Refining the Tightness and Looseness Framework with a Consumer Lens

In their paper, Li, Gordon and Gelfand introduced the Tightness–Looseness (T–L) framework to the consumer domain, and offered several ideas on how this framework could be applied to consumer behavior. In this commentary, we examine the T–L framework through the consumer lens and discuss how the uniqueness of the consumption context can refine and broaden this psychological framework. We identify four questions that aim to enrich our discussion of this framework from the perspective of consumer research, and to motivate future research questions. Specifically, we consider 1) how the interplay between the tightness/looseness of a culture and its effect on consumer behavior can be a bi‐directional relationship, 2) how variances in T–L in different consumption subcultures and aspects of society (e.g., economic, political) can impact consumer behavior, 3) how the examination of T–L at different stages in the consumption process is a relevant and important question to consider, and 4) how T–L may contribute to further investigation and understanding of punishment toward business and consumer norm violators

When Imitation Doesn’t Flatter: The Role of Consumer Distinctiveness in Responses to Mimicry

In a series of four experiments, the authors examine the implications of one consumer’s possession being mimicked by another consumer. The results demonstrate that when distinctiveness concerns are heightened, greater dissociation responses (i.e., possession disposal intentions, recustomization behaviors, and exchange behaviors) arise in response to being mimicked by a similar as opposed to dissimilar other. These effects are driven by threats to distinctiveness. Finally, these effects are mitigated when the imitated possession is nonsymbolic in nature and when a low degree of effort is exerted to initially obtain the possession. Implications for marketers and consumers are discussed.

Stigma by Association in Coupon Redemption: Looking Cheap because of Others

The present research establishes that the innocuous behavior of coupon redemption is capable of eliciting stigma by association. The general finding across four studies shows that the coupon redemption behavior of one consumer results in a second non-coupon-redeeming shopper being stigmatized by association as cheap when a low as compared to a high value coupon is redeemed. More important, the research identifies a number of factors that protect a non-coupon-redeeming shopper from the undesirable experience of stigma by association, even during another shopper's redemption of a low value coupon. (c) 2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Dissociative versus Associative Responses to Social Identity Threat: The Role of Consumer Self-Construal

The current research examines the conditions under which consumers demonstrate associative versus dissociative responses to identity-linked products as a consequence of a social identity threat. Across four studies, the authors test the notion that reactions to social identity threat may be moderated by self-construal by examining subcultural differences in ethnic background, priming self-construal, and investigating cross-national differences in cultural background. Those with more independent self-construals tend to avoid identity-linked products when that identity is threatened versus not threatened. Those with more interdependent self-construals, in contrast, demonstrate more positive preferences for identity-linked products when that aspect of social identity is threatened. These effects arise because, while independents are motivated to restore positive self-worth when a social identity is threatened, interdependents access a repertoire of social identities to fulfill belongingness needs when threatened

The Recycled Self: Consumers\u27 Disposal Decisions of Identity-Linked Products

It has been known for some time that consumers\u27 identities influence purchasing decisions and people form strong identity connections, or links, with products and brands. However, research has yet to determine whether identity-linked products are differentially treated at disposal in comparison to products that are not identity linked. Across seven studies, the current research shows that when an everyday product (e.g., paper, cups, aluminum cans) is linked to a consumer\u27s identity, it is less likely to be trashed and more likely to be recycled. Further, the tendency to recycle an identity-linked product increases with the strength and positivity of the connection between the consumer and product (or brand). Finally, the disposal behavior can be explained by consumers\u27 motivation to avoid trashing a product that is linked to the self because it is viewed as an identity threat. In sum, consumers will be more likely to recycle (rather than trash) a product if the product is linked to a consumer\u27s identity. This occurs because placing an identity-linked product in the trash is symbolically similar to trashing a part of the self, a situation consumers are motivated to avoid

Trash or Recycle? How Product Distortion Leads to Categorization Error During Disposal

Much of what ends up in our landfills is recyclable material, exposing the urgent need to understand the psychological processes behind recycling behavior. Results from four studies suggest that consumers often trash well-known recyclable products due to the product being erroneously categorized as trash after it has been distorted (e.g., paper after it has been cut, torn, or crumpled). However, this categorization error can be somewhat mitigated by the presence of signage depicting the different distorted forms the recyclable product can take. Through prompting, consumers are able to correctly categorize a recyclable product when disposing of it, regardless of the level of distortion. These results provide an explanation for, and potential solution to, the issue of recyclable materials making their way into our landfills every day

Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interpersonal Exchange of Consumption Information

Article deposited according to publisher policy posted on SHERPA/ROMEO, 01/21/2011.Four experiments demonstrate that self-threatening social comparison information motivates consumers to lie. Factors related to self-threat, including relevance of the social comparison target (i.e., the importance of the comparison person), comparison discrepancy (i.e., the magnitude of the performance difference), comparison direction (i.e., whether one performs better or worse), nature of the information (i.e., whether the comparison is social or objective), and perceived attainability (i.e., the possibility of achieving the compared performance), influenced consumers' willingness to engage in deception. Results extend social comparison theory by demonstrating that comparisons that threaten public and private selves have implications for lying behaviors.Ye