Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Consumer Symbolism

    Încărcat de

    Dante Edwards
    13 vizualizări14 pagini
    Artigo de comportamento do consumidor

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Artigo de comportamento do consumidor

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    13 vizualizări14 pagini

    Consumer Symbolism

    Încărcat de

    Dante Edwards
    Artigo de comportamento do consumidor

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 14
    Developmental Recognition of Consumption Symbolism RUSSELL W. BELK KENNETH D. BAHN ROBERT N. MAYER* Communicating through consumption choices involves decoding information ‘about others based upon cbservations of ther consumption behavior. Using pho- togrephs of automobiles and houses, the abiliy to recognize consumption sym. bolism is examined in six age groups and compared between males/females and “higher” Flower" social-cass subjects. Grade schoolis found tobe the time during which most consumption decoding skis ae attained. ferhaps one of the strongest and most culturally uni- versal phenomena inspired by consumer behavior isthe tendency to make inferences about others based on their choices of consumption objects. This phenomenon has cer- ‘ain potentially negative consequences in that it may involve prejudicial stereotyping and superficial interpersonal re- sponse criteria. On the other hand, this tendency is also a part of the processes that allow us to communicate non- verbally and to achieve the satisfaction of self-expression through consumption. From either perspective, the ten- dency to make consumption-based inferences is a phenom- {enon worthy of mote attention than it has recently received in consumer research. For children as well as for adults, the major souces of information about the ““language™ of expressive consump- tion are media, family, schools. and peers. Because insti- tutions have some discretion in teaching children the lan- guage of consumption symbols, it is important to study the developmental attainment of consumption symbolism among children. This was Ward's point in observing that “one needs to understand how children acquire attitudes about the ‘social significance’ of goods, or more precisely, how people lear to perceive that the acquisition of some kinds of products or brands of goods can be instrumental to successful social role enactment” (1974, p. 3). ‘The present paper addresses this problem through a cross- sectional investigation of the development of consumption stereotypes involving selected automobiles and houses. ‘Russell W. Belk is Professor of Marketing, Kenneth D. Bahn is 8 octoral student in marketing, and Robert N. Mayers Assistant Professor ‘of Family and Consumer Studies, all atthe University of Uah, Salt Lake (City, UT 84112, The authors would like to thank Professor Amy Driscoll, ‘Michael Waren, and Susan Bahn for their help in data collection, Children and adolescents were examined in four age ‘eroups, from four through 14 years old. Inferences about the owners of the same consumption stimuli were measured among college students and among older adults to provide bases of comparison. These data are examined for devel- ‘opmental trends, with some further attention to the effects ‘of gender and social class. PRIOR RESEARCH Consumption Encoding ‘A focus on the decoding of consumption cues presumes that there is meaning present in the consumption patterns of others. If people have no intent to communicate by en- ‘coding messages about self through their consumption se- lections, there is less reason to examine the effects ofthese selections on impressions formed by observers. However, evidence suggests that people do express themselves through consumption. It appears that people see their possessions as a part of or an extension of themselves (Secord 1968). In a study in which Prelinger (1959) asked subjects to sort 160 concepts representing eight conceptual categories into groups rep- resenting “self” and “*non-self,”” the 20 items representing possessions and productions were placed predominantly in the “self” category. The only conceptual categories judged to be even more clearly “self” were body parts, psycho- logicaVintraorganismic processes, and personal identifying characteristics and attributes. Examining the relationship between self and consump- tion through the congruence of self-images and images of ‘owned or desired products has revealed a number of product categories in which there is significant image congruence. ‘These include the following: {© JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH # Vo. 96 Jone 1982 RECOGNITION OF CONSUMPTION SYMBOLISM. 