eras” of thought development. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22 (2), 116–146.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Maayan S. Malter, Morris B. Holbrook & Donald R. Lehmann

The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Barbara E. Kahn

Department of Marketing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Jeffrey R. Parker

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maayan S. Malter .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Malter, M.S., Holbrook, M.B., Kahn, B.E. et al. The past, present, and future of consumer research. Mark Lett 31 , 137–149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09526-8

Download citation

Published : 13 June 2020

Issue Date : September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09526-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Consumer behavior
• Information processing
• Judgement and decision-making
• Consumer culture theory
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Psychological factors and consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic

Contributed equally to this work with: Adolfo Di Crosta, Irene Ceccato

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology

Affiliation Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences, G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy, Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

Affiliation Department of Business Studies, Grenon School of Business, Assumption University, Worcester, MA, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

• Adolfo Di Crosta, 
• Irene Ceccato, 
• Daniela Marchetti, 
• Pasquale La Malva, 
• Roberta Maiella, 
• Loreta Cannito, 
• Mario Cipi, 
• Nicola Mammarella, 
• Riccardo Palumbo, 

• Published: August 16, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095
• Reader Comments

The COVID-19 pandemic is far more than a health crisis: it has unpredictably changed our whole way of life. As suggested by the analysis of economic data on sales, this dramatic scenario has also heavily impacted individuals’ spending levels. To better understand these changes, the present study focused on consumer behavior and its psychological antecedents. Previous studies found that crises differently affect people’s willingness to buy necessities products (i.e., utilitarian shopping) and non-necessities products (i.e., hedonic shopping). Therefore, in examining whether changes in spending levels were associated with changes in consumer behavior, we adopted a fine-grained approach disentangling between necessities and non-necessities. We administered an online survey to 3833 participants (age range 18–64) during the first peak period of the contagion in Italy. Consumer behavior toward necessities was predicted by anxiety and COVID-related fear, whereas consumer behavior toward non-necessities was predicted by depression. Furthermore, consumer behavior toward necessities and non-necessities was predicted by personality traits, perceived economic stability, and self-justifications for purchasing. The present study extended our understanding of consumer behavior changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results could be helpful to develop marketing strategies that consider psychological factors to meet actual consumers’ needs and feelings.

Citation: Di Crosta A, Ceccato I, Marchetti D, La Malva P, Maiella R, Cannito L, et al. (2021) Psychological factors and consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 16(8): e0256095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095

Editor: Marcel Pikhart, University of Hradec Kralove: Univerzita Hradec Kralove, CZECH REPUBLIC

Received: March 8, 2021; Accepted: July 31, 2021; Published: August 16, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Di Crosta et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data are available from the figshare database (accession number(s) DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.14865663.v2 , URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/RawData_PO_sav/14865663 ).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) refers to an infection (SARS-CoV-2) of the lower respiratory tract [ 1 , 2 ], which was first detected in Wuhan (China) in late December 2019. Since then, the number of contagions by COVID-19 has been increasing globally each day [ 3 ]. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic [ 4 ]. Subsequently, several national governments implemented long-term full or partial lockdown measures to reduce the spread of the virus. Although these strict measures have proven to be quite effective in containing the further spread of the virus, they have severely impacted the global economic system and caused an unprecedented shock on economies and labor markets [ 5 ]. As a matter of fact, the COVID-19 pandemic can be defined as far more than just a health crisis since it has heavily affected societies and economies. COVID-19 outbreak has unpredictably changed how we work, communicate, and shop, more than any other disruption in this decade [ 6 ]. As reflected by the analysis of economic data on sales, this dramatic situation has greatly influenced consumer attitudes and behaviors. According to a study conducted by the Nielsen Company, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a globally manifested change in spending levels related to consumer behavior [ 7 ]. Specifically, a growing tendency in the sales of necessities has been observed: consumer priorities have become centered on the most basic needs, including food, hygiene, and cleaning products. In Italy, consumer shopping preferences have changed throughout the pandemic. Initially, when Italy was the first country in Europe to experience the spreading of COVID-19 (between March and April 2020). Consumer behavior tended to compulsively focus on purchasing essential goods, especially connected with preventing the virus, such as protective devices and sanitizing gel [ 8 ]. The pandemic changed the consumption patterns, for instance reducing sales for some product categories (e.g., clothes), and improving sales for other categories (e.g., entertainment products) [ 9 ]. Also, research indicated that job insecurity and life uncertainty experienced during the pandemic negatively impacted on consumer behavior of Italian workers [ 10 ].

It comes as no surprise that in such a situation of emergency, the need for buying necessities takes precedence [ 11 ]. However, the investigation of antecedent psychological factors, including attitudes, feelings, and behaviors underlying changes in consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, have received less attention. Nevertheless, understanding the psychological factors which drive consumer behavior and products choices can represent a crucial element for two main reasons. First, such investigation can extend our understanding of the underpinnings of the changes in consumer behavior in the unprecedented context of COVID-19. Second, obtained results could be helpful in the development of new marketing strategies that consider psychological factors to meet actual consumers’ needs and feelings [ 12 ]. On the one side, companies could benefit from this knowledge to increase sales during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 13 ]. Moreover, understanding these needs and feelings could be fundamental to improve the market’s preparedness to face future pandemics and emergencies [ 14 , 15 ]. On the other hand, consumers could take advantage of this new market’s preparedness to respond to their actual needs and feelings. As a result, in case of future emergency, factors such as anxiety and a perceived shortage of essential goods could be reduced [ 16 ], whereas well-being and the positive sense of self of the consumers could be supported [ 17 ]. Furthermore, the novelty of the present study lies in two main aspects. First, based on previous studies highlighting that crises differently affect people’s willingness to buy necessities and non-necessities products [ 11 , 18 ], we adopted a fine-grained approach and disentangled between necessities and non-necessities. Second, considering the unprecedented context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we adopted an integrative approach to investigate the role of different psychological factors such as fear, anxiety, stress, depression, self-justifications, personality traits, and perceived economic stability in influencing consumer behavior. Noteworthy, all these factors have been implicated in consumer behavior in previous research, but, to our knowledge, no study has considered all of them at once. Therefore, considering both the lack of studies that have focused on these factors at once and the unique opportunity to study them in the context of such an unprecedented global pandemic, we adopted an integrative approach to get one of the first overviews of the role of the several psychological factors influencing consumer behavior.

Previous studies in consumer psychology and behavioral economics have highlighted that several psychological factors impact consumer behavior differently [ 18 – 20 ]. Consumer behavior refers to the study of individuals or groups who are in the process of searching to purchase, use, evaluate, and dispose of products and services to satisfy their needs [ 12 ]. Importantly, it also includes studying the consumer’s emotional, mental, and behavioral responses that precede or follow these processes [ 21 ]. Changes in consumer behavior can occur for different reasons, including personal, economic, psychological, contextual, and social factors. However, in dramatic contexts such as a disease outbreak or a natural disaster, some factors, more than others, have a more significant impact on consumer behavior. Indeed, situations that potentially disrupt social lives, or threaten individuals’ health, have been proven to lead to strong behavioral changes [ 22 ]. An example is panic buying, a phenomenon occurring when fear and panic influence behavior, leading people to buy more things than usual [ 23 ]. Specifically, panic buying has been defined as a herd behavior that occurs when consumers buy a considerable amount of products in anticipation of, during, or after a disaster [ 24 ]. A recent review on the psychological causes of panic buying highlighted that similar changes in consumer behavior occur when purchase decisions are impaired by negative emotions such as fear and anxiety [ 25 ]. Noteworthy, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Lins and Aquino [ 23 ] showed that panic buying was positively correlated with impulse buying, which has been defined as a complex buying behavior in which the rapidity of the decision process precludes thoughtful and deliberate consideration of alternative information and choice [ 25 ]. The analysis of the different psychological factors involved in consumer behavior and changes in purchase decisions still represents an area that is scarcely explored. Arguably, during an uncertain threatening situation, such as a health crisis or a pandemic, the primitive part of our brain usually becomes more prominent, pushing individuals to engage in behaviors that are (perceived as) necessary for survival [ 26 – 29 ]. Importantly, these primitive instinctual behaviors can override the rational decision-making process, having an immense impact on usual consumer behavior. Therefore, the basic primitive response of humans represents the core factor responsible for changes in consumer behavior during a health crisis [ 16 ]. Specifically, fear and anxiety originated from perceived feelings of insecurity and instability, are the factors driving these behavioral changes [ 30 ]. In line with the terror management theory [ 31 ], previous studies have shown that external events, which threaten the safety of individuals, motivate compensatory response processes to alleviate fear and anxiety [ 32 , 33 ]. These response processes can prompt individuals to make purchases to gain a sense of security, comfort, and momentarily escape, which can also serve as a compensatory mechanism to alleviate stress. However, as such buying motivation represents an attempt to regulate the individuals’ negative emotions, the actual need for the purchased products is often irrelevant [ 34 ].

Pandemics and natural disasters are highly stressful situations, which can easily induce negative emotions and adverse mental health states [ 35 – 37 ] such as perceived lack of control and instability, which are core aspects of emergency situations, contribute directly to stress. In turn, research has highlighted that stress is a crucial factor in influencing consumer behavior. For example, past studies have shown that individuals may withdraw and become passive in response to stress, and this inaction response can lead to a decrease in purchasing [ 38 , 39 ]. However, some studies point out that stress can lead to an active response, increasing impulsive spending behaviors [ 40 , 41 ]. Moreover, event-induced stress can lead to depressive mood. In some cases, the depressive mood may translate into the development of dysfunctional consumer behavior, such as impulsive (the sudden desire to buy something accompanied by excessive emotional response) and/or compulsive buying (repetitive purchasing due to the impossibility to control the urge) [ 41 , 42 ]. In this context, Sneath and colleagues [ 37 ] highlighted that changes in consumer behavior often represent self-protective strategies aimed at managing depressive states and negative emotions by restoring a positive sense of self. Importantly, a recent study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that depression predicted the phenomenon of the over-purchasing, which was framed as the degree to which people had increased their purchases of some necessities goods (e.g. food, water, sanitary products, pharmacy products, etc.) because of the pandemic [ 43 ].

A recent study recommended a differentiation between necessity and non-necessity products to better understand consumer behavior in response to stressful situations [ 18 ]. According to the authors, contrasting findings on the link between stress and consumer behavior may be due to the fact that stress affects certain purchasing behaviors negatively, but others positively, depending on the type of product under investigation. On one side, it has been argued that consumers may be more willing to spend money on necessities (vs. non-necessities) by making daily survival products readily available. Accordingly, recent research documented an increase in buying necessities products (i.e., utilitarian shopping) during and after a traumatic event [ 11 ]. However, other findings showed that impulsive non-necessities purchasing (i.e., hedonic shopping) could also increase as an attempt to escape or minimize the pain for the situation. That is, non-necessities buying is used as an emotional coping strategy to manage stress and negative emotional states [ 44 ]. To reconcile these findings, Durante and Laran [ 18 ] proposed that people adopt strategic consumer behavior to restore their sense of control in stressful situations. Hence, high stress levels generally lead consumers to save money and spend strategically on products perceived as necessities. Importantly, regarding the impact of perceived stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic on consumer behavior, a recent study showed that the likelihood of purchasing quantities of food larger than usual increased with higher levels of perceived stress [ 45 ].

Another psychological factor implicated in consumer behavior that deserves special attention is self-justification strategies [ 46 ]. Self-justification refers to the cognitive reappraisal process by which people try to reduce the cognitive dissonance stemming from a contradiction between beliefs, values, and behaviors. People often try to justify their decisions to avoid the feeling of being wrong to maintain a positive sense of self [ 17 ]. In consumer behavior research, it is widely acknowledged that consumers enhance positive arguments that support their choices and downplay counterarguments that put their behavior in question [ 47 ]. Based on previous research, it is plausible that, within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-justifications for buying non-necessities products may also include pursuing freedom and defying boredom [ 11 , 48 ]. Further, the hedonistic attitude of “I could die tomorrow” or “You only live once” could certainly see a resurgence during the COVID-19 emergency [ 48 ], and become a crucial mechanism accounting for individual differences in consumer behavior. Based on these considerations, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-justifications strategies could be relevant for non-necessities, since products for fun or entertainment could be more suited to the pursuit of freedom and to defy boredom. Conversely, self-justifications strategies related to necessities could be implemented to a lesser degree, due to the very nature of the products. The unprecedented context of the pandemic could already justify the purchase of those essential goods by itself, and additional justifications may not be necessary.

Furthermore, several studies have shown that household income has a significant impact in determining people’s expenses [ 49 – 51 ]. Not surprisingly, the research highlighted a positive relationship between income and spending levels [ 52 ]. Income is defined as money received regularly from work or investments. Interestingly, a different line of research pointed out that self-perceived economic stability is a more appropriate determinant of consumer behavior than actual income [ 53 , 54 ]. Usually, people tend to report subjective feelings of income inadequacy, even when their objective financial situation might not support such attitude [ 55 ]. An interesting explanation for this bias draws on the social comparison process. Indeed, the study of Karlsson et colleagues [ 53 ] showed that, compared to families who considered themselves to have a good financial situation, households which considered themselves to be worse off economically than others reported fewer purchases of goods, perceived the impact of their latest purchase on their finance to be greater, and planned purchases more carefully. Furthermore, a recent study in the context of the COVID-19 emergency showed that people who believed to have limited financial resources were the most worried about the future [ 56 , 57 ]. Therefore, in the present study, we measured both the income and the perceived economic situation of the respondents to respectively consider the objective economic information and the subjective perception of respondents. However, considering the state of uncertainty experienced by many households during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 58 ], we changed the comparison from other families to participants’ economic situation in different time frames. We asked respondents to report perceived economic stability before, during, and after the emergency.

Finally, besides situational factors related to the specific emergency, the individuals’ personality traits are likely to have a role in determining consumer behavior as well. Past research has highlighted that the Big Five personality traits [ 59 ] can differently predict consumer behavior [ 60 ]. Specifically, conscientiousness, openness, and emotional stability (alias neuroticism) were related to compulsive buying, impulsive buying, and utilitarian shopping. Nevertheless, how different personality traits are related to consumer behavior is still an open question [ 61 ].

We conducted a nationwide survey in the Italian population to examine consumer behavior during the lockdown phase due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the COVID-19 emergency has emphasized the usefulness of essential goods (e.g. food, medications, etc.) compared to non-essential products (e.g. luxury items such as clothes and accessories) [ 62 ], in our study, we categorized products in necessities and non-necessities. Furthermore, changes in spending levels (necessities vs. non-necessities) were examined to confirm the effect that COVID-19 had on people’s expenses. Moreover, we tried to clarify the relationship between changes in spending levels and changes in consumer behavior. Finally, we focused on the psychological factors underlying changes in consumer behavior toward the target products. Based on the literature, we expected to find an increase in purchases with a more noticeable rise in necessity products. Specifically, we explored potential underpinnings of consumer behavior by examining mood states and affective response to the emergency, perceived economic stability, self-justification for purchasing, and personality traits. All these factors have been implicated in consumer behavior in previous research, but, to our knowledge, no study has considered all of them at once. Therefore, in this study, we adopted an integrative approach to study the contribution of different psychological factors by considering their mutual influence (see Fig 1 ). Specifically, based on the empirical findings and theoretical accounts presented above, we hypothesized that during the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Higher levels of anxiety and COVID-related fear would explain changes in consumer behavior, increasing the need for buying necessities.
• Higher levels of stress would lead consumers to save money or, in alternative, would increase the need to spend money on necessities (i.e., utilitarian shopping).
• Higher levels of depressive state would be associated with an increase in the need for buying, both necessities and non-necessities.
• Higher implementation of self-justification strategies would be associated with a higher need for buying, especially for non-necessities.
• Higher perceived economic stability would be associated with an increase in the need for both necessities and non-necessities.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.g001

The construct involved in the study is placed in the center of the figure. Arrows depart from these constructs to show the hypothesized relationship between the constructs and the outcomes of the present study (Necessities and Non-necessities). The symbol “±” was used to take into consideration two possible opposite directions.

