As consumers' political opinions become more divided and more central to their identities, it is important to understand how political ideology shapes consumers' attempts to differentiate from others in the marketplace. Seven studies demonstrate that political ideology systematically influences consumers' preferences for differentiation. Conservative ideology leads consumers to differentiate from others vertically in the social hierarchy through products that signal that they are better than others, and liberal ideology leads consumers to differentiate from others horizontally in the social hierarchy through products that signal that they are unique from others. This happens because conservatism endorses, and liberalism opposes, the belief that the dominance-based hierarchical social structure is a legitimate mechanism to distinguish individual qualities. The effect is robust across measured and manipulated ideology, hypothetical and real product choices, and online searches in conservative and liberal US states. Manipulating consumers' differentiation goals and perceptions of hierarchy legitimacy mitigates the effect. The findings advance existing research on political ideology, social hierarchy, and consumer divergence, and they contribute to marketing practice.
It is widely believed that increasing the equality of material possessions or income in a social group should lead people at the bottom of the distribution to consume less and save more. However, this prediction and its causal mechanism have never been studied experimentally. Five studies show that greater equality increases the satisfaction of those in the lowest tier of the distribution because it reduces the possession gap between what they have and what others have. However, greater equality also increases the position gains derived from status-enhancing consumption, since it allows low-tier consumers to get ahead of the higher proportion of consumers clustered in the middle tiers. As a result, greater equality reduces consumption when consumers focus on the narrower possession gap, but it increases consumption when they focus on the greater position gains (i.e., when consumption is conspicuous, social competition goals are primed, and the environment is competitive).
for their help with the data collection. Dominique Hanssens served as associate editor for this article. PIERRE CHANDON and NAILYA ORDABAYEVA* Understanding consumer response to product supersizing and downsizing is important for policy makers, consumer researchers, and marketers. In three laboratory experiments and two field studies, the authors find that changes in size appear smaller when packages and portions change in all three spatial dimensions-height, width, and length-than when they change in only one dimension. Specifically, they show that size estimations follow an inelastic power function of the actual size of the product, especially when all three spatial dimensions change simultaneously. As a result, consumers are more likely to supersize their orders when products change in one dimension and are more likely to downsize their orders when products change in three dimensions. When changing dosage, consumers pour more product into and out of conical containers (e.g., martini cocktail glasses, in which volume changes in three dimensions) than cylindrical containers (e.g., highball glasses, in which volume changes in one dimension). Finally, consumers expect (and marketers offer) steeper quantity discounts when products are supersized in three dimensions than when they are supersized in one dimension, regardless of whether size information is present.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.