1. Automobiles (Birdwell 1968; French and Glaschner 1971; Green, Maheshwari, and Rao 1969; Grubb and Hupp 1968; Grubb and Stem 1971; Hughes and Guer- ero 1971; Hughes and Naert 1970; Jacobson and Kos- soff 1963; Maheshwari 1974; Munson, 1973; Munson and Spivey 1980; Ross 1971; Sirgy 1980) 2. Health, grooming, and cleaning products (Belch and Landon 1977; Delozier and Tillman 1972; Dolich 1969; French and Glaschner 1971; Gentry, Doering, and (O'Brien 1978; Landon 1974) 3. Beer (Belch 1977; Dolich 1969: ‘O'Brien 1978; Landon 1974) 4, Leisure products and activities (Belen 1977; Gentry, Doering, and O'Brien 1978; Landon 1974; Munson 1973; Munson and Spivey 1980) 5.,Clothing and accessories (French and Glaschner 1971; Gentry, Doering and O°Brien 1978; Munson 1973) 6, Retail store patronage (Bellenger, Steinberg, and Stan- ‘on 1976; Dornaff and Tatham 1972; Mason and Mayer 1970; Stern, Bush, and Hair 1977) 1. Food products (Belch 1977: Landon 1974) 8. Cigarettes (Dolich 1969; entry, Doering, and entry, Doering, and O'Brien 1978) 9. Home appliances (French and Glaschner 1971; Landon 1974) 10, Magazines (Ross 1971; Sirgy 1980) M1, Home ond home furnishings (French and Glaschner 1971; Landon 1974) In some of these studies, the consumption images that ‘were compared to self-images were for the product category as a whole (e.g., beer), while in other studies. brand image data were employed (€.g., Ladies Home Journal). In both types of studies. it appears that individuals do prefer prod- ucts with images more similar to their images of them- selves." Porter (1966) was able to obtain support for many ‘of these findings in consumption patterns of three groups, with differing self-concepts: business people, occupation- oriented professors, and non-occupation-oriented profes- sors. Martin (1973) also found distinctive consumption preferences for a number of self-concept groups. ‘Another line of evidence concerning the intentional en- coding of messages about self in product selections is found in the literature comparing sex-role self-concept to prefer- ences for products differing in their perceived gender ap- propriateness (Allison et al. 1980; Fry 1971; Gentry and "in many ofthese studies, iti impossible wo dsinguish this interpre ‘ation from an alteative explanation: that individuals deseribe the prod- ‘bes they buy (fr whatever reason) as being most ike themselves or even ‘change ther selfconceps to create reser congruence Evans 1968). Fur Tremor, while these stodies provide generally consistent evidences of congruchce between self-image and images of desited products the ladonship is not slays «song one 5 Doering 1977; Golden, Allison, and Clee 1979; Mortis and ‘Cundiff 1971; Vitz and Johnston 1965). This research sup- ports the idea that peoples’ concept of their own masculin- ity, femininity, or psychological androgyny? affect both their perceptions of the sex typing of an array of products and their tendency to use these products. Although generally less empirically based, the observa tions of Veblen (1899) and others (e.g., Donleavy 1975; Goffman 1951; Form and Stone 1957; Hayakawa 1953; Lasch 1979; Packard 1959; Simmel 1957; Steiner and ‘Weiss 1951) concerning conspicuous consumption also re- flect the intended communication role played by certain ‘consumption decisions. However, while conspicuous con- sumption and status messages are a part ofthe present view of consumption symbolism, consumption messages may be encoded for any purchase selection of which others may become aware, and the intended message may involve any aspect of self-concept. This broader conceptualization of the role of consumption in encoding messages about self ‘was recognized in the work of Goffman (1959), Levy (1959), and Newman (1957). Thus, there is @ long history ‘of evidence and observation establishing the fact that we attempt to encode messages about ourselves through at least some of our consumption selections. The evidence is not strong enough to conclude that symbolic considerations are the main determinants of these selections, but such mes- sages about self at least appear to be an important consid- eration in a variety of consumption choices. Consumption Decoding Although there is consistent evidence that we also utilize the consumption cues of others in forming impressions of these people,” the ability of consumption objects to clearly communicated status messages has been challenged in re- cent years. Noting the decline in material scarcity in post- industrial Societies, Blumberg (1974, 1980) argued that sta- tus symbols are rapidly disappearing in the face of abundance. A similar conclusion that status symbols will disappear is based on a nearly opposite premise—i-., that key material resources are dwindling, and that as this hap- pens, people will adopt simpler lifestyles that are devoid of status symbols (Elgin and Mitchell 1977; Gronheug and Ogaard forthcoming; Inglehart 1977; Leonard-Barton and Rogers 1980; Sharma 1981; Valaskakis etal. 1979) Felson (1976) showed empirically that, over a 40-year period, the covariance among living room objects that had ‘once clearly communicated social status showed a signifi- ceant decline. In another study, Felson (1978) asked people to judge the status of fellow Chicago residents based on a description of their automobile (e.g., Ford LTD versus ‘This is defined as possessing both postive masculine and postive fem Inige walt simultaneoosly (Bem 1974). “For a more erica review of ths erature, see Wackman (1973) and Holman (19810) Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved 6 Plymouth Fury), their choice of clothing store (e.g., Sears versus Marshall Fields), and the suburb in which they re- sided (€.g., Oakbrook versus Park Ridge). Because Felson obtained an average