Materials and methods

Data were collected through a series of questionnaires, using a web-based survey implemented on the Qualtrics software. The survey was active in the period starting from April 1st, 2020, to April 20th, 2020, during the first peak of the contagion in Italy. We used a convenience sample due to the exceptional situation of the COVID-19 pandemic and the time constraints to conduct our investigation. Therefore, participants were recruited through word-of-mouth and social media. Inclusion criteria were the age over 18 and be resident in Italy. First, socio-demographic information was collected, including gender, age, annual income, and education. Then, questions on spending levels and consumer behavior, both before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the first week of lockdown in Italy, were presented, separating necessities and non-necessities. Finally, a series of specifically created questionnaires and standardized measures were administered to investigate psychological and economic variables.

Participants

A total of 4121 participants were initially recruited. For the present study, we adopted a rigorous approach, excluding 104 participants over the age of 64, since they relied on retirement benefits and -from an economic point of view- were considered a specific population, not comparable to the rest of the sample [ 63 ]. Furthermore, we excluded 184 participants who did not report spending any money before the COVID-19 pandemic on buying necessities and/or non-necessities. Therefore, 3833 Italian participants (69.3% women, age M = 34.2, SD = 12.5) were included in this study. All participants provided their written informed consent before completing the survey. The study was conducted following the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Psychology (IRBP) of the Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences at G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara (protocol number: 20004). Participants did not receive monetary or any other forms of compensation for their participation.

Demographic variables

A demographic questionnaire was administered to collect background information. The questions considered age, gender, annual income, and education. The annual income was then categorized into five levels, based on the income brackets established by the Italian National Statistical Institute [ 64 ]. Education was categorized into five levels, from elementary to school to postgraduate degree.

Consumer behavior during COVID-19

We created this questionnaire from scratch to get a comprehensive overview of people’s economic attitudes and behaviors during the COVID-19 emergency. The idea of this new questionnaire was developed based on a series of previous studies on consumer behavior [ 43 , 65 – 67 ]. However, specific items were developed from scratch adapting them to the specific unprecedented context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, these items were created following a series of group discussions between all co-authors of the present study. To directly measure changes in consumer behavior due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants were requested to compare their actual behavior to their normal behavior before the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, the initial statement in the questionnaire underlined that answers had to be given by referring to the COVID-19 emergency period compared to everyday life before the outbreak.

The factor structure and reliability were evaluated in the larger sample ( n = 4121), using principal component analysis (PCA) and Cronbach’s alpha. The results revealed a six-factor structure and satisfactory reliability values (see S1 Table for more details). Note that the PCA and reliability analyses were also conducted on the current subsample, and the pattern of results did not change.

For the present study’s aims, we focused on three scales: “Necessities”, “Non-necessities”, and “Self-justifications”. Items are shown in Table 1 . The first two scales investigated consumer behavior toward the different framed products. Specifically, items addressed the individual’s attitudes, feelings, and behaviors toward necessities and non-necessities. Thus, higher scores reflected greater value (e.g., need, utility) placed on the target products.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.t001

The self-justifications scale referred to consumers’ thoughts to justify their purchases, with no distinction between necessity and non-necessity products. Higher scores reflected a frequent use of self-justifications in purchasing items.

For all these scales, responses were given on a Likert scale ranging from 0 ( not at all ), to 100, ( extremely ). Total scores on each scale were obtained by averaging all items.

Change in spending levels due to COVID-19

A fourth scale, i.e. “Spending Habits,” was extracted from the questionnaire mentioned above. As we aimed at measuring changes in the spending levels due to the COVID-19 emergency, we decided to use single items instead of the total scale score (items are presented in Table 1 ). Specifically, we created three percentage scores: “Changes in General Spending”, “Changes in Necessities spending”, and “Changes in Non-necessities spending” considering the difference between the money spent during the first week of lockdown, and the money spent on average in a week before the emergency (see Table 1 notes). Scores reflect the change in the amount (in Euro) that people devolved in purchasing the target products (hypothetical range from -1999 to +1999).

Big Five Inventory 10-item (BFI-10)

Big Five Inventory 10-item (BFI-10) is a short scale designed to briefly assess the five personality traits with two items for each trait. Specifically, these traits are: Agreeableness (example item: “I see myself as someone who is generally trusting”), Conscientiousness (example item: “I see myself as someone who does a thorough job”), Emotional stability (example item: “I see myself as someone who is relaxed, handles stress well”), Extraversion (example item: “I see myself as someone who is outgoing, sociable”), and Openness (example item: “I see myself as someone who has an active imagination”) [ 68 ]. In addition, respondents are asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree with each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 ( not agree at all ) to 5 ( totally agree ). A previously validated Italian version was used in the present study [ 69 ].

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-7)

The GAD-7 [ 70 ] is a 7-item self-reported measure designed to screen for generalized anxiety disorder and to measure the severity of symptoms, based on the DSM-IV criteria. This measure is often used in both clinical practice and research. Specifically, respondents are asked the frequency they have experienced anxiety symptoms in the past two weeks (e.g., “Not being able to stop or control worrying”) on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 ( not at all ) to 3 ( nearly every day ). The total score ranges from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating worse anxiety symptomatology.

Patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9)

The patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) is a 9-item self-reported brief diagnostic measure for depression [ 71 ]. Specifically, respondents are asked of the frequency they felt bothered by several depressive symptoms during the past two weeks (e.g., “Little interest or pleasure in doing things”) on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 ( not at all ) to 3 ( nearly every day ). Total score ranges from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating higher depressive symptoms.

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is a 14-item self-report measure designed to assess the degree to which situations are appraised as stressful [ 72 ]. Each item (e.g., “In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”) is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 ( never ) to 4 ( very often ). Thus, the total score ranges from 0 to 56, with a higher score indicating a higher level of perceived stress during the COVID-19 emergency.

Fear for COVID-19

We administered the Fear for COVID-19 questionnaire to measure fear and concerning beliefs related to the COVID-19 pandemic [ 35 , 36 , 73 ]. This questionnaire was created from the assumption that, during a health crisis, the individual’s fear is determined by both the hypothesized susceptibility (i.e., probability of contracting a disease) and the expected severity of the event (i.e., perceived consequences of being infected) [ 25 ]. Therefore, the 8 items dealt with the perceived probability of being infected by COVID-19 (Belief of contagion) and the possible consequences of the contagion (Consequences of contagion). See Table 1 for the complete list of the items. Previous studies have reported the PCA and reliability of the questionnaire [ 36 ]. Responses were given on a Likert scale ranging from 0 ( not at all ), to 100, ( extremely ). A total score was obtained by averaging the items (range 0–100).

Perceived economic stability

This questionnaire was developed to assess the subjective perception of an individual’s economic situation. The PCA in the larger sample revealed a unidimensional structure (see S2 Table for more details). The scale assessed perceived economic stability in three different timepoints: before, during, and after (in terms of expectation) the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses were given on a Likert scale ranging from 0 ( not at all ), to 100, ( extremely ). The total score was calculated by averaging these three items (range 0–100).

Statistical analysis

We preliminary investigated changes in spending levels due to the COVID-19 pandemic, comparing expenses before the emergency to expenses during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we analyzed changes in the average general spending level. Then, we performed dependent (paired) sample t -tests between “Changes in necessities spending” and “Changes in non-necessities spending” to examine differences between products framed as necessities and non-necessities.

Afterward, we checked whether changes in spending levels were associated with changes in consumer behavior by conducting Pearson’s correlation analyses, respectively between “Changes in necessities spending” and “Necessities”, and “Changes in non-necessities spending” and “Non-necessities” scores.

Finally, to investigate the psychological underpinnings of consumer behavior, we performed two hierarchical multiple regressions, respectively, with “Necessities” (Model 1) and “Non-necessities” (Model 2) as outcomes. The same predictors were entered in Model 1 and Model 2. Specifically, the order of the steps was designed to include at first the socio-demographic information as control variables. Hence, we entered the age, gender, annual income brackets, and education in the first step. In Step 2, we included the personality measures (i.e., Big-Five personality traits) since these traits are stable and are not affected by the specific situation. In Step 3, Anxiety, Depression, and Stress were entered, to analyze the impact of emotional antecedents of consumer. Further, we decided to include Fear for the COVID-19 in a separate fourth step to evaluate the effect of this specific aspect. We included perceived economic stability at Step 5 after the psychological variables. This choice allowed to analyze the impact of the perceived economic stability after controlling for the role of emotional antecedents on consumer behavior. Finally, following the same logic, we included self-justifications strategies.

Considering “Changes in General spending”, our results showed that our sample reported, on average, an increase of 60.48% in the general spending level during the first week of lockdown. Furthermore, significant differences between “Changes in Necessities spending” and “Changes in Non-necessities spending”, t (3832) = 11.99, p < .001, were detected. Indeed, the spending level for necessities products showed an increase of 90.69%, while for non-necessities products, the average increase was only 36.11%. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.t002

The results of the correlation analyses indicated that there was a significant positive association between “Changes in necessities spending” and “Necessities”, r (3831) = .22, p < .001. Furthermore, a significant positive association was highlighted between “Changes in non-necessities spending” and “Non-necessities”, r (3831) = .23, p < .001. Therefore, people’s changes in spending levels were related to their attitudes and feelings toward specific products. This finding supported our choice to investigate the psychological underpinnings of people’s consumer behavior.

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed on the two consumer behavior scores. In addition, control variables, psychological factors, and economic variables were entered as predictors as detailed above.

Regarding Model 1 (Necessities), results showed that all the steps explained a significant amount of additional variance (see Table 3 for detailed results). When personality traits were entered in the model (Step 2), only agreeableness, openness, and emotional stability negatively predicted the outcome. However, when anxiety, depression, and stress were entered in the model (Step 3), only openness remained statistically significant. The variables entered in Step 3 contributed to explaining 7% of the variance, with anxiety and stress positively predicting the outcome. Adding fear for COVID-19 in the following step increased the explained variance by 6%, reduced the impact of anxiety, and completely overrode the effect of stress, which became non-significant. In the following steps, perceived economic stability offered a small but significant contribution (1%), and Self-justifications explained even further variance (4%). Overall, in the final step, the final model explained 23% of the variance in Necessities. Inspecting coefficients, we found that, after accounting for control variables, openness ( p < .001), anxiety ( p < .001), fear for COVID-19 ( p < .001), perceived economic stability ( p < .001), and self-justifications ( p < .001) emerged as significant predictors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.t003

In Model 2 (Non-necessities), results indicated that each step significantly contributed to explaining the outcome (see Table 4 ). In Step 2, personality traits explained 2% of the outcome variance, with consciousness and openness emerging as significant predictors and remaining significant until the final step. Notably, consciousness was negatively associated with non-necessities behavior, while high scores in openness were associated with higher scores on the Non-necessities scale. In Step 3, only depression was significantly and positively related to the outcome and remained so in subsequent models. Both fear for COVID-19 and perceived economic stability further significantly explained the outcome, albeit weakly (about 1% of variance each one). Higher levels of fear and perceived economic stability were associated with higher scores on the Non-necessities scale. Noteworthy, adding Self-justifications in the final step explained a substantial share of variance, equal to 12%. Specifically, higher scores on self-justifications were associated with higher scores on the Non-necessities scale. Furthermore, self-justifications also had a greater impact on non-necessities compared to those had on necessities, t (7664) = -10.60, p < .05. Total variance explained in the final step was 22%, with conscientiousness ( p < .001), openness ( p = .001), depression ( p = .002), perceived economic stability ( p = .009), and self-justifications ( p < .001) being significant predictors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.t004

The present study aimed to examine changes in consumer behavior and their psychological antecedents during the lockdown period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We were specifically interested in separating necessity and non-necessity products since previous studies suggested that such a distinction is helpful to better understand consumer behavior[ 18 , 74 ]. First, our results indicated a 61% increase in spending levels during the first week of the lockdown, compared to the average expenses before the health crisis. Furthermore, spending levels were differently increased for buying products framed as necessities (91%) and non-necessities (36%). Second, we examined consumer behavior through Necessities and Non-necessities scales, which included measures related to the psychological need of buying, the specific aspects of the purchase experience (e.g., impulsiveness, perceived utility, satisfaction), and the number of products purchased. Our results highlighted that changes in consumer behavior were positively associated with changes in spending levels during the COVID-19 emergency.

Finally, we focused on psychological factors that can explain these changes in consumer behavior. In this context, our hypothesis about the role of the identified psychological factors in predicting consumer behavior during COVID-19 was supported. Also, our findings confirmed the importance of separating necessities from non-necessities products, as we found that they had different psychological antecedents. Regarding the investigation on spending levels, our findings are in line with sales data reporting that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, consumer priorities have become more centered on necessities, including food, hygiene, and cleaning products[ 7 , 62 ]. Therefore, the present study confirmed the greater tendency to buy necessities products during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is noteworthy to mention that our sample also reported an increase in spending levels related to non-necessities products. These data can be explained by referring to previous research that considered increases in non-necessities spending levels to respond to the hedonistic pursuit of freedom, defying boredom, restoring the sense of self, and compensatory mechanism, to alleviate negative psychological states[ 16 , 32 , 34 , 37 , 44 , 75 ]. However, as highlighted in the study by Forbes and colleagues[ 76 ] these hedonic needs and compensatory mechanisms can have a different impact during or in the aftermath of a crisis. In addition, the authors highlighted that the consumption of non-necessities products increased, as a way of coping to alleviate negative psychological states, particularly in the short term after a natural disaster. According to these results, a recent study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic suggested that some factors, such as the degree of perceived threat, may vary during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus, having a different impact on consumer behavior[ 77 ]. Therefore, future research could delve into the analysis of changes in consumer behavior over time in relation to the different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regarding our investigation of consumer behavior’s antecedent psychological factors, we found partly different antecedents for necessities and non-necessities. Regarding demographic effects, in the present study, we found that men were more oriented in terms of needs and feelings toward non-necessities than women. A possible explanation could consider the context of the COVID-19, whereas the lockdown has imposed the closure of physical stores. In this context, it could be appropriate to refer to those studies that found several gender differences between consumer e-commerce adoption and purchase decision making. Specifically, research has shown that men and women have different psychological pre-disposition of web-based purchases, with men having more positive attitudes toward online shopping[ 78 , 79 ]. Furthermore, a study conducted during COVID-19 showed that women spent more time on necessities such as childcare and chores compared to men[ 80 ]. Regarding age differences, we found that younger people were more oriented toward non-necessities products. A study conducted in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that older adults showed lower negative emotions than younger adults[ 73 , 81 , 82 ]. In this view, it is possible that lower emotional antecedents, such as depressive states, lowered the need to buy non-necessities for more aged people. Another study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that older adults, aged 56 to 75, had significantly reduced the purchase of non-necessities goods compared to younger people[ 83 ]. Furthermore, considering the closure of physical stores, it is possible that younger people were more able and got used to buy a broader range of non-necessities products by e-commerce. However, it is important to note that we excluded in the present study people aged over 65. We also found a positive effect of income on necessities. A possible explanation is that people more stable from an economic point of view were more oriented to feel the need to buy products. However, surprisingly we did not find this effect for non-necessities. Finally, we found a positive effect of education on non-necessities. This data is congruent with another study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing that people with higher education (e.g., bachelor’s degrees and graduate or professional degrees) tended to buy an unusual amount of goods than people with lower education[ 84 ].Furthermore, another study highlighted that during COVID-19 pandemic entertainment and outdoor expenses significantly varied across different education groups[ 85 ]. Considering the present results, further studies should better investigate the impact of socio-demographic factors on the need to purchase necessities and non-necessities during health emergency and natural disaster.

