Counter‐stereotypical products: Barriers to their adoption and strategies to overcome them

Abstract

Counter‐stereotypical products (CSPs) are targeted at groups that are opposite to the stereotypical users of these products (e.g., face‐cream for men, construction tools for women). Such products entail adoption barriers, as they are associated with a dissociative out‐group (e.g., men avoid products used by women). A theoretical framework is developed to investigate such barriers by outlining consumers’ cognitive and affective responses to CSPs; namely: stereotyping (CSP is considered appropriate only for the stereotypical user group), subtyping/subgrouping (CSP is useful for certain individuals or subgroups), and derogating (disparaging the CSP due to a perceived threat to self). Study 1 verifies these responses and demonstrates their effect on the evaluation of CSPs targeting men versus women. Overall, CSPs targeting men faced more barriers than those targeting women, and this was especially so for publicly consumed CSPs (e.g., purse for men) as compared to privately consumed ones (e.g., hair‐remover for men). Study 2 examined the effect of a common marketing tool—product design color (e.g., using blue for men and pink for women)—in reducing the above barriers. It was found that blue is effective in reducing stereotype‐based barriers for CSPs targeting men. For CSPs targeting women, using pink was only effective for women scoring high on femininity, and it backfired for those scoring low on femininity.

The green mate appeal: Men's pro‐environmental consumption is an honest signal of commitment to their partner

“…Men seem to be particularly resistant to purchase products that signal femininity to maintain their gender identity (Antonetti & Maklan, 2016; Avery, 2012; Brough et al, 2016; Gal & Wilkie, 2010; Gill & Lei, 2018; Morris & Cundiff, 1971; Pinna, 2019; White & Dahl, 2006). For example, Shang and Peloza (2016) showed that consumption of ethical alternatives communicates higher femininity to external observers, which could be threatening for male consumers.…”

“…2.2 | The negative impact of the feminine signal sent by green consumption on menʼs gender identity and mating desirability Some argue that this green-feminine stereotype could deter men from buying green products to protect their gender identity. Indeed, consumers sometimes choose products by copying a reference group, but they can also reject products by avoiding a dissociative group to maintain their identity (e.g., Bearden & Etzel, 1982;Gill & Lei, 2018;White & Dahl, 2006).…”

Benefits of heroes to coping with mortality threats by providing perceptions of personal power and reducing unhealthy compensatory consumption

“…Certain situations can challenge one's sense of meaning in life, resulting in an experience of a psychological threat (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002). Research in psychology and marketing shows that psychological threats such as stereotype threats (Gill & Lei, 2018;Steele & Aronson, 1995), threats to self-image (Gill & Lei, 2018;Thomas, Saenger, & Bock, 2017), threats to ego (Larson & Denton, 2014), and reminders of death (Heine et al, 2006) threaten one's sense of meaning in life.…”

Saving money or losing face? An international study on social stigmatization in discount stores

“…Similarly, consumers can alter their product preferences and choice behaviors to circumvent social identity threat, avoiding products associated with the threatening aspect of identity (White & Argo, 2009). In support of these findings and broadening the research on social identity threat and consumer behavior, Gill and Lei (2018) develop a theoretical framework covering consumers’ negative responses to products threatening their social identity.…”

“…These findings align with psychology research suggesting that individuals are motivated to avoid associating with marginal groups to maintain positive self‐worth (Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Doosje et al, 1995). Prior consumer behavior literature has closely examined the effects of social identity threat on consumer choices (Berger & Heath, 2008; Brough et al, 2016; Gill & Lei, 2018; White & Argo, 2009) and attitudes toward brands (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). For example, people avoid products associated with an out‐group to avoid signaling undesired identities (Berger & Heath, 2008) and tend to diverge from dissociative out‐groups to avoid social identity threat.…”