of 23 percent “don’t know" responses to these status questions, he announced the ‘discovery that ‘material lifestyles may serve more to mask than to transmit ‘material inequalities in the United States"? (Felson 1979), While Felson’s choice of consumption objects and manner of presenting them may be questioned (Belk, Mayer, and Bahn forthcoming; Holman 1981a; Semon 1979), the pos- sibility remains that status symbols have declined in sig- nificance or at least have changed (U.S. News and World Report 1979, 1981) since the era when Riesman and Rose- ‘borough (1955) described the ‘standard package" of goods and services to which all but @ few among middle class ‘Americans aspired. Whether or not consumption communicates status as clearly as was once the case, itis clear that there are still ‘a number of inferences about people which are affected by the goods and services that they presumably have selected. ‘The most heavily researched of these cues is clothing. It has been found to affect reactions to people in a number of ways.t including judgments of status (¢.g.. Douty 1963: Lasswell and Parshall 1961; Rosencranz 1962), personality (€.g.. Hamid 1968; Gibbons and Schneider 1980), demo- ‘graphic and lifestyle characteristics (e.g.,. Douty 1962; Gib- bons and Hanson 1969), attractiveness (Hamid 1972: Hol- ‘man 1980), and attitudes toward social issues (Buckley and Roach 1974; Triandis, Loh and Levin 1966; Thomas 1973). In addition, observations have shown that subjects behave differently toward others depending upon the clothing the others are wearing (Bickman 1971; Darley and Cooper 1972; Lefkowitz, Blake, and Mouton 1955; Suedfeld, Bochner, and Matas 1971; Wise 1974). In addition to clothing, several other products that affect personal appearance have been found to influence person perception. These products include eyeglasses (Argyle and McHenry 1971; Hamid 1972; Manz and Lueck 1968: ‘Thomton 1944), cosmetics (Belk 1978; McKeachie 1952; ‘Sommers 1964), and personal care products such as deo- dorants (Calder and Burnkrant 1977;° Munson and Spivey 1981). A person's choice of beauty services and styles of grooming also affect appearance and have been found to affect other people's impressions (Belk 1978; Haley and Hendrickson 1974; Peterson and Curran 1976; Wax 1957). Products and services that affect personal appearance are far from being the only consumption decisions that are per- ceived as conveying information about a person. Choice of alcoholic beverages and recreational drugs are two other areas of consumption found to affect person perception (Belk 1980; Woodside 1972; Woodside, Bearden, and Ron- “There have been over toe dozen ses of clothing sjmboliam, See Holman (1980, 19816) fr eral review of this work Sin this study of deodorants, diflereces in impression formation were ‘bsained by describing the stimulus person a using diferent Brands, even thogh its unclear tat this information would normally be available 10 an obeerve, ‘THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH kainen 1977). Starting with Haire's (1950) classic study of the differences in images of regular and instant coffee users, ‘a number of studies have given new meaning to the phrase, “you are what you eat,"" by finding systematic effects of food and restaurant choices on impression formation (An- derson 1978; Belk 1978; Hill 1968; Holbrook and Hughes 1978; Orpen and Chase’ 1976; Reid and Buchanan 1979; Sadalla and Burroughs 1981; Sommers 1964; Webster and ‘Von Pechman 1970; Westfall, Boyd, and Campbell 1957). Despite Evans" (1959) failure to find striking differences, in Ford and Chevrolet buyers, a number of studies show distinctive attributions are made to the owners of different types of automobiles (Belk, Mayer, and Bahn, forthcoming; Doob and Gross 1968; Green and Wind 1973; Grubb and Hupp 1968; King and King 1980a, 1980b; Munson and Spivey 1981; Wells et al. 1957). The findings of these studies may not contradict those of Evans (1959) or those cited earlier by Felson (1978). The reason is that they use more distinctive types of automobiles for which demo- ‘praphic and personality differences among owners do exist (Ferber 1962; Katona 1964; Porter 1966). Make and model as well as age and condition of automobile differ among different types of owners (Rainwater 1974). Though auto- mobile ownership is rather ubiquitous in the United States,® purchases of new automobiles and of second automobiles rise strongly with family incomes (Katona 1964). At least during the 1970s, foreign versus domestic automobile own- ership also differed across buyer segments, with university professors leading the way in foreign car ownership (Bruce- Biggs 1977). And Harper's (1978) noted that it was once a chic protest against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War to drive a Swedish-made Volvo because the Swedish gov- emment was vocally criticizing U.S. involvement at that time. So it appears that automobiles are capable of con- veying various messages about their owners. Housing and home furnishings have also been found to affect person perception. While Felson (1978) investigated differences in perceptions of people living in different sub- turbs, smaller neighborhood units as