Furthermore, after accounting for control variables (gender, age, income brackets, and education), consumer behavior toward necessities was explained by personality traits (openness), negative emotions (anxiety and COVID- related fear), perception of economic stability, and self-justifications. On the other side, consumer behavior toward non-necessities was explained by conscientiousness, openness, depression, perceived economic stability, and self-justifications.

Present findings showed that negative feelings have a considerable role in predicting changes in consumer behavior related to necessities products. This result is consistent with previous literature showing that, during a health crisis, fear and anxiety are developed from perceived feelings of insecurity and instability[ 30 ]. To reduce these negative feelings, people tend to focus on aspects and behaviors that can help them regain control and certainty, such as buying[ 86 ]. Therefore, changes in consumer behavior could be explained as a remedial response to reduce fear and anxiety related to the COVID-19 emergency. According to our hypothesis, present findings indicated that fear and anxiety play an important role in predicting changes in consumer behavior related to necessities. In contrast, no significant effects were found on non-necessities. A possible explanation for this remarkable difference can be provided by research in survival psychology, which highlighted that individuals might undergo behavioral changes during events such as natural disasters or health crises, including herd behavior, panic buying, changes in purchasing habits, and decision making[ 8 , 76 ]. Following these changes, individuals can be more engaged in behaviors that are necessary for survival[ 26 , 87 ]. In this view, COVID-related fear and anxiety could lead individuals to feel the need to buy necessities products useful for daily survival.

Stress is another factor suggested to differently affect changes in consumer behavior toward necessities and non-necessities[ 18 ]. It is noticeable that consumers experiencing stressful situations may show increased spending behavior, explicitly directed toward products that the consumer perceives to be necessities and that allow for control in an otherwise uncontrollable environment[ 18 ]. Our results partly support this position, showing that stress has a specific role in predicting changes in consumer behavior related to necessities but not to non-necessities. However, the role of stress was no longer significant when fear was entered in the regression model. Noteworthy, we focused on fear for COVID-19, therefore, it is possible that in such an exceptionally unprecedented situation, fear had a prominent role compared to stress. Moreover, previous literature shows that the relationship between fear and consumer behavior increases as the type of fear measured becomes more specific[ 88 ]. In this sense, further studies could delve into the relationship between fear and stress in relation to consumer behavior.

Notably, past studies had found a relationship between depressive states and consumer behavior, suggesting that changes in consumer behavior can represent self-protective behaviors to manage negative affective states[ 37 ]. The role of depression was highlighted by our results in respect to consumer behavior only related to non-necessities. Therefore, conversely to the study conducted in the UK and Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic by Bentall et colleagues (2021), we did not find a relationship between depression and buying necessities. It is important to note that we described non-necessities products as “products for fun or entertainment”. In our opinion, people with higher levels of depressive symptoms may feel a greater need for this kind of product. Thus, people were drawn more toward this category of purchases because it was better suited to satisfy compensatory strategies to improve their negative emotional states. However, future studies are required to investigate this possibility and deepen the relationship between depressive states and the need to buy necessities and non-necessities. Furthermore, considering that depressive mood can be related to severe dysfunctional aspects of consumer behavior, such as impulsivity and compulsivity, future clinical studies should further investigate this relationship.

Furthermore, based on the limited and contrasting literature on this topic, we considered the role of personality traits. As suggested by previous studies, conscientiousness and openness were found to be associated with consumer behavior[ 89 – 91 ]. Interestingly, we found that personality traits were more relevant in consumer behavior toward non-necessities than necessities products. Only openness had a role in (negatively) predicting consumer behavior toward necessities, whereas conscientiousness (negatively) and openness (positively) predicted consumer behavior toward non-necessities. Unexpectedly, we found that people with a high level of openness showed high scores in consumer behavior toward non-necessities but low scores in necessities products. We speculated that individuals with higher levels of openness, which are more inclined to develop interests and hobbies[ 92 ], might have experienced a higher need to purchase non-necessities products during the lockdown. On the other hand, individuals with lower scores of openness, which tend to prefer familiar routines to new experiences and have a narrower range of interests, might have been more focused on purchasing necessity products. However, further studies should investigate the different roles of openness on necessities vs non-necessities consumer behavior. Globally, we acknowledge that the specific role and directions of these different personality traits on consumer behavior toward necessities and non-necessities is still an unexplored question, fully deserving of further investigations.

Finally, in both regression models, perceived economic stability and self-justifications predicted changes in consumer behavior. It comes as no surprise that individuals who perceived themselves and their family as more economically stable were prone to spend more in both products categories, necessities and non-necessities [ 52 , 53 ]. More intriguing, we found that the self-justifications that consumers adopted to motivate their purchases were a strong predictor of consumer behavior, especially in relation to non-necessities, where it explained the largest amount of variance (12%). Therefore, our hypothesis on the greater impact of self-justifications strategies on non-necessities compared to necessities was confirmed. Non-necessities, framed as products for fun or entertainment, seem more suited to satisfy that pursuit of freedom and the need to defy boredom that people increasingly experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic[ 48 ]. Therefore, we confirmed that the hedonistic attitude is an important predictor of consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. This result supported and extended previous literature showing that, during a crisis, changes in consumer behavior are related to self-justifications and rationalizations that people formulate to feel right in making their purchases, including the pursuit of freedom and the reduction of boredom[ 11 , 48 ]. Companies and markets can acknowledge this process and use it to develop new marketing strategies to meet consumers’ actual needs, feelings, and motivation to purchase during the COVID-19 emergency[ 12 ]. On the one hand, satisfying these needs could support and favor well-being and the positive sense of self, which are essentially sought by the consumer developing such self-justification strategies[ 17 ]. On the other hand, focusing on strategies that consider these psychological self-justifications could be a winning marketing strategy for increasing sales, contributing to the economic recovery after the COVID-19 outbreak[ 13 ].

The results of the present study highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic had a considerable impact on consumer behavior. In our sample, this impact resulted in increased spending levels accompanied by an increase in the psychological need to purchase both necessities and non-necessities products. Furthermore, our findings demonstrated that several psychological factors predicted these changes in consumer behavior. Notably, consumer behavior respectively toward necessities and non-necessities differed on some psychological predictors.

Some limits of the current study need to be acknowledged. First, we studied consumer behavior from a broad perspective on a non-clinical sample, therefore we did not include dysfunctional aspects related to consumer behavior, such as impulsivity and compulsivity buying and hoarding behavior, which the emergency may elicit. Hence, in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be interesting to integrate our results with investigations of dysfunctional aspects of consumer behavior. Furthermore, since the unique opportunity to study psychological factors and consumer behavior during this unprecedented period, we adopted an integrative approach to consider the impact of several psychological factors at once, obtaining one of the first overviews of consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, combining all these psychological factors could have led to an aggregation bias[ 93 ], which could have masked the specific roles of each of the individual factors influencing consumer behavior. Therefore, future studies could adopt a more fine-grained approach to disentangle the role of each factor. Another limit is that we collected data during the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Notably, we reasoned that focusing on the very first period of the lockdown would likely allow us to capture the greater shift in consumer behavior, thus offering compelling evidence on the first impact of the pandemic on consumers. Nevertheless, it is likely that consumer behavior will undergo further changes in the longer term. Hence, future studies should investigate the evolution of consumer behaviors in relation to the development of the pandemic. Indeed, it is likely that when the “sense of urgency” and the negative affective reaction to the emergency will decrease, also the need for buying and purchases preferences would change. Furthermore, since we asked participants to estimate their weekly expenditures before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to keep in mind that our study focused on the people’s perception of changes in expenses. We did not know how much reliable these estimations were, and it is possible that objective assessment of change in the amount of money spent before and during the pandemic diverge from subjective views. In the present study, we focused on individual internal factors that could influence consumer behavior. However, other external factors, including the lockdown restrictions as the closure of physical stores, had certainly had a further impact on consumer behavior. Notwithstanding these limitations, this study represents one of the first attempts to examine changes in consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic from a behavioral economic perspective, providing a thorough analysis of the psychological factors driving changes in consumer behavior, with a direct link to previous psychological research in consumer behavior. Furthermore, our results provided new evidence on the role of psychological factors influencing necessities and non-necessities spending and extended our knowledge of the antecedents of consumer behavior changes during the unprecedented health crisis we are experiencing.

In conclusion, the present study, by shedding new light on changes in people’s behavior due to the pandemic, fits into the growing body of research which helps increase economic and psychological preparedness in the face of future health emergencies.

Supporting information

S1 table. pattern matrix of the pca for the questionnaire on consumer behavior during the covid-19 pandemic..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.s001

S2 Table. PCA for the “Perceived economic stability” questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.s002

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. John Hopkins University. Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for System Science and Engineering (CSSE). In: Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center [Internet]. 2020 [cited 20 Jul 2020]. Available: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
• 6. Despin T. Knock-on Effects Of COVID-19 On Consumer Behavior And How Businesses Can Prepare For Them. In: Entrepreneur [Internet]. 11 May 2020 [cited 12 Jun 2020]. Available: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/350457
• 7. Nielsen. Key Consumer Behavior Thresholds Identified as the Coronavirus Outbreak Evolves–Nielsen. 2020 [cited 20 Jul 2020]. Available: https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2020/key-consumer-behavior-thresholds-identified-as-the-coronavirus-outbreak-evolves/?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newswire&utm_content=3-18-2020
• 12. Rajagopal . Development of Consumer Behavior. In: Rajagopal , editor. Transgenerational Marketing: Evolution, Expansion, and Experience. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 163–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33926-5_6
• 13. Diebner R, Silliman E, Ungerman K, Vancauwenberghe M. Adapting customer experience in the time of coronavirus. McKinsey & Company. 2020 [cited 10 Sep 2020]. Available: available at https://www. mckinsey. com/business-func tions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/adapting-customer-experi ence-in-the-time-of-coronavirus
• 20. Foxall G. Consumer Psychology in Behavioral Perspective. Beard Books; 2004.
• 22. Leach J. Survival psychology. New York, NY, US: New York University Press; 1994. pp. xii, 220. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230372719
• 24. Steven D, O’Brien E, Jones BD. The New Politics of Strategic Resources: Energy and Food Security Challenges in the 21st Century. Brookings Institution Press; 2014. Available: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/35813
• 26. Dodgson L. A human behavior expert explains 4 psychological reasons why people are panic buying items in bulk during the coronavirus pandemic. In: Insider [Internet]. 2020 [cited 22 Jul 2020]. Available: https://www.insider.com/why-people-are-panic-bulk-buying-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-2020-3
• 31. Greenberg J, Solomon S, Pyszczynski T. Terror Management Theory of Self-Esteem and Cultural Worldviews: Empirical Assessments and Conceptual Refinements. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press; 1997. pp. 61–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60016-7
• 55. Streib GF, 1918-, Schneider CJ. Retirement in American society. 1971 [cited 11 Sep 2020]. Available: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201300475317
• 60. Maison D. The Psychological Perspective in Financial Behaviour. In: Maison D, editor. The Psychology of Financial Consumer Behavior. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10570-9_1
• 64. Istat. Statistiche Istat. 2020 [cited 28 Jul 2020]. Available: http://dati.istat.it/
• 86. Wilkens J. Why we hoard: Fear at root of panic-buying, psychologists say. In: San Diego Union-Tribune [Internet]. 22 Mar 2020 [cited 3 Aug 2020]. Available: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2020-03-22/hoard-fear-panic-buying-psychology
• 92. McCrae RR, Costa PT. Conceptions and Correlates of Openness to Experience. In: Hogan R, Johnson J, Briggs S, editors. Handbook of Personality Psychology. San Diego: Academic Press; 1997. pp. 825–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50032-9

OPINION article

Proposal for lines of research into consumer behavior: examples in the tourism industry.

• 1 Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Social Science, University of Castilla La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain
• 2 Department of Business Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Rovira i Virgili University, Reus, Spain

Introduction

Departing from the high relevance that loyalty plays in the promotion of tourist destinations, the study of the variables that result in loyalty is key. For this reason, there are myriads of studies devoted to the analysis of the variables that result in loyalty, especially considering either or both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty; in turn, relatively less frequent are the studies that also/instead consider active and passive loyalty. Within this research line, we go one step further and propose the importance of focusing on the study of the variables that are conducive to attitudinal and behavioral loyalty; moreover, within attitudinal loyalty, we also acknowledge the distinction of two further types of loyalty, that is, active attitudinal and passive attitudinal loyalty. This opinion paper aims at adding knowledge to the field of consumer behavior in tourism, proposing the importance of studying the variables that are able to drive loyalty in a very differentiated way (active attitudinal loyalty, passive attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral loyalty).

Proposing a New Research Line

Loyalty is a key variable in all economic sectors and industries, so there is no doubt that looking for loyalty is a key priority. In fact, it has been largely proven how loyalty is essential for achieving key company indicators such as long-term competition, profitability, and survival ( Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978 ; Dick and Basu, 1994 ; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999 ; Uncles et al., 2003 ; Rundle-Thiele, 2005 ; Kim and Li, 2009 ). In the tourism industry, loyalty is generally regarded as the best predictor for future tourist behavior, as well as a source of success in the market, in addition to providing competitive superiority ( Kim and Brown, 2012 ; Sun et al., 2013 ; Gursoy et al., 2014 ; Maghsoodi et al., 2016 ; Almeida-Santana and Moreno-Gil, 2018 ; Cossío-Silva et al., 2019 ). Hence, a key objective for tourist destinations is to attract and retain their target market ( Gursoy et al., 2014 ; Cossío-Silva et al., 2019 ). These considerations are of special relevance for countries such as Spain, where tourism is one of the main industries, and the economy relies, to a great extent, on tourism ( Balaguer and Cantavella-Jorda, 2002 ; Camisón et al., 2016 ).

