This paper considers the ethical purchasing of what are described as conscious consumers. Conscious consumers present a complex mix of behaviors; while seeking ethical alternatives, other social and economic forces impact on their behavior such that positive ethical choices are not always made. We identify two areas of theory relevant to the conceptualization of such consumers, flexibility and dissonance theory. A study of nine participants identified as conscious consumers was undertaken. As anticipated the participants revealed a range of often contradictory behaviors regarding their ethical purchases. The relevance of flexibility and dissonance theory to their behavior is discussed

Carrigan, Marylyn

McEachern, Morven

Szmigin, Isabelle

English

McEachern, M

University of Birmingham Research Portal

Flexibility, dissonance and the Conscious Consumer

Open Research Online (The Open University)

Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputsFlexibility, Dissonance and the conscious consumerConference or Workshop ItemHow to cite:Szmigin, Isabelle; Carrigan, Marylyn and McEachern, Morven (2007). Flexibility, Dissonance and the consciousconsumer. In: European Association for Consumer Research, 11-14 Jul 2007, Milan, Italy.For guidance on citations see FAQs.c© 2007 The AuthorsVersion: Version of RecordLink(s) to article on publisher’s website:http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=13900Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.oro.open.ac.uk1 European Advances in Consumer ResearchVolume 8, © 2008Flexibility, Dissonance and the Conscious ConsumerIsabelle Szmigin, University of Birmingham, UKMarylyn Carrigan, University of Birmingham, UKMorven McEachern, University of Lancaster, UKEXTENDED ABSTRACTAlthough increasing attention has been given to ethical con-sumption (Devinney, et al 2006; McDonald et al. 2006; Shaw et al.2005; Szmigin and Carrigan 2005), less is known as to how suchdecisions are thought through. It is clear that ethical considerationsare entering consumer purchase decisions but there is still a ‘discon-nect between the issues consumers claim to care about’ and ‘theirpurchasing behavior’ (Belk, Devinney and Eckhardt 2005, 276).In this study we aim to develop the area of ethical consumptiontheory through an empirical study with consumers whose purchasesdo include ethical choices, identified here as conscious consumers.We consider two key areas of theory on which to present thisresearch, dissonance and flexibility, neither of which has beenexplored in the context of ethical consumption. The paper intro-duces the concept of the conscious consumer in opposition toprevious definitions of ethical consumers and voluntary simplifi-ers. It then considers the contribution made by existing theories ofconsumer decision making in helping to understand ethical con-sumption choices. Empirical research with nine conscious consum-ers is then explored and the applicability of the theory to theirbehavior considered. We conclude with a discussion of the issuesinvolved in the better integration and understanding of ethicaldecision making into peoples’ consumption lives.The conscious consumer is still ‘a work in progress’ (Siegle2006, 9). Their decisions centre around whether ‘to consume withsensitivity through selecting ethical alternatives’ (Szmigin andCarrigan 2005, 609), underpinned by complex attitudes, inclina-tions and lifestyle goals. Peattie (1999) suggests that the best wayto understand ethical consumerism is to view each individual’sconsumption as a series of transaction decisions that include deci-sions to engage or not in alternative consumption behavior. Whilethis moves the research into more uncertain and ambiguous terri-tory, emphasizing the plurality and diversity of each consumercreates the potential to take forward the debate on sustainableconsumption, and the conflicts and challenges it represents for themajority.Within the psychology and consumer behavior literature, alack of a conspicuous definition has resulted in the development ofa multi-dimensional construct that encompasses interrelated termssuch as trade-off analysis (Johnson 1974), contingent decisionbehavior (Payne 1982) and ‘adaptive decision-making’ (Payne,Bettman and Johnson 1993). Interactions with other related theoriesare also apparent, namely attitude-behavior consistency (Zanna,Olson and Favio 1981), brand-switching and variety-seeking be-havior (Bawa 1990). In the absence of a consumer-based definitionof the term, flexibility is described here as the inherent ability tochange, adapt and/or react to decision-making environments withlittle forfeiture of time, effort, cost or product performance.An important aspect of choice is that the consumer may betrading off quality, price and other factors with social or environ-mental concerns such as under what condition the product wasmade, or how far it traveled. This in turn may create dissonance. Amajor contribution to understanding dissonance in the area ofethical consumption comes from the self-consistency interpretationof dissonance (Aronson 1992). Here dissonance occurs when asituation creates inconsistency between the self-concept and be-havior. The importance of self-concept is also apparent in self-affirmation theory which suggests that dissonance is a consequenceof behavior which is counter to a person’s moral and global integrity(Steele, Spencer and Lynch 1993).In-depth interviews were conducted with nine consumers whoidentified themselves as regularly buying ethical products. Thethemes