well as cues concerning size, location, condition, and cost of housing seem more telling (Coleman and Rainwater 1978; Katona 19¢ water 1974), When style of residence is added, inferences 20 beyond demographic insights to impressions of the per- sonality and lifestyle of the resident (Belk, Mayer, and Bahn, forthcoming; Cooper 1974; Vershure, Magel, and Sadalla 1977). ‘When home decoration and household furnishings are observed, a broad variety of person perceptions emerge (Cantor, West, and Wools 1974; Chapin 1935; Laumann, ‘and Hovse 1970; Sommers 1964). In fact, household fur- nishings have been used to obtain measures of social class (e.g.. Chapin 1928, 1932; Chapman and Sims 1925; Clark 1930; Davis 1956, Leahy 1936: McCormick 1930: Sewell 1943), although Felson’s work (1976) suggests that these ‘The most afuent percent of the U.S. population owns only 3 percent ofits auomoiles versus 60 percent inthe US.S.R. (Lebergot 1975), TOOT AM GC RECOGNITION OF CONSUMPTION SYMBOLISM scales do not age well. Nevertheless, houses and home furnishings still appear to be utilized in decoding a number ‘of messages about their owners Other product and service categories that have been found to affect person perception are various leisure prod- ucts and activities such as games, vacations, and sporting equipment (Belk 1978, 1980; Bishop and Ikeda 1970; Set- tle, Alreck, and Belch 1979; Sommers 1964), magazines (Munson and Spivey 1981; Sommers 1964), transportation choices and luggage (Belk 1978, 1980, 1981), retail store patronage (Calder and Burnkrant 1977), and cigarette smoking (Belk 1981; Larson and Silvette 1968). It may be ‘noted that each of the 11 consumption categories found to be utilized in message encoding has also been found to be utilized in decoding messages about consumers. Belk (1981) used associational and experimental methodologies to attempt to isolate the product and service category char- acteristics that tend to make such an item a useful cue in person perception. The properties found to be most influ- ‘ential in determining stimulus usefulness to inferences about personality and social class were cost, decision in- volvement, uniqueness of choice, variety of choices, and noticeability. Based upon these factors—and the additional considerations of desiring stimulus objects that are familiar to children and are able 10 be visually presented without the interfering stimuli of persons—automobiles and houses were selected for investigation in the present study. Children’s Perceptions of Consumption Symbolism While something is known about recognition of con- sumption symbolism among adults and about children's perceptions of people based on nonconsumption cues such as facial features and occupation (e.g., Dubin and Dubin 1965; Feldman and Ruble 1981; Guttentag and Longfellow 1978: Livesley and Bromley 1973; Peevers and Secord 1973; Rhine, Hill, and Wandruff 1967; Secord and Peevers 1974; Simmons and Rosenberg 1971; Yarrow and Campbell 1963), little research exists on children’s recognition of consumption symbolism. The research that does exist is ‘confined to stafus recognition studies by Jahoda (1959) in England, and by Estvan (Estvan 1952, 1958, 1965, 1966; Estvan and Estvan 1959) in the United States. In these studies, children were shown line drawings depicting com- posites of people and consumption objects, such as homes, furniture, and clothing. The children were then asked to perform matching tasks, such as placing differently dressed people or people displaying different emotions in the status- congruent settings; in the Estvan studies, they were also asked 10 tell a story about the pictures. Development of status symbol recognition was measured primarily a5 the ability of the 3- to 12-year-old children (6- to 9-year-old in the Jahoda study) to accurately perceive the status differ- centials implied by the composite of consumption objects and people in the drawings. (Because the stimuli were com- posites of people and various consumption objects, it is not possible to isolate those cues most responsible for the status inferences). Both studies found some ability to recognize status cues by the youngest children and a general increase in this ability with age. Estvan and Estvan (1959) reported that errors were almost equally common in the first and sixth grades, but that the errors by younger children ap- peared to be random or due to fixation on only a portion Of the stimuli. Errors by older children were more com- monly due to more complex interpretations of the scene and inappropriate associations with other knowledge. Jahoda (1959) reported that children of middle class par- cents were better able to recognize status congruity than children of working class parents. He also reported that girls were more sensitive to such cues in the higher social class while boys were more sensitive in the lower class. ‘Although he did not test for a gender by social class inter- action, Estvan (1952, 1965) also found girls and children of higher social class families to be better able to recognize and comprehend status differentials based on consumption scenes. The relationship between children’s social class and their ability to recognize status symbols was also