In the marketing literature, several research studies showed how within loyalty, a further distinction between attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty could be made (e.g., Day, 1969 ; Jacoby, 1971 ; Jacoby and Kyner, 1973 ; Lutz and Winn, 1974 ; Dick and Basu, 1994 ; Yoon and Kim, 2000 ; Bowen and Chen, 2001 ; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001 ; Lam et al., 2004 ; Söderlund, 2006 ). In general, while attitudinal loyalty refers to positive attitudes held by customers toward a particular brand or store, behavioral loyalty refers to repeat purchases by a customer at a specific brand or store ( Day, 1969 ; Dick and Basu, 1994 ). While it is common to encourage the design of strategies to boost both types of loyalty, it has been observed how sometimes, attitudes might not necessarily lead to repeat patronage. In fact, previous research suggested that attitudinal loyalty not in the presence of re-patronage behavior, and re-patronage not in the presence of attitudinal loyalty, could be conceptualized ( Day, 1969 ; Dick and Basu, 1994 ; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999 ). These latter phenomena are sometimes due to custom, chance, or other factors ( Day, 1969 ). In either case, it is very important to refer to both types of loyalty, that is, attitudinal and behavioral loyalty, as two separate constructs, despite the fact of such constructs being inter-related ( Dick and Basu, 1994 ; Bemmaor, 1995 ; Chandon et al., 2005 ; Liu, 2007 ). This perspective is also acknowledged in the tourism literature, where a vast number of studies (e.g., Faullant et al., 2008 ; Wang et al., 2010 ; Kursunluoglu, 2011 ; Forgas-Coll et al., 2012 ; Prayag and Ryan, 2012 ; Zhang et al., 2014 ; Llodrà-Riera et al., 2015 ) also consider loyalty as a two-dimensional variable, that is, a variable that consists of two separate and inter-related constructs of both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty.

Relatively less analyzed is the further distinction between two other types of loyalty, that is to say, active loyalty and passive loyalty. One of the studies that considered this distinction in the services literature is the research of Ganesh et al. (2000) . In this work, loyalty could be considered as either active or passive depending on the predisposition of clients to collaborate with the company. From this point of view, active loyalty was then conceptualized as word-of-mouth communication (WOM), requiring an active compromise reflecting the emotional bonds with the client. Sharing this perspective, Kandampully et al. (2015) suggested that active loyalty was exhibited by those clients that had both a firm compromise and a strong will to serve as ambassadors of the brand, supporting the products and services of the company with a positive WOM. In this regard, social media technologies fostered the development of research oriented to assess both active and passive loyalty. For example, Van Asperen et al. (2018) considered two types of clients' participation in social media: the consumption of social media as passive participation and contribution in social media as active participation. This differentiation could be the key to understand why a recommendation succeeded or, the other way around, failed.

There is no doubt that this proposed research line is of key importance. Departing from the high relevance that loyalty plays in the promotion of tourist destinations, given its connections to long-term profit variables such as long-term competitiveness, profitability, and survival, the study of the variables that result in loyalty is key, especially in countries such as Spain, where tourism is without a doubt the main industry, and the economy relies, to a greater extent, on tourism ( Nowak et al., 2007 ). Spain's economic growth has been positively affected by the persistent expansion of inbound tourism in recent decades ( Sokhanvar, 2019 ). For example, the results obtained in 2018 in terms of the number of foreign visitors to this country were 89,856 million, a 1.1% increase in arrivals over the previous year, which represents an increase in international tourist spending by 3.3% ( Ministerio de Energía y Turismo, 2019 ). These data make Spain as the second country in the world in terms of foreign tourist arrivals ( World Tourism Organization, 2019 ).

Loyalty is often measured by the joint use of its behavioral and attitudinal components. In some markets, such as tourism, repeat visits (behavioral loyalty) may be limited due to other variables, such as “search for variety.” However, a tourist who does not repeat a visit to the same destination may have an important attitudinal loyalty toward that destination and be willing to strongly recommend his visit. Therefore, this opinion paper has been aimed at showing how in the field of consumer behavior in tourism marketing, it is still possible to propose new future lines of research. One of them is to analyze the differences between active and passive attitude loyalty. Although some previous work in this area had shown differences between the active and passive behavior of consumers as opposed to the use of information sources ( Ganesh et al., 2000 ; Kandampully et al., 2015 ), the difference between active and passive attitudinal loyalty had not been addressed. It is especially relevant to carry out work aimed at analyzing this line of research, especially given the relevance that the development of social networks can give to it.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research has been financed by Research Group Grants from the University of Castilla-La Mancha. Co-financed by the European Union through the European Regional Development Funds. Research Group: Observatory of Innovation in Commercial Distribution (OIDC).

Almeida-Santana, A., and Moreno-Gil, S. (2018). Understanding tourism loyalty: horizontal vs. destination loyalty. Tour. Manage. 65, 245–255. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.10.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Balaguer, J., and Cantavella-Jorda, M. (2002). Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: the Spanish case. Appl. Econ. 34, 877–884. doi: 10.1080/00036840110058923

Bemmaor, A. C. (1995). Predicting behavior from intention-to-buy measures: the parametric case. J. Market. Res. 32, 176–191. doi: 10.1177/002224379503200205

Bowen, J. T., and Chen, S. L. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 13, 213–217. doi: 10.1108/09596110110395893

Camisón, C., Puig-Denia, A., Forés, B., Fabra, M. E., Muñoz, A., and Munoz Martinez, C. (2016). The importance of internal resources and capabilities and destination resources to explain firm competitive position in the Spanish tourism industry. Int. J. Tour. Res. 18, 341–356. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2053

Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G., and Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Do intentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research. J. Market. 69, 1–14. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.69.2.1.60755

Chaudhuri, A., and Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Market. 65, 81–93. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255

Cossío-Silva, F. J., Revilla-Camacho, M. Á., and Vega-Vázquez, M. (2019). The tourist loyalty index: a new indicator for measuring tourist destination loyalty? J. Innov. Knowl. 4, 71–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2017.10.003

Day, G. S. (1969). A two dimensional concept of brand loyalty. J. Advertis. Res. 9, 29–36.

Dick, A. S., and Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 22, 99–113. doi: 10.1177/0092070394222001

Faullant, R., Matzler, K., and Füller, K. J. (2008). A positioning map of skiing areas using customer satisfaction scores. J. Hosp. Leisure Market. 16, 230–245. doi: 10.1080/10507050801946833

Forgas-Coll, S., Palau-Saumell, R., Sánchez-García, J., and Callarisa-Fiol, L. J. (2012). Urban destination loyalty drivers and cross-national moderator effects: the case of Barcelona. Tour. Manage. 33, 1309–1320. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.013

Ganesh, J., Arnold, M. J., and Reynolds, K. E. (2000). Understanding the customer base of service providers: an examination of the differences between switchers and stayers. J. Market. 64, 65–87. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.64.3.65.18028

Garbarino, E., and Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. J. Market. 63, 70–87. doi: 10.1177/002224299906300205

Gursoy, D. S., Chen, J., and Chi, C. G. (2014). Theoretical examination of destination loyalty formation. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 26, 809–827. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-12-2013-0539

Jacoby, J. (1971). “Brand loyalty: a conceptual definition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (Seattle, WA: American Psychological Association). doi: 10.1037/e611322012-087

Jacoby, J., and Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Google Scholar

Jacoby, J., and Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. J. Market. Res. 10, 1–9. doi: 10.1177/002224377301000101

Kandampully, J., Zhang, T., and Bilgihan, A. (2015). Customer loyalty: a review and future directions with a special focus on the hospitality industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 27, 379–414. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2014-0151

Kim, A. K., and Brown, G. (2012). Understanding the relationships between perceived travel experiences, overall satisfaction, and destination loyalty. Anatolia 23, 328–347. doi: 10.1080/13032917.2012.696272

Kim, Y. G., and Li, G. (2009). Customer satisfaction with and loyalty towards online travel products: a transaction cost economics perspective. Tour. Econ. 15, 825–846. doi: 10.5367/000000009789955125

Kursunluoglu, E. (2011). Customer service effects on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty: a field research in shopping centers in Izmir City-Turkey. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2, 52–59. doi: 10.30845/ijbss

Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., and Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 32, 293–311. doi: 10.1177/0092070304263330

Liu, Y. (2007). The long-term impact of loyalty programs on consumer purchase behaviour and loyalty. J. Market. 71, 19–35. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.71.4.19

Llodrà-Riera, I., Martínez-Ruiz, M. P., Jiménez-Zarco, A. I., and Izquierdo-Yusta, A. (2015). A multidimensional analysis of the information sources construct and its relevance for destination image formation. Tour. Manage. 48, 319–328. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.11.012

Lutz, R. J., and Winn, P. R. (1974). “Developing a Bayesian measure of brand loyalty: a preliminary report,” in Combined Proceedings (Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association), 104–108.

Maghsoodi, M. J., Hedayati, M., Abdullah, A., and Bahauddin, A. (2016). Examining the influence of international tourists' destination image and satisfaction on their behavioral intention in Penang, Malaysia. J. Qual. Assurance Hosp. Tour. 17, 425–452. doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2015.1096756

Ministerio de Energía y Turismo (2019). Available online at: https://www.mincotur.gob.es/es-es/GabinetePrensa/NotasPrensa/2019/Paginas/20190201-gasto-llegadas-turistas.aspx (October 30, 2019).

Nowak, J. J., Sahli, M., and Cortés-Jiménez, I. (2007). Tourism, capital good imports and economic growth: theory and evidence for Spain. Tour. Econ. 13, 515–536. doi: 10.5367/000000007782696113

Prayag, G., and Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists' loyalty to Mauritius: the role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. J. Travel Res. 51, 342–356. doi: 10.1177/0047287511410321

Reynolds, K. E., and Beatty, S. E. (1999). Customer benefits and company consequences of customer-salesperson relationships in retailing. J. Retail. 75, 11–13. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80002-5

Rundle-Thiele, S. (2005). Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty measures. J. Serv. Market. 19, 492–500. doi: 10.1108/08876040510625990

Söderlund, M. (2006). Measuring customer loyalty with multi-item scales: a case for caution. Int. J. Serv. Indus. Manage. 17, 76–98. doi: 10.1108/09564230610651598

Sokhanvar, A. (2019). Does foreign direct investment accelerate tourism and economic growth within Europe?. Tour. Manage. Perspect. 29, 86–96. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2018.10.005

Sun, X., Chi, C. G. Q., and Xu, H. (2013). Developing destination loyalty: the case of Hainan Island. Ann. Tour. Res. 43, 547–577. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2013.04.006

Uncles, M. D., Dowling, G. R., and Hammond, K. (2003). Customer loyalty and customer loyalty programs. J. Consumer Market. 20, 294–316. doi: 10.1108/07363760310483676

Van Asperen, M., de Rooij, P., and Dijkmans, C. (2018). Engagement-based loyalty: the effects of social media engagement on customer loyalty in the travel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Admin. 19, 78–94. doi: 10.1080/15256480.2017.1305313

Wang, Y. J., Wu, K., and Yuan, J. (2010). Exploring visitors' experiences and intention to revisit a heritage destination: the case for Lukang, Taiwan. J. Qual. Assurance Hosp. Tour 11, 162–178. doi: 10.1080/1528008X.2010.483418

World Tourism Organization (2019). International Tourism Highlights . Madrid: UNWTO.

Yoon, S. J., and Kim, J. H. (2000). An empirical validation of a loyalty model based on expectation disconfirmation. J. Consumer Market. 17, 120–136. doi: 10.1108/07363760010317196

Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., and y Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: a meta-analysis. Tour. Manage. 40, 213–223. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.006

Keywords: active attitudinal loyalty, passive attitudinal loyalty, behavioral loyalty, tourist destination image, tourist loyalty

Citation: Blazquez-Resino JJ, Gutiérrez-Broncano S and Arias-Oliva M (2020) Proposal for Lines of Research Into Consumer Behavior: Examples in the Tourism Industry. Front. Psychol. 11:64. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00064

Received: 09 November 2019; Accepted: 10 January 2020; Published: 19 February 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Blazquez-Resino, Gutiérrez-Broncano and Arias-Oliva. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Juan Jose Blazquez-Resino, Juan.Blazquez@uclm.es

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Sociology of Consumer Behavior Research Paper

View sample sociology research paper on the sociology of consumer behavior. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our custom writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

The sociology of consumer behavior is now enjoying a renaissance of interest. In an earlier period of American sociology, particularly in the years immediately before and after World War II, consumer behavior was pretty much ignored. While consumers were mentioned in early community studies (Lynd and Lynd 1937; Warner and Lunt 1941), few articles on consumer behavior appeared in professional journals. Classical theorists were certainly not at fault; they left a rich heritage of sociological theory: Simmel ([1904] 1957) writing on fashion, Marx ([1867] 1990) on commodity fetishism, Weber ([1922] 1959) on status groups, Veblen ([1899] 1953) on conspicuous consumption. Handbooks published up through the 1980s continued to discuss traditional sociological concerns related to politics, deviant behavior, and race relations (Merton, Broom, and Cottrell 1959; Faris 1964; Smelser 1988). But consumer behavior was not mentioned at all.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

It is anybody’s guess why consumers were ignored by sociologists for so long. Possibly, consumer behavior was considered to be the province of other academic domains—economics, for example, or retailing and marketing. Marxists and neo-Marxists saw societies organized around production, with consumption a distraction from the paramount concerns of capitalism (Horkheimer and Adorno 1972). Others have speculated that production has been the perennial winner in the sociological agenda. Possibly too sociologists thought that consumption was frivolous. Mills (1953) commented that Veblen’s satirical attack on the new middle class actually blurred his understanding of conspicuous consumption.

During the last few decades, many observers became increasingly convinced that societies were changing in their orientation from production to consumption (McKendrick, Brewer, and Plumb 1982; Campbell 1987). Two other factors, however, played a more immediate role in precipitating this area’s growth. The first is the “cultural turn” in sociology: the realization of culture’s fundamental role in understanding society (Alexander 1990). Consumer goods are, after all, cultural artifacts. Not surprisingly, anthropologists introduced much of the early research and many of the seminal works in this area (Richardson and Kroeber 1940; Sahlins 1976; Mintz 1985; McCracken 1988). Key here is the joint publication of an anthropologist and economist: Douglas and Isherwood’s (1979) World of Goods, a scathing critique of the utilitarian approach to consumption. A second reason relates to the resurgence of interest in symbolic interaction. This perspective was a natural point of entrée for understanding consumption and the symbolic characteristics of commodities. Research by Blumer (1969) on fashion, Stone (1962) on apparel, and Goffman (1951, 1959) on prop management and the symbolic properties of products reflected an early concern with the role of material goods in social life.

The sociology of consumer behavior is a comparatively new area of research. The flood of recent research is testimony to a new and vibrant stream of scholarly activity— much of it at the intersection of culture and the economy. The area addresses the entire range of issues related to consumer behavior: Why are there so many commodities? Who uses them? How are they made and where are they bought? As in many new areas of academic interest, research journals are not crowded with numerous, competing paradigms. Emphasis instead is on exploring the role of consumer behavior in all aspects of social life. To organize this review, I use the central paradigm that has emerged over the last decade—the model of a consumer society. Consumer societies are defined as societies where identity problems are resolved through commodities obtained from the marketplace. The hallmark of this paradigm is an emphasis on the interdependency between various parts of the market and between markets and consumers.

