Consumption Restriction in a Total Control Institution: Participatory Action Research in a Maximum Security Prison

Abstract

The marketing and public policy field has a long history of examining consumer decision making under conditions of abundance, but less effort has been dedicated to learning about restrictions to choice, especially as imposed by institutional forces. To help fill this gap in the literature, the authors offer an ethnographic investigation of a maximum security prison conducted over an 18-month period using participatory action research. This environment is a total control institution where depersonalization and commoditization of the 4,000 men in its charge regularly occur. The findings reveal a complex relationship between these processes and various psychological reactions and resulting behaviors that are acted out within and outside the prison's licit and illicit marketplaces. The article closes with a discussion of theoretical implications of consumer constraint and a presentation of public policy implications.

Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being outcomes from co-creation roles: a study of vulnerable customers

“…Extant marketing studies explore the discrimination faced by vulnerable customers (e.g. Bone, Christensen and Williams, 2014;Hill, Rapp and Capella, 2015), but few have addressed how vulnerable customers derive value outcomes from their interactions with organisations (Piacentini, Hibbert and Hogg, 2014) . While Larson and Bock (2016) found that mental health customers who were satisfied with their treatment had enhanced well-being, little explanation was provided for how this was achieved through the treatment regime.…”

Relevance, responsibility, critical performativity, testimony and positive marketing: contributing to marketing theory, thought and practice

“…Archetypally, critical performativity is enabled by first determining matters of interest to the research co-participants whether this is the managerial community, non-profit sector or the wider public (cf. Hill et al, 2015). These topics have to speak to the academic competencies of the people involved.…”

“…It was pursued with amoral vigour as a function of 'investor pressure' (Oldani, 2016) which had extremely deleterious effects on those who served as guinea pigs for the clinical trial or who later consumed it in the U.S. when the company knew about the side-effects. This focus on profit leads companies to make many questionable decisions and choices (see also Hill et al, 2015;Puchan, 2001).…”

“…For obvious reasons, critical academics tend to avoid helping business operate more effectively in order to please shareholders. They are more active in terms of article publication, book writing, social media engagement, public speaking, film production and aspire to engagement with public policy makers, non-profit and Non-Governmental-Organisations (Hill et al, 2015;Tadajewski, 2010). Critical performativity is another route to impact, relevance and engagement that has attracted the attention of this part of our community.…”

Preference for free or forced choice in Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii)

“…Results suggests that choice, or even the illusion of choice, has affective, cognitive, motivational, behavioral, and physiological benefits (Greenberger, Strasser, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989;Iyengar & Lepper, 2000;Lonsdorf, Ross, Matsuzawa, & Goodall, 2010;Winocur, Moscovitch, & Freedman, 1987;Zukerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978). As a corollary, there is evidence that an external locus of control and lack of free choice can be detrimental (Benassi, Sweeney, & Dufour, 1988;Goodstein, MacKenzie, & Shotland, 1984;Hill, Rapp, Capella, & the Gramercy Gentlemen, 2015;Mineka & Hendersen, 1985;Moore & Cox, 1988;Roddenberry & Renk, 2010;Ruback, Carr, & Hopper, 1986). In fact, human preference for choice is so strong that it does not appear to be contingent on reward outcomes.…”