supported by Stendler (1949). Hypotheses Little in the way of a theoretical perspective was offered in the studies of children’s perceptions of status symbols, but there are some theoretical perspectives which suggest that these status perception findings may generalize to in- ferences about other dimensions of person perception. Pi- aget (1926, 1928) concluded that preschool children do not commonly think about how people differ, but he did not hold that they are incapable of making such observations. Piaget (1954, 1969) later concluded that while children younger than four or five years of age have notions of cause and effect, only older children begin to make inferences about others based upon their actions. It is also consistent ‘with Piaget's theory that, as children develop from preop- crational intelligence (from about two to seven years old) to concrete operational intelligence (about seven to 11) and thence to formal operational intelligence, their judgments of others mature from simple and concrete to more complex and abstract. Watts (1944) and Ginsburg and Opper (1969) offer similar predictions based on the development of lan- ‘guage in children; they also present some evidence that preschool children commonly characterize others as simply “good” or “bad,"* with refinements occurring after this, age. Flavell (1974) also argues for preschoolers® ability to make person inferences, but suggests that the need to make such inferences does not occur until mid-elementary school age. From any of these perspectives, we may hypothesize that the tendency for children to draw inferences based on oth- cers’ consumption increases with age. It is less clear when this tendeney becomes developed, and whether consump- n-based stereotyping eventually declines with the per- ception of more complex determinants of consumption. “Applying the present automobile and house stimuli to adults, the authors (Belk, Mayer, and Bahn, forthcoming) Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved hhave previously reported greater stereotyping among col- lege students than among older adults (over 28 and not in ccollege). Based on this finding and the preceding argument, it was hypothesized that the extent of consumption-based stereotyping would increase with age, but only through col- lege. However, as Guttentag and Longfellow (1978) point ‘Out, the fact that a person perception is clear and consistent among @ group of children does not guarantee that the na- ture of their perceptions are the same as those of adults. Accordingly, the hypothesis regarding the nature of con: sumption stereotypes was that the similarity of each age ‘group's perceptions to those of the older adults would be ‘greater with each increment in age. ‘The Belk et al. study (forthcoming) with adults also re- vealed that males drew significantly stronger person inf ences for automobiles and houses than did females. This ‘was opposite to the majority of previous findings involving ‘both nonconsumption cues (Hall 1978) and consumption ‘cues (Belk 1978; Hamid 1972). This apparent contradi ‘was interpreted as being due to the fact that the automobiles, and houses used in the present study are more within the domain of the traditional male sex role. while the apparel and fashion goods used in the prior studies are more within the domain of the traditional female sex role. Since sex role socialization has been found to have effects on children as young as 20 months (Fein et al. 1975), the present study ‘also hypothesized that males would make stronger auto- ‘mobile and house-based person inferences than females. In addition to finding that adult males made stronger con- sumption-based inferences in general than adult females made, the Belk et al. study (forthcoming) found that this tendency was especially pronounced for judgments con- cceming the success (or status) of the stimulus person. This finding is consistent with several early studies that found that boys pay more attention to status indicators than do girls (Jersild, Markey. and Jersild 1933: Zeligs 1942; Cobb 1954). In Cobb's (1954) study of high school students’ wishes for themselves and their families, it was found that boys had more wishes than girls involving possessions and achievement while girls had more wishes than boys involv- ing family and social relationships. It has been suggested by others (Davis and Moore 1945; Mayer, Zussman, and ‘Stampf 1979: Simmons and Rosenberg 1971) that attention to status differentials is necessary to motivate those who would make the investment of time, money. and effort needed for personal career success. In spite of increasing career orientation by females, career success motivation still appears higher among males. Thus it was hypothesized that males would make clearer inferences about success based on the consumption cues to be presented. Some previous research and theorizing (Estvan 1952, 1965; Jahoda 1959; Davis and Moore 1945; Simmons and Rosenberg 1971) suggests that members of higher social classes should make stronger status inferences than mem- bers of lower social classes. This was not true of the adults discussed in the previous study (Belk, Mayer, and Bahn, forthcoming), but lower social class subjects did