This review is organized into three sections: the first considers how commodities are used as resources in identity formation and incorporated into the social and cultural lives of individuals; the second and third sections explore the market’s role in producing and distributing goods. Research reviews are testimony to an academic area’s coming of age; several have recently been published on consumption and interested readers can consult them for a slightly different overview of this field (Frenzen, Hirsch, and Zerillo 1994; Zukin and Maguire 2004; Arnould and Thompson 2005; Zelizer 2005).

Goods in the Social and Cultural World

More than a century ago, Veblen ([1899] 1953) outlined the fundamental ideas for understanding consumption: consumption is social (it is influenced by others) and cultural (it is information conveyed to others). Contemporary scholars have taken the social and cultural aspects of consumption and set them against a backdrop of a changing society, which has altered the traditional bases of identity. Rapid and deep-seated social change, according to Giddens (1991), results in a “reflexive project” where individuals continually construct self-narratives, autobiographies of sorts, to anchor themselves in a new world. This new world involves not only rapid industrialization, postindustrialization, and urbanization but also globalization. Globalization, according to Frank and Meyer (2002:93), diminishes the sovereignty of the nation-state and legitimates the “tastes, interests, and needs” of individuals. Consumer habits are critical to these needs and critical to identity. Commodities help locate the self in social and cultural space. The market supplies the cultural resources—the commodities essential to this process. At the same time, consumer goods are no panacea for the risks and uncertainties of the modern world. In contrast with older and more stable social orders, an uneasy tension exists between the construction of individualized identities and the market’s supply of commodities. This tension— that the fit between identity and commodity is never exact or completely right—is part of the meaning conveyed by Giddens’s (1991) “reflexive project.”

Cultural Distinctions: Product Use and Personal Identity

In premodern societies, “appearance was largely standardized in terms of traditional criteria” (Giddens 1991:99). But classification takes place differently today, with identities more individualized and roles increasingly diverse; multiple roles intersect breeding conflict and ambiguity in answering the question “who am I” (Frank and Meyer 2002; Callero 2003). This thread—that identity issues are more complicated than in the past—is found throughout the basic research on status and commodity use. Young persons are concerned not only with being on the right side of the generational divide but also with the approval of their peers (Miles 1996; Freitas et al. 1997). Women at work are anxious about balancing their femininity with the professional demands on the job (Rubinstein 1995; Kimle and Damhorst 1997). Middle-class blacks are concerned about race and troubled about distancing themselves from the negative image of an impoverished minority (Lamont and Molnar 2001). In each case, consumer goods or lifestyles related to consumption provide ammunition in the contemporary struggle with identity. Commodities are liaisons to diverse cultural categories, but particularly to age, gender, and race. Young men wind up buying the right athletic shoes, even though they are otherwise not quite useful for them (Miles 1996). Women cultivate a style of business dress to bridge the tension between fashion, conservatism, and sexuality (Kimle and Damhorst 1997). Affluent blacks conspicuously consume, a script suggested by advertising interests (Lamont and Molnar 2001). In each case, commodities clarify ambiguities in personal and social identity, that is, in the way people see themselves and in turn the way they hope they are seen by others.

Identity is a project. Detailed ethnographies indicate that problems associated with identity heighten anxiety (Thompson and Hirshman 1995; Freitas et al. 1997). Furthermore, personal change common in contemporary societies involves role transitions that escalate identity problems and alters consumption. Research indicates that individuals use different commodities as they move from one role to another—moving to college (Silver 1996), for example, or getting divorced (McAlexander 1991). New commodities help the transition; they allow anticipatory socialization to explore new roles. Cook and Kaiser (2004), for example, show how cosmetics and related products are used by young girls to explore conceptions of womanhood. Arvidsson’s (2001) research discusses the role of motor scooters in the quest for self-realization among Italian youth. Commodities not only satisfy stable desires but also provide for the exploration of new roles and new identities (Solomon 1983).

Straightforward as this research may be, it is a decided theoretical advance over previous views. In contrast to economists, the emphasis is on use rather than purchase. In contrast to neo-Marxists, the emphasis is on the value of commodities for individuals rather than capitalists. Most important, it also advances the way contemporary sociologists view how products are used. Consider, for example, Goffman’s (1959) imagery: people are on stage, handle life situationally and manage whatever props are at their disposal to effect their presentation of self. On stage, props are used; off stage, they may be abandoned. In much sociological research on consumerism, however, the division between on stage and off stage is unclear. Sometimes, commodities can be easily discarded, as when teenagers experiment with cosmetics (Cook and Kaiser 2004). In other instances, commodities are not just props in a staged play, they are personal investments that are extensions of our self (Belk 1988). Much research argues that commodities play an important role in our life and may be imbued with a sacred status. Mementoes and family pictures are valued well beyond their market worth. Cars are washed, polished, and prominently displayed. Perfumes or jewelry are thought to exert power over others. If these possessions are part of any drama, they are the drama of our lives—but certainly not always or necessarily props to be discarded with ease (Wallendorf and Arnould 1988; Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry 1989; Kaiser, Freeman, and Chandler 1993; Otnes and Lowrey 1993).

Collective Life

Beyond their relevance for personal identity, commodities integrate individuals into collective life. In the tradition of Durkheimian sociology, commodities reflect both distance and cohesion, separating “we” from “they.”

This is documented in the extensive literature on gift giving that updates the classic work on gifts and exchange (Mauss 1954; Gouldner 1960; Titmuss 1971; Cheal 1988; Otnes and Beltramini 1996). Gifts are exchanged according to prescribed rituals. In Caplow’s (1984) Middletown research, gift giving at Christmas is first and foremost a public occasion. Gifts are synchronized to suit the role relationships between givers and receivers. Gifts identify the intimate circle of family and friends, but they can also be used to identify everyone else. This is possible because the social distance implied by gifts is more nuanced than the sharp binary distinction between “we” and “they.” In Middletown, intimacy is measured by the metric of the market economy: the more costly the gift, the more intimate the relationship. In this view, the variable cost of gifts distinguishes not only kin from nonkin but also everyone in between.

There is also much research on the proliferation of subcultures—testimony to the role differentiation of contemporary society. Here again, products clarify ambiguities, mark boundaries, and anchor persons into the diversity of social life. They provide the cultural capital necessary for entrée into the intimate circle that subcultures afford (Lamont and Lareau 1988). Scholars have written extensively about various subcultures: gays (Higgins 1998), health food faddists (Thompson and Troester 2002), participants in farmers’ markets (McGrath, Sherry, and Heisley 1993), and devotees of Macintosh computers or Saab automobiles (Muˇniz and O’Guinn 2000).

Schouten and McAlexander’s (1995) research on bikers illustrates much of what this research is about. These authors use the concept of a subculture of consumption: “a distinctive subgroup of society that self-selects on the basis of a shared commitment to a particular product class, brand, or consumption activity” (Schouten and McAlexander 1995:43). They introduce this concept to illustrate how bikers use their Harley-Davidsons to express countercultural lifestyles. What is interesting about these bikers is not only the centrality of the bikes in their lives but also the way bikes become the medium for social interaction. The relationships among bikers depend on the bike; it is as if material objects displace individuals as partners in interaction—a process Knorr Cetina (1997) refers to as “objectualization.”

The Language of Commodities

Commodities, as formerly noted, are cultural artifacts critical in the presentation of self. Commodities communicate cultural meaning to others, signifying who you are and what you are about. In Sahlins’s (1976) view, consumer goods reproduce “the culture into a system of objects” (p. 179). But there is no simple equivalence between the particular commodities used and the way they are understood by others. This is not surprising. Designers, advertisers, and consumers give commodities different meanings. Few social scientists believe any symbolic codes are universally understood. Goffman’s (1971) concept of a tie-sign suggests an alternate way to think about this problem. Commodities, in his view, vary in agreed upon meanings; there is more agreement on some commodities than others (see also Rubinstein 1995: 191–205). Tie-signs are easily read and their meanings widely understood. Obvious examples are uniforms, highly gendered clothing, or extreme countercultural expressions—as in the clothing of punks or the hoods of the Ku Klux Klan. In other instances, however, meaning is simply more ambiguous.

One apparent factor contributing to ambiguity in meaning is that persons may use similar objects for different purposes—as Bourdieu (1984:177–200) suggests for attitudes toward meals or as Halle (1992) suggests for the evaluation of art (see also Hebdige 1979). Different meanings are largely a function of individuals occupying different roles in diverse social groups. The disparity between the use of a particular commodity and its interpretation by others has been widely recognized by consumer theorists. Davis (1992) suggests that commodities are polysemic, part of an unstable language of meaning. Campbell (1996) recommends sharply distinguishing objects from use, arguing that the two should not be confused as equivalents. Holt (1998) argues for a more holistic approach to consumption, analyzing constellations of consumer behavior rather than focusing on any given product. Symbolic interactionists conclude that ambiguous communication is inherent in social interaction; only interpersonal discourse allows individuals to attain mutual understanding (Stone 1962).

The disparity in understanding also poses problems for actors. In Schouten and McAlexander’s (1995) research, not everyone who rode a bike was considered by Hell’s Angels types to be part of the hard core; many were weekend bikers, frequently executives—but decidedly neither carefree nor countercultural. Needless to add, weekend bikers were objects of disdain, ridiculed by hard core cyclists. But ridicule is the cost of dependence on products that the market supplies. Access to the market is unregulated. Anyone with the resources and inclination can buy almost anything they want—even if what they want is a badge of membership in a subculture where they are unwelcome. Commodities consequently provide a rough guide to classify individuals, but precise inferences are more problematic.

Social Class and Cultural Distinctions

Pierre Bourdieu (1984), in his influential book on Distinction, suggests that commodities in contemporary society provide the cultural capital to sustain class rank. He believes that incorporated into the microlevel environment of individuals—the habitus —are social dispositions relating what is vulgar, what is distinctive, and what provides honor and esteem. These mental sets are, in Bourdieu’s view, class based. In the nineteenth-century class was a major determinant of lifestyles, as both Simmel ([1904] 1957) and Veblen ([1899] 1953) observed. Scholars however have questioned the connection between class and consumer behavior in contemporary societies. They question whether status has replaced class and whether lifestyles are anchored in economic hierarchies.

The role of class in consumption continues to be debated (Lamont and Fournier 1992; Lamont et al. 1996; Kingston 2000; Grusky and Weeden 2001). In one sense, class is undeniably influential in consumption: income cannot be ignored and education, particularly as it relates to literacy, likewise may be relevant (Wallendorf 2001). There is a further question, however: Do classes resemble status groups with similar lifestyles and consumer habits? Holt (1998) argues that they do; using a broad definition of consumption, he finds that upper classes more likely value aesthetics than function and authentic commodities than mass-produced commodities. Others suggest, however, that class today no longer distinguishes lifestyles. Halle’s (1992) research on art in middle-and working-class homes shows few significant differences. Turner and Edmund (2002) indicate that Australian elites were not terribly interested in highbrow culture. Lamont’s (1992) research suggests that Bourdieu’s observations on class distinction may more accurately describe France than the United States. How should one interpret conflicting findings on class? Two conclusions, I believe, are warranted. First, class and consumption require more refined analysis to disentangle important nuances in consumption (Crompton 1996; Holt 1998; Grusky and Weeden 2001). Second, it is likely that class remains influential, although its importance probably has diminished in more recent times.

An additional theoretical issue is whether Veblen’s observations on conspicuous consumption remain valid today. This is a frequent topic in social commentary. In her book Do Americans Shop Too Much?, Juliet Schor (2000) reargues Veblen’s critique by noting that “the lifestyles of the upper middle class and the rich have become a more salient point of reference for people throughout the income distribution. . . . Luxury, rather than mere comfort, is a widespread aspiration” (p. 8). Luxury products are indeed available—and may be more widely distributed than they were in the past (Twitchell 1999). At the same time, other evidence suggests that conspicuous consumption may not accurately characterize American buying habits. For example, fashions in apparel are fragmented today along lines unrelated to upper-class influence (Crane 2000). Gartman (1991) argues that product designs frequently mask rather than accentuate class differences; his analysis of automobiles provides much support for this position. Furthermore, powerhouse retailers like Wal-Mart and Kmart and McDonalds hardly encourage conspicuous consumption. Heffetz’s (2004) analysis of the Bureau of Labor’s Consumer Expenditure Survey indicates that people do spend more on items that are highly visible to others—jewelry, cars, or clothing, for example. At the same time, the extra money spent on luxury purchases is not substantial; it accounts for 12 percent of all spending and is confined to the top half of the income distribution.

Luxury is widely ballyhooed in the mass media (O’Guinn and Shrum 1997). But fascination with the lifestyles of the very rich does not mean consumers desire luxury products. An alternate way of looking at conspicuous consumption, however, may be more plausible: to see it as prominent in particular circumstances—as when minorities are trying to break barriers of discrimination. McCracken (1988:96–102), for example, sees business dress for women as emulating the authority of men at work. Likewise, Lamont and Molnar (2001) argue that middleclass blacks may consume conspicuously to distance themselves from more deprived classes. Class may still explain who uses what, and conspicuous consumption may surface in particular instances. Nonetheless, Veblen’s ideas are probably not the best way to explain modern consumption.

All this research—on class, subcultures, commodities, and identities—shows how products are used and incorporated into the lives of individuals. The consumer society paradigm also suggests that consumers depend on markets for resolving ambiguities in identity. In Appadurai’s (1986) phrase, commodities have social lives; they have histories, origins, and endpoints. Markets are the arenas where these histories play out: in the technical details of production, in the ways commodities acquire symbolic identities, and in the distribution system that moves products from factories to retail stores and into the hands and homes of consumers. The next major sections consider two parts of consumer markets: the markets that make commodities and the markets that distribute them.

Consumer Markets 1: Producing Goods, Constructing Symbols

Product diversity: the case of fashion.

In The Second Industrial Divide, Piore and Sabel (1984:189) comment on the “apparent shift in favor of diversity” during the 1970s. Diversity refers to product diversity, that is, the proliferation of commodities differing in styles, colors, and shapes. Diversified goods have similar uses but differ in symbolic meaning; they appeal to consumers with different tastes. According to consumer theorists, product diversity has grown exponentially over the last 40 to 50 years. Growth in product diversity raises an intriguing and important question about consumer markets: Why markets have so many products? The answers given in the literature draw primarily from research on fashions in women’s apparel. Though confined to a single area of consumption, the literature on fashion in women’s apparel offers insight into how theorists think about production markets and about the demand for product diversity. In this subsection, I first review the historical accounts that theorists use as a backdrop for their ideas and then critically examine the explanations for diversity they provide.

The historical accounts of fashion describe a market in transition. In the mid-nineteenth century up to the years following World War II, women’s fashions were dominated by a system of haute couture. Key manufacturers and designers such as the House of Chanel or Dior were part of a centralized and hierarchical structure in women’s fashions. Styles were relatively homogeneous and changed little from year to year. The designs were initially aimed at an upper-class clientele, but were widely sold to others. In the United States, manufacturers copied elite fashions and sold them at different prices to women varying in income; this practice, in Barber and Lobel’s (1953) view, allowed upper-class styles to trickle down to middle- and workingclass women—in much the way Veblen predicted.

By the 1970s, the haute couture system diminished in importance. Davis (1992:138–45) described new, emergent fashions as democratized, polymorphous, and pluralistic. In the haute couture model, fashion diffused from the top down but, according to Crane (2000), fashions began to diffuse from the bottom up—with designers increasingly attuned to diverse subcultures, including minorities, the young, and the working class. As important as the fragmentation of fashion was the speed at which fashions changed. In the haute couture system, styles changed infrequently. In the more pluralistic system, fashions changed more rapidly, as much as five to six times a year or more (Gereffi 1994).

