The Social Norms of Discrete Consumer Exchange

Abstract

Social norms have been recognized as an important influence in long‐term relational exchange between firms. It is here argued that social norms are equally important in short‐term discrete exchange that takes place between firms and consumers. The norms of consumer exchange are, however, of a different kind. To clarify the difference, a classification system is presented. Based on the classification, the social norms of discrete consumer exchange are defined and a method of quantifying these norms is proposed. This method should help in the ongoing effort to understand how the social macro‐environment influences individual behavior in dyadic exchange.Gundlach, Achrol, and Mentzer (1995)) note a recent shift in the marketing research paradigm toward a concern for the social determinants of economic exchange behavior. As they point out, this shift requires the analysis of often ambiguous concepts. One of these concepts is that of the social norm. Marketing researchers have recognized that social norms are a valuable explanatory variable. Their influence has been depicted in marketing models (e.g., Bagozzi 1978: Kalapurakal. Urbany, and Dickson 1992), tested in relational exchanges (e.g., Dant and Schul 1992; Heide and John 1992; Kaufmann and Stern 1988), and cited in the marketing orientation literature (e.g. Hurley and Hull 1998: Slater and Narver 1995).The focus here is on the social norms of economic exchange, a subset of the social norms of a given society. In economic exchange, the investigation of social norms has considered primarily the norms of long‐term, relational transactions common in inter‐firm exchange. Little‐research has considered the social norms of the more short‐term, discrete transactions common in exchanges between businesses and consumers. However, Kaufmann and Stern (1988: 535) suggest that norms “exist in all exchange behavior, from very discrete transactions to highly relational exchange.”The identification of the social norms of discrete consumer exchange is important to the understanding of the social structure of markets. On a practical level, it also helps marketers minimize consumer hostility. For example, consumers were outraged when Merck distributed its AIDS drug through a channel that charged a 37% markup (Wall Street Journal,May 7, 1996: B1). Merck did not consider the social norms that evidently sanction a 300% markup by consulting firms but not a 37% markup by distributors of pharmaceuticals. To avoid such blundering infractions of social norms. it behooves sellers to understand the social norms of discrete consumer exchange.

On the importance of complaint handling design: a multi-level analysis of the impact in specific complaint situations

“…In summary, we predict: (Homans 1961;Folger and Greenberg 1985;Walster, Berscheid, and Walster 1973). For example, a customer's socialization process advances with age so that social norms and standards become increasingly internalized, fostering the development of fairness perceptions (Jasso 1980;Maxwell 1999). Also, with age a customer gains experience with buying problems and complaint situations (Phillips and Sternthal 1977).…”

Consumer Reactions to CSR: A Brazilian Perspective

“…Consumer Reactions to CSR motives and causes underlying the price increase, through their own inferences and/or based on information provided by the marketer (Campbell, 1999a, b;Maxwell, 1995Maxwell, , 1999Vaidyanathan and Aggarwal, 2003). Notably, when consumers conclude that a higher price is motivated by a positive and ''justifiable'' reason (e.g., to fund CSR efforts; Mohr and Webb, 2005), they perceived the higher price to be significantly less unfair than when they conclude that the company has a negative and ''unjustifiable'' reason for the higher price (e.g., profit).…”

The Actor: The Key Determinator in Service Ecosystems

“…Once institutions are established, they tend to endure and resist change-even in the face of disconfirming information. When a structure is stable, institutions reflect actual practices; if a structure is unstable, institutions and actions are at odds and one or the other must change [83]. However, actors can break, make, or maintain institutions over time, particularly if social forces change [84].…”