ascribe ‘ownership of the higher status houses and automobiles to luck, while the higher social class adults saw the same ‘THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH consumption profiles as representing the kinds of persons they aspired to be. Leahy (1981) also found that lower social class subjects were more apt to see fewer chances for success among poor persons. This is perhaps reflective of the greater fatalism and external locus of control often found among lower social classes (c.g, Herzog 1963; Ko- merovsky 1962; Lewis 1966). Again, both findings from the adult sample were hypothesized to occur among the children and adolescents in the present study. It was hy- pothesized that higher and lower social class subjects would not differ in the extent of their consumption-based stereo- typing and that lower social classes would be more likely to view higher status automobile and house owners as lucky, while higher social classes would be more likely to view them as people to be emulated. METHODOLOGY Selection of Consumption Objects To test the main hypothesis conceming developmental recognition of consumption symbolism and the secondary hypotheses concerning gender and social class effects, au- tomobiles and houses were chosen as the consumption cat- ‘egories of interest. To enhance realism, color photographs were chosen as the means of stimulus presentation. In order to select specific consumption objects, automobiles and hhouses were sought that were common enough to be within the subjects” range of experience and distinctive enough to evoke potentially distinct consumer images. No prior knowledge existed about what features of automobiles and houses would ensure distinct consumer images, but some (of the prior literature on determinants of social status (Cole- man and Rainwater 1978: Rainwater 1974) suggests that age, cost, size, and style are among these factors. However, in order to manipulate these features through selections of| existing automobiles and houses, it must be recognized that certain of these features covary. For houses, style and age as well as size and cost are not independent, so that only two dimensions could be manipulated. For automobiles, age (condition) and cost (current value) tend to covary. ‘Taken with size and style, this resulted in three independent dimensions. Besides seeking automobiles and houses that varied in these dimensions, an attempt was made to hold ‘other attributes of these objects (e.g., color) constant. All stimuli were presented in the form of paired com- parisons. In addition to isolating desired manipulations of stimulus properties, the paired comparison format allowed a task that could be performed by preschoolers as well as, adults. This task was to assign person descriptions to the ‘owner of one of the two objects in the pai ‘There were four automobiles selected to fit the research design: 1, A blue 1981 Chevrolet Chevette two-door sedan 2. A blue 1981 Chevrolet Caprice two-door coupe 3. A blue 1981 Chevrolet Camaro two-door coupe 4, A blue 1971 Chevrolet Camaro two-door coupe TODTGRTO DOT All Rights Reserved RECOGNITION OF CONSUMPTION SYMBOLISM With the cooperation of a local automobile dealer, each car was photographed with constant camera, lens, distance, lighting, angle, and composition (facing ieft). Each auto- mobile had white-wall ties, and paint shades were matched as closely as possible. In preparing the automobiles for testing, each was isolated on a white background. They ‘were then presented to the subjects in three pairs: 1, The first and second cars, differing in size” 2. The second and third cars, differing in stylet 4. The third and fourth cars, differing in age and cost” ‘The design called for three houses. Those selected were: 1. A large white Bauhaus style contemporary house 2. A large white Colonial style traditional house 3. A small white Colonial style traditional house Each house was photographed from comparable angles and the photos cropped to exclude the neighborhood but include some of the yard. No persons, cars, or other distractions were present in any of the photographs. The houses were presented in two pairs: 1. The first and second houses, difering in style and age 2. The second and third houses, differing in size and cost To verify that the intended manipulations for the auto mobiles and houses were achieved, a subset of 76 of the 170 college student subjects participating in the earlier phase of this research rated each stimulus individually after completing the paired comparisons task. As reported else- where (Belk, Mayer, and Bahn, forthcoming), the results confirmed that the stimuli to be paired were significantly different on the dimensions they were constructed to ma- nipulate, but had other differences,as well. An example of these unintended differences was thatthe older Camaro was perceived as less sporty and less costly to operate than the new Camaro. Such differences were judged to be unavoid- able, given that naturally occurring consumption objects hhave inextricably bound stimulus properties; they were also judged to be acceptable, given that the primary rationale was to provide subjects with stimuli that were Familiar and

    S-ar putea să vă placă și