This history is instructive. Fashion products diversified in two ways: first, by becoming more heterogeneous and fragmented—catering to a wider range of tastes and interests; second, by accelerating the pace of change—moving styles in and out of vogue several or more times a year. Why this explosion in product diversity, in the demand for new products and symbols? Many of the explanations offered draw on the very same ideas used in discussions of identity—the increase in heterogeneity and complexity in contemporary societies. According to Crane (2000), new demands emerge in concert with the “fragmentation of contemporary societies” and “the greater complexity of relationships between social groups” (p. 166). Davis (1992) ties fashion change to ambivalence about the self that a “more complex and heterogeneous society” accentuates (p. 24). Other researchers attribute recent fashion change to postmodernity and the breakdown of uniform cultural codes (Kaiser, Nagasawa, and Hutton 1991).

Popular as these explanations may be, they are not entirely satisfying on all accounts. In the first place, more standardized, less diverse fashions are not necessarily incompatible with the differentiation or individualized identities that consumers seek. Consumers, for example, can express individuality in how they put certain looks together or in the accessories they use. Postmodern thought sees individuality shaped not only by using unique products but also by the eclectic use of standardized products. Similarly, Giddens (1991) notes that “mass produced clothing still allows individuals to decide selectively on styles of dress” (p. 200). Individualism may be crafted not only by using distinctive products but also by using mass products in a distinctive way. Holt’s (1997) research suggests that individuals can and do creatively use whatever is at hand to craft unique lifestyles.

An additional concern is that many of the traditional explanations appear not so much incorrect as incomplete. Little is mentioned about fashion change in areas other than women’s apparel—limited though this literature may be (see, e.g., Gartman 1991; Slater 2002; Postrel 2003; Molotch 2003). Have products diversified at the same pace in these other areas? Traditional explanations also lack specificity—they inadequately account for the way trends in complexity and heterogeneity are differently experienced. Traditional explanations, for example, slight two obvious and related events important for understanding the fragmentation in women’s fashions: the wider participation of women in the paid labor force and the rise of feminism. Both events flourished during the sixties and generally empowered women. Increased autonomy, but also increased obligations connected to work, translates into new demands not addressed by upper-class fashions.

The altered status of women suggests that it may be more profitable to think about the demand for new products as a consequence not of changing roles—but of the development of new roles and new social and cultural spaces that women began to occupy.

In spite of these reservations, increased diversity probably characterizes the products in many consumer markets. Simple as this observation appears, an important issue is at stake. Fashion means that products varying in symbolic meaning are vehicles for competition. In classical economics, comparable goods are chosen on the basis of price. But consumer research suggests differently: as products diversify, product competition increases and price competition declines. “Product differentiation means that goods are only imperfect substitutes for each other, so buyers can no longer make direct price comparisons” (Carruthers and Babb 2000:36). Several writers see this increase in product competition as an important turning point in the dynamics of consumer markets. Lash and Urry (1987), for example, suggest that contemporary economies are notable for the production of symbols. In a similar vein, Featherstone (1992) discusses the aestheticization of everyday life as a force in mass consumption and Postrel (2003) identifies aesthetics as remaking commerce.

Finally, what about consumers? How have they reacted to fragmentation in the market for fashions? If identity is a project then consumers ought to be ever at the vigil for new fashions and new styles (Kellner 1992). In fact, diverse fashions appear to promote detachment and anxiety. Research has shown women to be active agents (rather than passive victims) in consuming fashions. Brickell’s (2002) study shows how resistance to fashion trends develops. Thompson and Haytko (1997) see fashion as a tool kit—interpreted, accepted, or dismissed according to the needs and goals of individuals. College students consult fashion magazines but do not necessarily follow the styles they promote; also, “the percentage of women . . . interested in fashionable styles has steadily declined” (Crane 2000:168).

At the same time, the view of carefree consumers dabbling in fashions has limits. One limit is that fragmented fashion creates ambiguity. In Davis’s (1992) view, the rapid pace of change and the “onrush of new fashions” mean that few persons know exactly what is “in” and what is “out” (p. 108). Consuming fashion is emotionally charged. Carefree though they appear, consumers report risks, uncertainty, and anxiety in selecting what to wear (Chua 1992; Thompson and Hirschman 1995). Having many alternatives does not mean decisions are easy to make (Schwartz 2004).

Manufacturing Product Diversity: Flexible Production and International Trade

Consumer markets also must manufacture diverse products. How is this done? Slater and Tonkiss (2001) succinctly capture the traditional argument regarding the manufacture of diverse, highly individualized products: “New technological . . . opportunities were emerging that refocused the logic of production away from mass manufacture and mass consumption to flexible responsive production of more differentiated ranges of goods to ever more culturally differentiated consumers” (p. 179). The logic of production in Slater and Tonkiss’s statement refers to the growth of postfordism or flexible production (Piore and Sable 1984; Harvey 1989). Under fordism, machines dedicated to a single task mass produce goods; under postfordism, computerized machines produce goods diverse in colors, styles, and sizes. Hence the connection between product diversity and flexible technology.

The link between “culturally differentiated consumers” and flexible production makes sense—but two points need clarification. The first is that factories (and industries) do not neatly fall into categories of prefordist, fordist, and postfordist production (Vallas 1999). Factories may combine prefordist production with flexible technology to make diverse products. In the apparel industry, for example, computerized technology is widely used in the design and preassembly stages of production; but to actually construct garments, workers frequently sew by hand or use sewing machines (Fine and Leopold 1993; Mather 1993). Thus, product diversity can also result from demands on unskilled workers to engage in multiple tasks that produce different commodities. Taplin (1995, 1996) argues that labor not technology is the flexible resource in apparel production; his research on apparel factories documents how unskilled, low-wage labor is used to accommodate the changing demands of manufacturers.

A second complication refers to the geography of production. Recent research has emphasized global production in addition to flexible technology as contributing to product diversity. Gereffi (1994), for example, suggests that product diversity is facilitated by subcontracting production across a large and diverse pool of factories scattered across the globe. Subcontracting increases flexibility, allowing manufacturers to minimize their investments and search for production facilities to suit their needs. Gereffi’s (1994) research focuses on commodity chains that coordinate production across a decentralized and international network of factories (see also Hassler 2003). In his view, the global scope (rather than scale) of production is critical for the manufacture of diverse products. More factories are simply available to make more and different commodities. Consistent with Gereffi’s view, Broda and Weinstein’s (2004) analysis of import data indicates that international trade has increased product diversity in the United States by as much as fourfold in recent years.

Advertising, Brands, and the Cultural Economy

A final step in this review of the production market is the symbolic meaning that diverse products acquire. Designers and manufacturers suggest meanings. Commodities also may acquire symbolic meanings through use. But advertising is the principle way by which products acquire meaning. According to McCracken (1988:71–89), advertising is a process of transference: Symbols created or taken from the culture are used by advertisers to situate a commodity in cultural space.

The activities of advertisers, including their strategies and negotiations with clients, have been amply discussed. Advertisers meet with manufacturers, identify a market niche in the context of competing products, and then— focusing on particular characteristics of their product— construct a scenario linking their product to a situation that consumers desire (McCracken 1988:71–89; Hennion and Méadel 1989; Slater 2002). Products thus gain an identity, and competing products with similar uses are differentiated in meaning. Does this work—that is, do ads sell? “The conventional wisdom,” as Alan Warde (2002b) has noted, is that “producers are unable to manipulate wants through advertising” (p. 11). This is generally true. Ads carry information, but consumers are not blank slates; they have much information and are subject to multiple influences. Countless studies show that individuals are differentially receptive to an ad’s message—contingent on things such as their attitude toward a product or their receptivity to new information (Hirschman and Thompson 1997; Adaval 2003; Brinol, Petty, and Tormala 2004).

Many of these studies, however, miss the broader influence of advertising on consumers. Branded products illustrate what this influence is about. Brands are the primary way advertisers handle product diversity. Products are symbolically differentiated from each other by membership in different families of commodities: Dell computers, Ann Taylor suits, Panasonic televisions. Brands are, in part, constructed by advertisers and manufacturers. They are vessels that advertisers use to convey the symbolic meaning of products. Studies indicate that brands are among the most important ways consumers evaluate quality, even though they may not buy brands if price is a factor (Holt 2004; Zukin 2004). The more popular brands are, the more successful ads tend to be (Campbell and Keller 2003). Some evidence also suggests that ads are more successful when products are similar in use (Hennion and Méadel 1989:194).

Much research also indicates that it is the brand—not just the product, its style or quality—that is crucial in consumption. When presented with a choice between two identical products—one identified by a well-known or prestigious brand and one that is not—consumers uniformly select the product with the well-known brand name (Behling and Wilch 1988; Hoyer and Brown 1990; McClure et al. 2004). This research suggests a simple but startling conclusion: Individuals are consuming symbols as well as products.

Brands are directed to market niches—to countercultural groups, to a middle class interested in reliability, to yuppies keen on fashion and style. At the same time, manufacturers frequently try to expand sales to other audiences. Therein lies the difficulty in making ads successful tools of persuasion: how to convey the symbolic value of a product to different market segments. It is well known that persons with different backgrounds interpret mass media messages differently (Shively 1992). It is also the case that persons with different backgrounds interpret ads differently (Grier and Brumbaugh 1999). Advertisers experience much difficulty in customizing ads for diverse audiences (Kates and Goh 2003). For example, attempts to present different ads to market segments may be transparent—and a cause of resistance to an ad’s message. The Hell’s Angels types in Schouten and McAlexander’s (1995) research resented the ads Harley-Davidson addressed to executive bikers as well as to “Dykes on Bikes.” du Gay (1997) indicates that Sony’s initial attempt to customize ads for its Walkman was unsuccessful; sales escalated, however, when the ads’ symbols were integrated into the Walkman’s design.

From a sociological perspective, advertising presents an interesting dilemma. An elementary understanding of the self is that it develops in response to existing cultural frames. Does advertising supply these frames—at least in part? Is it possible, as some scholars have suggested, that advertising profoundly affects our culture and psyche— including the trajectory of our identity projects (Ewen 1977; Williamson 1978)? Several case studies indicate the considerable influence of ads on lifestyles. Prominent here is De Beer’s promotion of diamonds as the essential accessory to marriage (Epstein 1982). Otnes and Pleck (2003) trace the rise of the costly wedding to advertising in bridal magazines. Korzeniewicz (1994) attributes Nike’s success to its ads fueling the boom in health and fitness. Lamont and Molnar (2001) link conspicuous consumption in the black middle class to advertisers. This research is cause for thought and concern. Do existing theories of identity and social change slight the role of advertising and oversimplify explanations of consumption? More research is needed on this important issue.

Consumer Markets 2: Shopping and the Distribution of Goods

Retail trade is the other key market in the consumer society. To Marx ([1867] 1990), retailers were the petty bourgeoisie, incidental to the major forces of production. By contrast, retailers today are more likely to be major corporations. Corporate growth has prompted scholars to reconsider the role of retailing in the economy. They suggest that retailers are a new source of power in the marketplace. They also argue that growth and power have been used to transform shopping, to make it pleasant and entertaining—thereby stimulating sales and enthusiasm for commodities.

The Retail Revolution

All observers concur that large corporations increasingly dominate retail trade (Mills 1951; Chandler 1962; Bluestone et al. 1981; du Gay 1993). Mills (1951:166–69) characterized the “big bazaar” as large, monolithic, and relentlessly in pursuit of growth, whereas du Gay (1993:569) concluded that the retail industry is now “dominated and controlled by large companies.” In the 1960s, retail firms with 100 or more stores accounted for 15 percent of all sales as compared with the 40 percent they control today (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1966, 2001).

Paralleling the growth of the firm is the growth of the store itself. Stores are increasingly able to stock the diverse commodities essential to individualized identity projects. Many stores today are big box retail outlets: large discount stores, department stores, supermarkets, and “category killers” specializing in a range of related products (such as Home Depot or Office Max). From the retailer’s perspective, big stores are more economical to run and sell products more efficiently than “mom and pop stores” (Hahn 2000). Store growth is substantial. Mills (1951:166–69) estimated that in the 1950s, Macy’s flagship store stocked 400,000 items; today, flagship stores carry between 1 and 2 million items (Abernathy 1999:41). According to Walsh (1993:9), supermarkets in the 1950s and 1960s carried 5000 to 8000 items as compared with the 40,000 to 60,000 items they carry today (Abernathy 1999:41).

Ritzer (1993) and others argue that the growth and concentration of retail firms provide resources for rationalizing operations (Noyelle 1987; Gereffi 1994). Large firms are more sophisticated in transporting goods and managing inventory. Furthermore, large retailers order more goods and bargain more effectively with suppliers for lower prices. Volume sales also reduce costs. These factors, commonly associated with the retail revolution, make large firms more competitive. Additionally, the advent of shopping malls in the 1960s and 1970s accentuated competition in two other ways: increasing the number of large apparel chains and providing an outlet for these chains to sell niche fashions nationwide.

It is also the case that retailers are more vertically integrated, more involved in manufacturing than was true in the fifties and sixties. Gereffi (1994) speaks of fashion retailers as “buyer driven” and Murray (1989) argues that new computer technology allows retailers to better track consumer demand and regulate supply. Blumer (1969) suggests that fashion is a sequence of collective selection in which key gatekeepers—designers, retail buyers, marketing analysts—decide what looks good and what does not. These gatekeepers are increasingly prominent in retail chains. Chains are more attuned to and attentive to the demands of their clientele. Market research has become significant in producing styles. Crane (2000) notes that success in the market depends on being “able to identify lifestyles that resonate with the public” (p. 168). Rubinstein (1995) similarly observes that “the profitable way of doing business . . . is to study the customers, find out what they want, and make and market it” (p. 237). As retailers became more knowledgeable about their clientele, they are also able to create new specialty niches—as illustrated in the recent growth of markets for children and young girls (Cook 2004; Cook and Kaiser 2004).

The dominance of retail chains has led researchers to conclude that “the balance of relative power has shifted firmly to the side of the retailer” (du Gay 1993:570) (Crewe and Davenport 1992; Wrigley 1992). While size does contribute to power, this conclusion must be qualified in several ways. In the first place, though the independent single-unit retail firm is by no means dominant, neither is it a relic. Independent single-unit stores today comprise 60 percent of the total number of all stores and account for about 40 percent of all sales (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001:307). Furthermore, in sectors where personalized services are in demand, chains may be less prominent (Stillman 2003). In the restaurant industry, for example, 70 percent of all businesses are single, individually owned stores and account for about 50 percent of sales (Nelson 2001). Finally, in some sectors, automobiles and housing, for example, manufacturers tightly control retail operations.

In the second place, retail power may not translate into higher profits—at least when compared with the profits of manufacturers (Messinger and Narasimhan 1995). Ailawadi, Borin, and Farris (1995) report that only WalMart has eroded manufacturers’ profits but other retailers have not. Bloom and Perry (2001) suggest a further qualification: Large manufacturers do better when dealing with Wal-Mart but smaller ones suffer.