of flexibility and dissonance were not explicitly presentedin the research questions; at the interview stage we were interestedin asking about how and why participants shopped the way they didand the feelings they had about their shopping behavior. Theverbatim transcripts were interpreted using a translation of textapproach (Hirschmann and Holbrook 1992)The participants in this study reveal a mixture of behaviors andbeliefs about their ethical consumption. The awareness and desireto make, in the most part, informed and considered ethical choiceslead us to suggest that there are probably a substantial number ofpeople who are what we have termed conscious consumers. Whiletheir inconsistencies might be construed as flaws in their self-integrity, in fact, what we have termed their flexibility seems to helpthem manage the difficulties and problems of accommodating theirown and their families’ tastes, budgets and ethical concerns. Thetendency to rationalize the decisions we make is normal. Weexperience threats to our self-concepts and feel uncomfortable tothe extent that we believe we have made a less than optimal decision(Hosino-Browne et al. 2005). The participants did not need to seekself-affirming resources in response to a threat to their self-image.Indeed most willingly discussed their range of behaviors withoutrecourse to any justification. This may be because the nature of theparticipants as well educated, resourceful individuals reduced thethreat to their self integrity but research also shows that inconsis-tency between cognitions is not necessarily enough to arousedissonance especially where such inconsistency does not involveaversive consequences (Steele, Spencer and Lynch 1993). It mayalso be that the inconsistencies in behavior are not importantenough to create dissonance (Festinger 1957) and so there is nomotivation to minimize or even rationalize these choices. Studies incognitive dissonance have tended to be experimental in natureinvolving hypothetical situations whereas here consumers are re-counting their day-to-day activities and reflecting on them. Theconcept of flexibility offers an explanation to what may appear asinconsistencies between attitudes and behavior but which do notcreate dissonance problems that threaten the person’s self-integrity.While some were prepared to describe themselves as hypocrites,their reluctance to take what was referred to as the moral highground indicates a recognition of their own limitations but also anacceptance that integrating ethical considerations into their con-sumption behavior is a complex and flexible project.ReferencesAronson, Elliot (1992), “The Return of the Repressed: Disso-nance Theory makes a comeback”, Psychological Inquiry, 3,303-311.Bawa, Kapil (1990), “Modeling Inertia and Variety-SeekingTendencies in Brand Choice Behavior”, Marketing Science, 9(3), 263-278.Belk, Russell W., Timothy Devinney and Giana Eckhardt(2005), “Consumer ethics across cultures”, Consumption,Markets and Culture, 8(3) 275:2892 / Flexibility, Dissonance and the Conscious ConsumerDevinney, Timothy, Patrice Auger, Giana Eckhardt, and ThomasBirtchnell (2006), “The Other CSR”, Stanford SocialInnovation Review, Fall, 30:37.Festinger, Leon (1957), A theory of cognitive dissonance.Eanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Hirschmann, Elizabeth C., and Morris B. Holbrook (1992),Postmodern Consumer Research: the Study of Consumptionas Text Newbury Sage, CA.Hoshino-Browne, Etsuko, Adam S. Zanna, Steven J. Spencer,Mark P. Zanna, Shinobu Kitayama (2005), “On the CulturalGuises of Cognitive Dissonance: The case of Easterners andWesterners”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,89 (3), 294-310.Johnson, Richard M. (1974), “Trade-off Analysis of ConsumerValues”, Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (2), 121-127.McDonald, Seonaidh, Caroline. J. Oates, C. William Young,Kumju Hwang (2006), “Toward sustainable consumption:researching voluntary simplifiers”, Psychology and Market-ing, 23(6), 515-534.Payne, John W. (1982), “Contingent Decision Behavior”,Psychological Bulletin, 92 (2), 382-402.Payne, John W., James R. Bettman and Eric J. Johnson (1993),The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Peattie, Ken (1999), “Trappings versus substance in the greeningof marketing planning”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7,131-148Shaw, Deirdre, Emma Grehan, Edward Shiu, Louise Hassan, andJennifer Thomson (2005), “An exploration of the values inethical consumer decision making”, Journal of ConsumerBehaviour, 4(3), 185-200Siegle, Lucy (2006), “Where did it all go right?” The Observer,October 29, 4-9.Steele, Claude M. Steven. J. Spencer, and Michael Lynch,(1993), “Self-image resilience and dissonance: The role ofaffirmational resources” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 64, 885-896.Szmigin, Isabelle and Marylyn Carrigan (2005), “Exploring thedimensions of ethical consumption”, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol.7, ed. Karin M. Ekström and HeleneBrembeck, Duluth. MN: Association for Consumer Research,608-613.Zanna, Mark P., James M. Olson and Russell H. Fazio (1980),“Attitude-Behaviour Consistency: An Individual DifferencePerspective”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,38, 432-440.

Flexibility, Dissonance and the conscious consumer

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Birmingham Research Portal

University of Birmingham Research Portal

Open Research Online (The Open University)

Lancaster E-Prints