A third issue involves the view of the retail revolution as a technological transformation (Noyelle 1987). It is true that large chains increasingly use computer technology to monitor inventory, consumer demand, and sales. It is also the case that retailers are more productive than in the past (Sieling, Friedman, and Dumas 2001). Productivity, however, is a function of both technology and the way labor is used. Popular brands reduce labor costs through selfservice sales—where consumers rather than sales personnel “reach for the product” (Twitchell 1999:189). Self-service sales may be “ the single most important factor in containing labour costs” in retail trade (du Gay 1993:572). Unfortunately, self-service strategies have been slighted in understanding how large chains have become productive, competitive, and powerful.

Much research suggests that in addition to monitoring inventory and sales, retailers have tried to alter the experience of shoppers. Their techniques go well beyond the dazzling display of goods department stores used in the past (Williams 1982). Shopping malls today commonly have movie theaters, themed restaurants, children’s rides, and skating rinks to entertain customers. Control mechanisms are integrated into the design of shopping centers; they range from the placement of escalators to the use of lighting to the mix of stores. All are designed to increase exposure to products, lengthen the time spent shopping and stimulate impulse buying. Recent research points to hightech innovations using media and entertainment environments of moving light, upbeat sound, and multiple video screens—frequently inviting consumers to participate in sports-related fantasies (Sherry et al. 2001; Kozinets et al. 2002, 2004).

Ritzer (2005) sees these innovations as new marketing controls used to revolutionize consumption in a “disenchanted world.” He sees malls as “cathedrals of consumption,” both rationalized and sophisticated in their influence on consumers. Malls are important; they contain the retail chains vital in lifestyle shopping (Shields 1992). Much research suggests that a store’s image is a significant source of attraction in shopping (Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman 1994; Zimmer and Golden 1988). Research findings for malls are comparable. Consumers who find malls entertaining and exciting also indicate that they are eager to return (Finn and Louviere 1996; Wakefield and Baker 1998). A small number of consumers use shopping to relax. Not surprisingly, more utilitarian shoppers are less likely to visit malls (Roy 1994). The themed environment in many malls is designed to encourage fantasies (Gottdiener 1997). Research indicates that fantasizing about material goods is common (Fournier and Guiry 1993) and further that individuals who indulge in such fantasies likely shop frequently and compulsively (O’Guinn and Faber 1989). From a sociological perspective, fantasy allows consumers to play with and explore different presentations of self.

Shopping is also seen as time to spend with family and friends (Arnold and Reynolds 2003). If shopping formerly was (women’s) work, it is now also used for entertainment and leisure. When consumers do shop to relax, they are less likely to consider price (Wakefield and Inman 2003). Shopping with friends is popular with teenagers; it increases their enjoyment and also the money they spend (Mangleburg, Doney, and Bristol 2004). Social shopping has two additional, though seemingly contradictory effects. When in a group, shoppers seek more variety in their choices to impress others with their individuality (Ratner, Kahn, and Kahneman 1999; Ariely and Levav 2000). Shoppers also solicit advice from their shopping partners on whether their selections are acceptable and appropriate (Chua 1992). Shopping with others thus provides both the individuality and the collective connections that Simmel ([1904] 1957) saw as essential to fashion and consumption.

In summary, many shoppers seem to mirror the intended impact of the mall’s design. They see shopping as leisure rather than work, are entertained at the mall, and will likely return there to shop again. At the same time, it is unfair to conclude that most shoppers resemble the stereotypical “shop ’til I drop” consumer. The wider context here is that materialism is not higher in the United States than other countries (Ger and Belk 1999) and that spending on commodities has not increased over the past—the reverse is in fact the case (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005).

A more accurate summary is that retailing reflects a mélange of stores and a variety of shoppers. It may be a retail world revolutionized or transformed—but the transformation is partial and incomplete. Shoppers buy not only in retail malls but also from family, friends, and neighbors (Frenzen and Davis 1990; DiMaggio and Louch 1998). While they spend more in the company of friends, shoppers also stress thrift as a virtue (Miller 1998; Zukin 2004). Much shopping, particularly twice-a-week visits to supermarkets, hardly qualifies as lifestyle shopping (Miller 1997). Furthermore, alongside those who shop to relax are utilitarian shoppers; they visit malls infrequently but when they do, it is to buy something rather than to be entertained (Bloch, Ridgway, and Dawson 1994; Roy 1994).

Conclusions

The paradigm of a consumer society is more than an umbrella covering the diversity of consumer research. Unlike neo-Marxist views, the paradigm highlights the satisfactions and pleasures of commodities. Unlike utilitarian views, the paradigm highlights the symbolism commodities possess. Unlike mechanistic views, the paradigm highlights the interdependency of consumers and markets, while at the same time seeing individuals as active agents and culture as integral to social life.

This paradigm has been advanced by an enormous resurgence of research—documenting the importance of consumer behavior without celebrating consumerism itself. Policy issues have not been central to the consumer society paradigm, but the problems of consumer credit (Ritzer 1995), the environment (Wilk 2001), political protest (Holt 2002), and discrimination associated with race, class, and gender have all been addressed (Caplovitz 1963; Ayres and Siegelman 1995). Common to these policy concerns is an indictment of the unfettered consumer market associated with capitalism.

All paradigms have flaws, and the consumer society is no exception. Consumption is important in contemporary societies; but societies are too complex to be called consumer societies any more than they can be called industrial societies, postindustrial societies, or postmodern societies (Kumar 1995; Warde 2002a). By describing societies as consumer societies, the paradigm glosses over important variations critical to explore. For example, much is known about consumption and identity but, surprisingly, little about those who have resolved or otherwise minimized identity issues. How and what do these individuals consume? Similar problems of omission plague the other key term in the paradigm: the market. Consumer research overwhelmingly focuses on apparel and food. By contrast, other products have been slighted (though not necessarily ignored). Some critics have argued that commodities vary in their relevance to identity (Ilmonen 2001). Others suggest that markets operate differently for each commodity (Fine and Leopold 1993). Regardless of the merit of these criticisms, a typology of commodities might be a useful way to study many different commodities and enrich the framework researchers use.

In conclusion, researchers of consumption have fought an uphill and increasingly successful battle. They have rescued an area long relegated to the wasteland of sociological research. They also have joined in an interdisciplinary effort including cultural studies, anthropology, economics, marketing, and retailing. But the stigma associated with studying consumption in sociology may still persist; at this time, the very top research journals in American sociology infrequently publish research on consumer behavior. The challenge in the next decades will be to increase this area’s prominence and bring to it the attention it deserves.

Bibliography:

• Abernathy, Frederick H. 1999. A Stitch in Time: Lean Retailing and the Transformation of Manufacturing: Lessons from the Apparel and Textile Industries. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Adaval, Rashmi. 2003. “How Good Gets Better and Bad Gets Worse: Understanding the Impact of Affect on Evaluations of Known Brands.” Journal of Consumer Research 30:352–67.
• Ailawadi, Kusum L., Norm Borin, and Paul W. Farris. 1995. “Market Power and Performance: A Cross-Industry Analysis of Manufacturers and Retailers.” Journal of Retailing 71:211–48.
• Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1990. “Analytical Debates: Understanding the Relative Autonomy of Culture.” Pp. 1–27 in Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates, edited by J. C. Alexander and S. Seidman. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ariely, Dan and Jonathan Levav. 2000. “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed.” Journal of Consumer Research 27:279–90.
• Arnold, Mark J. and Kristy E. Reynolds. 2003. “Hedonic Shopping Motivations.” Journal of Retailing 79:77–95.
• Arnould, Eric J. and Craig J. Thompson. 2005. “Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research.” Journal of Consumer Research 31:868–82.
• Arvidsson, Adam. 2001. “From Counterculture to Consumer Culture: Vespa and the Italian Youth Market 1958–78.” Journal of Consumer Culture 1:47–71.
• Ayers, Ian and Peter Siegelman. 1995. “Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car.” American Economic Review 85:304–21.
• Baker, Julie, Dhruv Grewal, and A. Parasuraman.1994. “The Influence of Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22:328–39.
• Barber, Bernard and Lyle Lobel. 1953. “Fashion in Women’s Clothes and the American Social System.” Pp. 323–32 in Class, Status, and Power, edited by R. Bendix and S. M. Lipset. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Behling, Dorothy U. and Jennette Wilch. 1988. “Perceptions of Branded Clothing by Male Consumers.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 6:43–47.
• Belk, Russell W. 1988. “Possessions and the Extended Self.” Journal of Consumer Research 15:139–68.
• Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry, Jr. 1989. “The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior:
• Theodicy on the Odyssey.” Journal of Consumer Research 16:1–38.
• Bloch, Peter H., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Scott A. Dawson. 1994. “The Shopping Mall as Consumer Habitat.” Journal of Retailing 70:20–44.
• Bloom, Paul N. and Vanessa G. Perry. 2001. “Retailer Power and Supplier Welfare: The Case of Wal-Mart.” Journal of Retailing 77:295–97.
• Bluestone, Barry, Patricia Hanna, Sarah Kuhn, and Laura Moore. 1981. The Retail Revolution: Market Transformation, Investment, and Labor in the Modern Department Store. Boston, MA: Auburn House.
• Blumer, Herbert. 1969. “Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection.” Sociological Quarterly 10:275–91.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Brickell, Chris. 2002. “Through the (New) Looking Glass: Gendered Bodies, Fashion and Resistance in Postwar New Zealand.” Journal of Consumer Culture 2:241–69.
• Brinol, Pablo, Richard E. Petty, and Zakary L. Tormala. 2004. “Self-Validation of Cognitive Responses to Advertisements.” Journal of Consumer Research 30:559–73.
• Broda, Christian and David E. Weinstein. 2004. “Variety Growth and World Welfare.” American Economic Review 94:139–44.
• Callero, Peter L. 2003. “The Sociology of the Self.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:115–33.
• Campbell, Colin. 1987. The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism. New York: Blackwell.
• Campbell, Colin. 1996. “The Meaning of Objects and the Meaning of Actions.” Journal of Material Culture 1:93–105.
• Campbell, Margaret C. and Kevin L. Keller. 2003. “Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects.” Journal of Consumer Research 30:292–304.
• Caplovitz, David. 1963. The Poor Pay More. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Caplow, Theodore. 1984. “Rule Enforcement without Visible Means: Christmas Gift Giving in Middletown.” American Journal of Sociology 89:1306–23.
• Carruthers, Bruce G. and Sarah L. Babb. 2000. Economy/Society: Markets, Meanings, and Social Structure. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Chandler, Alfred D. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cheal, David J. 1988. The Gift Economy. New York: Routledge.
• Chua, Beng Huat. 1992. “Shopping for Women’s Fashions in Singapore.” Pp. 114–35 in Lifestyle Shopping: The Subject of Consumption, edited by R. Shields. New York: Routledge.
• Cook, Daniel T. 2004. “Beyond Either/Or.” Journal of Consumer Culture 4:147–53.
• Cook, Daniel T. and Susan B. Kaiser. 2004. “Betwixt and be Tween: Age Ambiguity and the Sexualization of the Female Consuming Subject.” Journal of Consumer Culture 4:203–27.
• Crane, Diana. 2000. Fashion and Its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Crewe, Louise and Eileen Davenport. 1992. “The Puppet Show: Changing Buyer–Supplier Relationships within Clothing Retailing.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17:183–97.
• Crompton, Rosemary. 1996. “Consumption and Class Analysis.” Pp. 113–32 in Consumption Matters, edited by S. Edgell, K. Hetherington, and A. Warde. Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press.
• Davis, Fred. 1992. Fashion, Culture, and Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• DiMaggio, Paul and Hugh Louch. 1998. “Socially Embedded Consumer Transactions: For What Kinds of Purchases Do People Most Often Use Networks?” American Sociological Review 63:619–37.
• Douglas, Mary and Baron C. Isherwood. 1979. The World of Goods. New York: Basic Books.
• du Gay, Paul. 1993. “‘Numbers and Souls’: Retailing and the De-Differentiation of Economy and Culture.” British Journal of Sociology 44:563–87.
• du Gay, Paul. 1997. Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Epstein, Edward J. 1982. The Rise and Fall of Diamonds: The Shattering of a Brilliant Illusion. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Ewen, Stuart. 1977. Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Faris, Robert E. L. 1964. Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
• Featherstone, Mike. 1992. “Postmodernism and the Aestheticization of Everyday Life.” Pp. 265–90 in Modernity and Identity, edited by S. Lash and J. Friedman. Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press.
• Fine, Ben and Ellen Leopold. 1993. The World of Consumption. New York: Routledge.
• Finn, Adam and Jordan J. Louviere. 1996. “Shopping Center Image, Consideration, and Choice: Anchor Store Contribution.” Journal of Business Research 35:241–51.
• Fournier, Susan and Michael Guiry. 1993. “‘An Emerald Green Jaguar, a House on Nantucket, and an African Safari:’Wish Lists and Consumption Dreams in Materialist Society.” Advances in Consumer Research 20:352–58.
• Frank, David and John W. Meyer. 2002. “The Profusion of Individual Roles and Identities in the Postwar Period.” Sociological Theory 20:86–105.
• Freitas, Anthony, Susan Kaiser, Joan Chandler, Carol Hall, JungWon Kim, and Tania Hammidi. 1997. “Appearance Management as Border Construction: Least Favorite Clothing, Group Distancing, and Identity . . . Not!” Sociological Inquiry 67:323–35.
• Frenzen, Jonathan and Harry L. Davis. 1990. Purchasing Behavior in Embedded Markets.” Journal of Consumer Research 17:1–12.
• Frenzen, Jonathon, Paul M. Hirsch, and Philip Zerillo. 1994. “Consumption, Preferences, and Changing Life Styles.” Pp. 403–25 in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Gartman, David. 1991. “Culture as Class Symbolization Or Mass Reification? A Critique of Bourdieu’s Distinction.” American Journal of Sociology 97:421–47.
• Ger, Guliz and Russell Belk. 1999. “Accounting for Materialism in Four Cultures.” Journal of Material Culture 4:183–204.
• Gereffi, Gary. 1994. “The Organization of Buyer-Driven Global Commodity Chains: How U.S. Retailers Shape Overseas Production Networks.” Pp. 95–122 in Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, edited by G. Gereffi and M. Korzeniewicz. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Goffman, Erving. 1951. “Symbols of Class Status.” British Journal of Sociology 2:294–304.
• Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
• Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public; Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.
• Gottdiener, Mark. 1997. The Theming of America: Dreams, Visions, and Commercial Spaces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.” American Sociological Review 25:161–78.
• Grier, Sonya A. and Anne M. Brumbaugh. 1999. “Noticing Cultural Differences: Ad Meanings Created by Target and Non-Target Markets.” Journal of Advertising 28:79–93.
• Grusky, David B. and Kim A. Weeden. 2001. “Decomposition without Death: A Research Agenda for a New Class Analysis.” Acta Sociologica 44:203–18.
• Hahn, Barbara. 2000. “Power Centres: A New Retail Format in the United States of America.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 7:223–31.
• Halle, David. 1992. “The Audience for Abstract Art: Class, Culture, and Power.” Pp. 131–51 in Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by M. Lamont and M. Fournier. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. New York: Blackwell.
• Hassler, Markus. 2003. “The Global Clothing Production System: Commodity Chains and Business Networks.” Global Networks 3:513–31.
• Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture, the Meaning of Style. London, England: Methuen.
• Heffetz, 2004. “Conspicuous Consumption and the Visibility of Consumer Expenditures.” Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Unpublished manuscript.
• Hennion, Antoine and Cecile Méadel. 1989. “The Artisans of Desire: The Mediation of Advertising between Product and Consumer.” Sociological Theory 7:191–209.
• Higgins, Ross. 1998. “A La Mode: Fashioning Gay Community in Montreal.” Pp. 129–61 in Consuming Fashion: Adorning the Transnational Body, edited by A. Brydon and S. Niessen. Oxford, England: Berg.
• Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Craig J. Thompson. 1997. “Why Media Matter: Toward a Richer Understanding of Consumers’ Relationships with Advertising and Mass Media.” Journal of Advertising 26:43–60.
• Holt, Douglas B. 1997. “Poststructuralist Lifestyle Analysis: Conceptualizing the Social Patterning of Consumption in Postmodernity.” Journal of Consumer Research 23:326–50.
• Holt, Douglas B. 1998. “Does Cultural Capital Structure American Consumption?” Journal of Consumer Research 25:1–26.
• Holt, Douglas B. 2002. “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding.” Journal of Consumer Research 29:70–90.
• Holt, Douglas B. 2004. How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder.
• Hoyer, Wayne D. and Steven P. Brown. 1990. “Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-Purchase Product.” Journal of Consumer Research 17:141–48.
• Ilmonen, Kaj. 2001. “Sociology, Consumption and Routine.” Pp. 9–23 in Ordinary Consumption, edited by J. Gronow and A. Warde. London, England: Routledge.
• Kaiser, Susan B., Carla M. Freeman, and Joan L. Chandler. 1993. “Favorite Clothes and Gendered Subjectivities: Multiple Readings.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 15:27–50.
• Kaiser, Susan B., Richard H. Nagasawa, and Sandra S. Hutton. 1991. “Fashion, Postmodernity and Personal Appearance: A Symbolic Interactionist Formulation.” Symbolic Interaction 14:165–85.
• Kates, Steven M. and Charlene Goh. 2003. “Brand Morphing: Implications for Advertising Theory and Practice.” Journal of Advertising 32:59–68.
• Kellner, Douglas. 1992. “Popular Culture and the Construction of Postmodern Identities.” Pp. 141–95 in Modernity and Identity, edited by S. Lash and J. Friedman. Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press.
• Kimle, Patricia A. and Mary L. Damhorst. 1997. “A Grounded Theory Model of the Ideal Business Image of Women.” Symbolic Interaction 20:45–68.
• Kingston, Paul W. 2000. The Classless Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1997. “Sociability with Objects: Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies.” Theory, Culture, and Society 14:1–30.
• Korzeniewicz, 1994. “Commodity Chains and Marketing Strategy: Nike and the Global Athletic Footwear Industry.” Pp. 247–65 in Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, edited by G. Gereffi and M. Korzeniewicz. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Kozinets, Robert A., John F. Sherry, Benet DeBerry-Spence, Adam Duhacheka, Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, and Diana Stormb. 2002. “Themed Flagship Brand Stores in the New Millennium: Theory, Practice, Prospects.” Journal of Retailing 78:17–29.
• Kozinets, Robert V., John F. Sherry Jr., Diana Storm, Adam Duhachek, Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, and Benet DeBerrySpence. 2004. “Ludic Agency and Retail Spectacle.” Journal of Consumer Research 31:658–72.
• Kumar, Krishan. 1995. From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society: New Theories of the Contemporary World. Cambridge, England: Blackwell.
• Lamont, Michèle. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Lamont, Michèle and Marcel Fournier. 1992. Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Lamont, Michele and Annette Lareau. 1988. “Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments.” Sociological Theory 6:153–68.
• Lamont, Michele and Virag Molnar. 2001. “How Blacks Use Consumption to Shape their Collective Identity.” Journal of Consumer Culture 1:31–45.
• Lamont, Michele, John Schmalzbauer, Maureen Waller, and Daniel Weber. 1996. “Cultural and Moral Boundaries in the United States: Structural Position, Geographic Location, and Lifestyle Explanations.” Poetics 24:31–56.
• Lash, Scott and John Urry. 1987. The End of Organized Capitalism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Lynd, Robert S. and Helen M. Lynd. 1937. Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
• Mangleburg, Tamara F., Patricia M. Doney, and Terry Bristol. 2004. “Shopping with Friends and Teens’ Susceptibility to Peer Influence.” Journal of Retailing 80:101–16.
• Marx, Karl. [1867] 1990. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. New York: Penguin Books.
• Mather, Charles. 1993. “Flexible Technology in the Clothing Industry: Some Evidence from Vancouver.” Canadian Geographer 37:40–47.
• Mauss, Marcel. 1954. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: Norton.
• McAlexander, James. H. 1991. “Divorce, the Disposition of the Relationship, and Everything.“ Advances in Consumer Research 18:43–48.
• McClure, Samuel M., Jian Li, Damon Tomlin, Kim S. Cypert, Latané M. Montague, and P. Read Montague. 2004. “Neural Correlates of Behavioral Preference for Culturally Familiar Drinks.” Neuron 44:379–87.
• McCracken, Grant D. 1988. Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• McGrath, Mary Ann, John F. Sherry, Jr., and Deborah D. Heisley. 1993. “An Ethnographic Study of an Urban Periodic Marketplace: Lessons from the Midville Farmer’s Market.” Journal of Retailing 69:280–319.
• McKendrick, Neil, John Brewer, and J. H. Plumb. 1982. The Birth of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of Eighteenth-Century England. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Merton, Robert K., Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. 1959. Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects. New York: Basic Books.
• Messinger, Paul. R. and Chakravarthi Narasimhan. 1995. “Has Power Shifted in the Grocery Channel?” Marketing Science 14:189–22.
• Miles, Steven. 1996. “The Cultural Capital of Consumption: Understanding ‘Postmodern’ Identities in a Cultural Context.” Culture & Psychology 2:139–58.
• Miller, Daniel. 1997. “Consumption and its Consequences.” Pp. 13–64 in Consumption and Everyday Life, edited by H. McKay. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Miller, Daniel. 1998. A Theory of Shopping. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Mills, C. W. 1951. White Collar; the American Middle Classes. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mills, C. W. 1953. “Introduction to the Mentor Edition.” Pp. vi–xix in Thorstein Veblen. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. New York: New American Library.
• Mintz, Sidney W. 1985. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Viking.
• Molotch, Harvey L. 2003. Where Stuff Comes from: How Toasters, Toilets, Cars, Computers, and Many Others Things Come to Be as They Are. New York: Routledge.
• Mu˘niz, Albert and Thomas C. O’Guinn. 2000. “Brand Communities.” Journal of Consumer Research 27:412–32.
• Murray, Robin. 1989. “Benetton Britain: The Economic Order.” Pp. 54–64 in New Times: The Changing Face of Politics in the 1990s, edited by S. Hall and M. Jacques. London, England: Lawrence and Wishart.
• Nelson, Joel I. 2001. “On Mass Distribution: A Case Study of Chain Stores in the Restaurant Industry.” Journal of Consumer Culture 1:119–38.
• Noyelle, Thierry J. 1987. Beyond Industrial Dualism: Market and Job Segmentation in the New Economy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• O’Guinn, Thomas C. and Ronald J. Faber. 1989. “Compulsive Buying: A Phenomenological Exploration.” Journal of Consumer Research 16:147–57.
• O’Guinn, Thomas C. and L. J. Shrum. 1997. “The Role of Television in the Construction of Consumer Reality.” Journal of Consumer Research 23:278–94.
• Otnes, Cele and Richard F. Beltramini. 1996. Gift Giving: A Research Anthology. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.
• Otnes, Cele and Tina M. Lowrey. 1993. “Till Debt Do Us Part: The Selection and Meaning of Artifacts in the American Wedding.” Advances in Consumer Research 20:325–29.
• Otnes, Cele and Elizabeth H. Pleck. 2003. Cinderella Dreams: The Allure of the Lavish Wedding. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Piore, Michael J. and Charles F. Sabel. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
• Postrel, Virginia I. 2003. The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness. New York: HarperCollins.
• Ratner, Rebecca K., Barbara E. Kahn, and Daniel Kahneman. 1999. “Choosing Less-Preferred Experiences for the Sake of Variety.” Journal of Consumer Research 26:1–15.
• Richardson, Jane and Alfred L. Kroeber. 1940. “Three Centuries of Women’s Dress Fashions: A Quantitative Analysis.” Anthropological Records 5:111–53.
• Ritzer, George. 1993. The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Ritzer, George. 1995. Expressing America: A Critique of the Global Credit Card Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Ritzer, George. 2005. Enchanting a Disenchanted World: Revolutionizing the Means of Consumption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Roy, Abhik. 1994. “Correlates of Mall Visit Frequency.” Journal of Retailing 70:139–61.
• Rubinstein, Ruth P. 1995. Dress Codes: Meanings and Messages in American Culture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Sahlins, Marshall D. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Schor, Juliet. 2000. Do Americans Shop Too Much? Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Schouten, John W. and James H. McAlexander. 1995. “Subcultures of Consumptions: An Ethnography of the New Bikers.” Journal of Consumer Research 22:43–61.
• Schwartz, Barry. 2004. “The Tyranny of Choice.” Scientific American 290:70–75.
• Sherry, John F., Jr., Robert V. Kozinets, Diana Storm, Adam Duhachek, Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, and Benet DeBerry-Spence. 2001. “Being in the Zone: Staging Retail Theater at ESPN Zone Chicago.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 30:465–510.
• Shields, Rob. 1992. “Spaces for the Subject of Consumption.” Pp. 1–20 in Lifestyle Shopping: The Subject of Consumption, edited by R. Shields. New York: Routledge.
• Shively, JoEllen. 1992. “Cowboys and Indians: Perceptions of Western Films among American Indians and Anglos.” American Sociological Review 57:725–34.
• Sieling, Mark, Brian Friedman, and Mark Dumas. 2001. “Labor Productivity in the Retail Trade Industry 1987–1999. Monthly Labor Review 124:3–14.
• Silver, Ira. 1996. “Role Transitions, Objects, and Identity.” Symbolic Interaction 19:1–20.
• Simmel, Georg. [1904] 1957. “Fashion.” American Journal of Sociology 62:541–58.
• Slater, Don. 2002. “Capturing Markets from the Economists.” Pp. 59–77 in Cultural Economy: Cultural Analysis and Commercial Life, edited by P. du Gay and M. Pryke. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Slater, Don and Fran Tonkiss. 2001. Market Society: Markets and Modern Social Theory. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
• Smelser, Neil J. 1988. The Handbook of Sociology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Solomon, Michael R. 1983. “The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research 10:319–29.
• Stillman, Todd. 2003. “McDonald’s in Question: The Limits of the Mass Market.” American Behavioral Scientist 47:107–18.
• Stone, Gregory P. 1962. “Appearances and the Self.” Pp. 86–118 in Human Behavior and Social Processes, edited by A. M. Rose. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
• Taplin, Ian M. 1995. “Flexible Production, Rigid Jobs: Lessons from the Clothing Industry.” Work and Occupations 22:412–38.
• Taplin, Ian M. 1996. “Rethinking Flexibility: The Case of the Apparel Industry.” Review of Social Economy 54:191–220.
• Thompson, Craig J. and Diana L. Haytko. 1997. “Speaking of Fashion: Consumers’ Uses of Fashion Discourses and the Appropriation of Countervailing Cultural Meanings.” Journal of Consumer Research 24:15–42.
• Thompson, Craig J. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. 1995. “Understanding the Socialized Body: A Poststructuralist Analysis of Consumers’ Self-Conceptions, Body Images, and Self-Care Practices.” Journal of Consumer Research 22:139–53.
• Thompson, Craig J. and Maura Troester. 2002. “Consumer Value Systems in the Age of Postmodern Fragmentation: The Case of the Natural Health Microculture.” Journal of Consumer Research 28:550–71.
• Titmuss, Richard M. 1971. The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Turner, Bryan S. and June Edmunds. 2002. “The Distaste of Taste: Bourdieu, Cultural Capital and the Australian Postwar Elite.” Journal of Consumer Culture 2:219–39.
• Twitchell, James B. 1999. Lead Us into Temptation: The Triumph of American Materialism. New York: Columbia University Press.
• S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2005. Consumer Expenditure Survey. Retrieved May 5, 2005. (www.bls.gov/cex/1991/ standard/multiyr.pdf and www.bls.gov/cex/2003/standard/ multiyr.pdf).
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1966. Census of Business 1963, vol. 1, Retail Trade–Summary Statistics, Part 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 2001. 1997 Economic Census: Retail Trade–Subject Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
• Vallas, Steven P. 1999. “Rethinking Post-Fordism: The Meaning of Workplace Flexibility.” Sociological Theory 17:68–101.
• Veblen, Thorstein. [1899] 1953. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. New York: New American Library.
• Wakefield, Kirk L. and Julie Baker. 1998. “Excitement at the Mall: Determinants and Effects on Shopping Response.” Journal of Retailing 74:515–39.
• Wakefield, Kirk L and J. Jeffrey Inman. 2003. “Situational Price Sensitivity: The Role of Consumption, Occasion, Social Context and Income.” Journal of Retailing 79:199–212.
• Wallendorf, Melanie. 2001. “Literally Literacy.” Journal of Consumer Research 27:505–11.
• Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric J. Arnould. 1988. “‘My Favorite Things’: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into Object Attachment, Possessiveness, and Social Linkage.” Journal of Consumer Research 14:531–47.
• Walsh, John P. 1993. Supermarkets Transformed: Understanding Organizational and Technological Innovations. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Warde, Alan. 2002a. “Production, Consumption, and ‘Cultural Economy.’” Pp. 185–200 in Cultural Economy: Cultural Analysis and Commercial Life, edited by P. du Gay, and M. Pryke. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Warde, Alan. 2002b. “Setting the Scene: Changing Conceptions of Consumption.” Pp. 10–24 in The Changing Consumer: Markets and Meanings, edited by S. Miles, A. Anderson, and K. Meethan. New York: Routledge.
• Warner, W. L. and Paul S. Lunt. 1941. The Social Life of a Modern Community. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
• Weber, Max. [1922] 1959. “Class, Status, and Party.” Pp. 180–95 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Wilk, Richard. 2001. “Consuming Morality.” Journal of Consumer Culture 1:245–60.
• Williams, Rosalind H. 1982. Dream Worlds: Mass Consumption in Late Nineteenth-Century France. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Williamson, Judith. 1978. Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising. London, England: Boyars.
• Wrigley, Neil. 1992. “Antitrust Regulation and the Restructuring of Grocery Retailing in Britain and the USA.” Environment and Planning 24:727–49.
• Zelizer, Viviana. 2005. “Culture and Consumption.” Pp. 332–353 in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, edited by N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Zimmer, Mary R. and Linda L. Golden. 1988. “Impressions of Retail Stores: A Content Analysis of Consumer Images.” Journal of Retailing 64:265–93.
• Zukin, Sharon. 2004. Point of Purchase: How Shopping Changed American Culture. New York: Routledge.
• Zukin, Sharon and Jennifer S. Maguire. 2004. “Consumers and Consumption.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:173–97.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER