European Journal of MarketingNegative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for self-esteem: The case of thefashion industryEmma N. Banister Margaret K. Hogg

Article information:To cite this document:Emma N. Banister Margaret K. Hogg, (2004),"Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive forself-esteem", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Iss 7 pp. 850 - 868Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560410539285

Downloaded on: 14 September 2015, At: 03:30 (PT)References: this document contains references to 74 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 12535 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Aron O'Cass, (2004),"Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences offashion clothing involvement", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Iss 7 pp. 869-882 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560410539294Martin Christopher, Robert Lowson, Helen Peck, (2004),"Creating agile supply chains in the fashionindustry", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 32 Iss 8 pp. 367-376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550410546188Martin Evans, (1989),"Consumer Behaviour towards Fashion", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 Iss 7pp. 7-16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000000575

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:431992 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Negative symbolic consumptionand consumers’ drive for

self-esteemThe case of the fashion industry

Emma N. BanisterLancaster University Management School, Lancaster, UK, and

Margaret K. HoggManchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK

Keywords Self esteem, Consumption, Product image, Fashion industry

Abstract Self-esteem is an important motivational drive for consumption involving both theacceptance and rejection/avoidance of symbolic goods. This paper examines the relationshipbetween self-esteem and the rejection of goods and brands within the context of fashionconsumption by young professionals. A conceptualisation which accounts for consumers’ use ofvarious strategies in their efforts to maintain or enhance their self-esteem is suggested. Asmall-scale exploratory study is used to examine first, how consumers invest products and brandswith negative symbolic meanings; and second, how this leads consumers to reject products andbrands. The importance of understanding negative symbolic consumption when marketing highinvolvement products such as fashion goods is identified; and the implications for fashion retailersand marketing management are discussed.

IntroductionThis paper explores the means by which young adult consumers use the negativesymbolic meanings invested in fashion products as a key to identity negotiation. Weinvestigate consumers’ need to balance autonomy and affiliation in their choices offashion, a market where consumers are defined as much by what they choose to rejectas by what they actively purchase and display. The pursuit of self-esteem isrecognised by marketing managers as one of the most important motivational driversof consumer behaviour and decision-making, and, therefore, consumers’ decisions areregularly made within the context of enhancing or protecting self-esteem, inrecognition of the value of the self (Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967). Consumers oftendecide whether to accept or reject products and brands on the basis of their symbolic(as opposed to the functional) attributes, investing items with either positive ornegative symbolic meanings. Despite considerable research into understanding howindividuals maintain or enhance their self-esteem by consuming the symbolicmeanings of products and brands, rather less attention has been directed towardsunderstanding why consumers reject products or brands for symbolic reasons (i.e.negative symbolic consumption) to protect their self-esteem. One reason for this isthat negative symbolic consumption leaves very few traces (Wilk, 1995, 1997).However, understanding why consumers reject products and brands is of centralconcern to marketing managers.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.em eraldinsight.com/res earchregister www.em eraldinsight .com/0309-0566. htm

EJM38,7

850

Received May 2003Revised October 2003

European Journal of MarketingVol. 38 No. 7, 2004pp. 850-868q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090560410539285

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Literature reviewThe literature review focuses on symbolic consumption; self-concept; self-esteem;image congruency (Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967); and self-discrepancy theory (Higginset al., 1994) incorporating the motivational effects of possible selves (Markus andNurius, 1986). We establish the importance of understanding the negative inferencesthat are associated with products and brands, often through the stereotypes associatedwith product-user imagery (Sirgy et al., 1997), and present a theoreticalconceptualisation of the potential relationship between rejected goods and negative(and thus rejected) aspects of consumers’ identities. Three research questions areidentified from this conceptualisation and will provide the focus for this paper. Firstly,how do consumers invest products and brands with (negative) symbolic meanings?Secondly, how do consumers use the rejection of products and brands to pursueself-esteem by seeking to satisfy two potentially oppositional motivational drives –social identification and social distinction (Simmel, 1904; Gronow, 1997, p. 77) orautonomy and affiliation? Thirdly, how can fashion marketers and retailers encompassan understanding of consumer motivational drives and negative symbolicconsumption in their integrated marketing strategies?

Symbolic consumptionMaterial objects are viewed as symbolic when individuals focus on meanings beyondtheir tangible, physical characteristics (Levy, 1959). Thus products are social tools,“serving as a means of communication between the individual and his significantreferences” (Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967, p. 24)[1]. We extend this argument toincorporate the relationship between negative symbolic meanings and consumers’pursuit of self-esteem in the social communication process. In order for consumerproducts and brands to function as communication symbols, meanings must besocially shared, and continuously produced and reproduced during social interactions(Dittmar, 1992). However, the meanings of objects are not always clear-cut (Ligas andCotte, 1999; Holt, 2002); nor necessarily always controlled by manufacturers andmarketers, as consumers can invest products and brands with either positive ornegative meanings (Sirgy et al., 1997). Products can therefore function as symbols ofindividuality and uniqueness (Hoyer and MacInnis, 1997), autonomy and socialdistinction (Simmel, 1904; Gronow, 1997); and also as symbols of affiliation and socialidentification. All these higher-order needs can be linked to the maintenance andenhancement of self-esteem.

Fashion and clothing were selected as the context for this study due to theirsymbolic properties and accessibility to most consumers. Clothing, defined here toinclude tangible and material objects connected to the human body (Kaiser, 1997),involves overt consumption behaviour that makes consumers’ tastes and valuesaccessible to others. Fashion can refer to the process by which styles are introduced toa public and accepted by that public (Sproles, 1979, p. 5, cited in Kaiser, 1997) and alsoa particular style that is accepted by a large group of people at a particular time(Kefgen and Touchie-Specht, 1986, cited in Kaiser, 1997). Gronow (1997) develops thisfurther to suggest fashion to be a socially valued or a “universal” standard of taste thatalso incorporates the singularity and subjectivity of individual tastes. Drawing onGeorg Simmel (1904), Gronow (1997) views fashion as satisfying two opposingfunctions – both social identification and distinction: “It is a socially acceptable and

Negativesymbolic

consumption

851

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

secure way to distinguish oneself from others and, at the same time, it satisfies theindividual’s need for social adaptation and imitation” (Gronow, 1997, p. 84). Murray(2002) emphasises the political nature of clothing as consumers make choices betweenparticular cultural perspectives – aligning themselves with some while resistingothers. Through a process of appearance management, individuals use clothing in theconstant negotiation of who they are (Kaiser et al., 1991) and who they are not (Freitaset al., 1997). Fashion brand managers and retailers position their designs and productswith a view to its political nature, appealing to certain consumer segments whileremaining distant from others. In this study we focus on consumers’ appearancemanagement, the style of clothing they wear, incorporating the activities and thoughtprocesses involved in the purchase and display of clothing items (Kaiser, 1997). We didnot specifically focus on fashion brands, as we were keen to identify those meaningsattributed by consumers, and much of the imagery associated with brands is generatedin the market place by marketing communications and advertising. However, brandingwas an important consideration for some consumers, particularly the maleparticipants.

Self-concept, self-esteem and self-consistencyMotives represent the disposition within an individual either to strive towards positiveincentives (goals), or to avoid negative incentives (threats) (Markus and Nurius, 1986).Two motives are central to the self-concept and image congruency theory (Grubb andGrathwohl, 1967): self-esteem and self-consistency (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 53). Self-esteemis the motive to seek experiences that enhance or protect the self-concept whereasself-consistency is the motive to behave consistently with our views of our selves.Self-esteem will be our primary concern for this study as it is strongly linked to theresponses of, and acceptance by, significant others and involves both approach andavoidance behaviours. Approach behaviours are associated with the maintenance andenhancement of individuals’ sense of self-esteem; whilst avoidance behaviours includeprotecting self-esteem by avoiding negative possibilities, represented by the negativepossible self or “dreaded self” (Power, 1997, p. 6). Attitudes play an important role inmaintaining and protecting self-esteem, encouraging consumers to distancethemselves from disliked products and brands (Shavitt, 1989; 1990). Themaintenance of self-esteem can be linked to the social identity function of socialadjustment (Shavitt, 1989, 1990; Greenwald, 1989), which is associated with thestrategic sense of public self (which includes avoiding negative evaluations fromsignificant others); and with the group sense of collective self (which seeks to meet thegoals of important “approach” reference groups, and also to avoid the goals ofimportant avoidance or rejected reference groups) (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, pp. 484-5).The maintenance of self-esteem involves the protection and enhancement of the senseof self, and also the avoidance of self-abasement by rejecting products with negativeimagery (Sirgy, 1982, pp. 289-90).

Self-images, product-images and congruency theoryImage congruency theory (Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967; Erickson and Sirgy, 1992;Kleine et al., 1993) provides an initial integrative framework (Figure 1) forunderstanding the potential relationships in symbolic consumption betweenproduct/brand meaning, consumers’ self-concepts and the audience. Under image

EJM38,7

852

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

congruency theory, individuals select products and brands that are congruent withparticular elements of their self-concept (actual or ideal) seeking self-consistency(Niedenthal et al., 1985).

Sirgy (1982) argued that congruency theory would also predict which products andbrands consumers would reject. Therefore, both approach and avoidance behaviourscould be identified in the pursuit of self-consistency in relation to self-esteem. Sirgy(1982) identified four different states of interaction between value-laden productimages and consumers’ self-perceptions: positive self-congruity and incongruity; andnegative self-congruity and incongruity (see Figure 2).

From a self-esteem perspective, under both negative self-incongruity and congruity,consumers will be motivated to reject negatively laden products in order to avoidself-abasement. In this paper we concentrate on negative self-incongruity, whichdescribes consumers with a positive self-image who are motivated to avoid or rejectnegatively valued products.

Self-regulatory systemThe self-regulatory system (Higgins et al., 1994) proposes that people will function withreference to either a desired (a positive reference value) or an undesired (a negativereference value) end state. Higgins et al.’s (1994) framework suggests there are twomeans by which the discrepancy between actual and desired states can be reduced(discrepancy reduction system) and also two means by which the discrepancy between

Figure 1.Relationship of the

consumption of goods assymbols to the

self-concept

Figure 2.The effects of self-esteem

on purchase motivation

Negativesymbolic

consumption

853

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

the actual and undesired end state can be amplified (discrepancy amplifying system).The differences between the four conditions (shown in Table I) lie in the focus forindividuals’ behaviour – whether the desired end state provides the main impetus forbehaviour (a positive drive) or whether this is provided by the undesired end state (anegative drive), although the two systems may lead to very similar behaviours

Both systems (i.e. a positive/promotion and a negative/prevention outcome focus)are context-driven and are relevant for most individuals at different times, yet one orthe other will be most prevalent or most often activated (Higgins et al., 1994).Individuals are viewed as selectively focusing on best or worst case outcomes for anevent or a situation, depending on whether they tend to adopt a best-case or worst caseperspective (Markus and Nurius, 1986) and seek to eliminate negative states, asopposed to the achievement or maintenance of positive states (Karniol and Ross, 1996).In order to gain a fuller picture of the motivational effects of end states, it is useful toconsider the motivational properties of possible selves, whereby outcomes becomepersonalised representations.

Possible selves, negative possible selves and user stereotypesWe extend Grubb and Grathwohl’s (1967) framework (Figure 1) to include the conceptof possible selves, which provides a way of considering the motivational socialadjustment functions of social identity, the rejected self and negative symbolicconsumption. Postmodernism has led many researchers to question the very notion ofthe self, with recent theories emphasising the need to incorporate multiple selves intoour understanding to appreciate its relational nature (Gergen, 1991). Kleine et al.’s(1993, p. 210) research challenges the notion of a global self and argues instead for amulti-layered or multi-dimensional self: “The significance of a product to consumersdepends on which of their ideas it enables and the importance of that identity – what itcontributes to their overall sense of self”. Possible selves incorporate this view of theself as a dynamic structure involving a multiplicity of selves (Cantor et al., 1986) or endstates. These selves provide consumers with goals, aspirations, motives, fears andthreats and the self-relevant information that individuals need to organise and givedirection to their lives (Markus and Nurius, 1986).

The motivational function of possible selves focuses on the encouragement ofapproach and avoidance behaviours perceived to be relevant to the possible self(Morgan, 1993). In addition, possible selves provide an evaluative and interpretivecontext for the current view of the self (Markus and Nurius, 1986). One of the keycontentions (Markus and Nurius, 1986) is that people are motivated to approachdesirable possible selves whilst also avoiding undesirable ones. Negative or rejected

Direction of meansValence of end state as a reference point

Desired (discrepancy reducing) Undesired (discrepancy amplifying)

Approach Approaching matches to desired endstates

Approaching mismatches to undesiredend states

Avoidance Avoiding mismatches to desired endstates

Avoiding matches to undesired endstates

Source: Higgins et al. (1994, p. 277)

Table I.Summary of regulatoryforms as a function ofvalence of end state as areference point anddirection of means

EJM38,7

854

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

possible selves, therefore, function as (dis)incentives for future behaviour, representingselves to be rejected or avoided (Markus and Nurius, 1986), and can include theundesired self (Ogilvie, 1987). Various aspects of negative and rejected selves can beconsidered to be important reference points or “implicit standards” used by individualsto assess how close or distant they are from being like their most negative images ofthemselves (Ogilvie, 1987; Eisenstadt and Leippe, 1994).

The symbolic meanings of products are often linked to stereotypes associated withthe personal images of the product-user (Sirgy et al., 1997). Stereotypes are: “Shorthandcategorisations of experience which are part of our shared understanding of the socialworld” (Jagger, 1998. p. 5) or “. . . sets of fixed ideas and beliefs held by members of oneor more groups about members of another group” (Tajfel and Fraser, 1978, p. 427); andare formed and maintained through a variety of cognitive and motivational processes(Hilton and Von Hippel, 1996). Product-user imagery is important in self-congruitytheory (Sirgy et al., 1997) and helps give shape and meaning to consumers’ possibleselves. Advertisers and marketing professionals use the notion of product user imageand congruency to position brands (Sirgy et al., 1997), creating “typical consumers” fortheir products through the use of role models in advertising. Individuals can alsoengage in self-stereotyping, which involves perceiving oneself to be a member of agroup and consequently behaving in line with this social identity (Biernat et al., 1996).Different identities – and therefore positive and negative stereotypes – will be salientat different times, and this will affect individuals’ behaviour in certain situations (Shihet al., 1999). Conformity to group norms will be largely dependent upon the relevantsocial identity that is salient at the time (Reicher and Hopkins, 1996).

Avoidance groups function as negative “anchors” for consumers (Englis andSolomon, 1995), and can be compared with Ogilvie’s (1987) undesired selves. “Outgroup” members are not only perceived as possessing less desirable traits than “ingroup” members, but are seen to be more homogeneous as well (see Hilton and VonHippel, 1996 and Haslam et al., 1996). A possible explanation for this could be thatpeople tend to know more in-group members, and have more information about “theirown”, and therefore are able to perceive them as heterogeneous, noticing subtledifferences. Negative stereotypes are considered to be particularly powerful.Motivational factors lead to the rapid confirmation yet the slow or begrudgingdisconfirmation of a negative expectancy (Hilton and Von Hippel, 1996)

ConceptualisationIn Figure 3 we present a conceptualisation that elaborates and extends Grubb andGrathwohl’s (1967) framework in a number of ways. Firstly, we extend “the audience”to include both approach and avoidance significant others or reference groups.Avoidance reference groups (or out groups) can function as threats, as consumersnegotiate their identities through the consumption of products and brands, rejectingthose products identified with negative imagery. They (avoidance groups) tend to beperceived in a more stereotypical and less accurate manner (Englis and Solomon, 1995,p. 11) and can generate “oppositional brand loyalty” which delineates what the brand isnot, and who the brand community members are not (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001).Secondly, we elaborate on the self-concept to include possible selves, capturing thesense of positive and negative selves and the associated positive and negativeself-imagery. Thirdly, we incorporate the protection and enhancement of the sense of

Negativesymbolic

consumption

855

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

self, and the avoidance of self-abasement (Sirgy, 1982) as key motivational drivers;linking these with Higgins et al.’s (1994) end states, to identify approach and avoidancebehaviours which can be associated with social distinction/autonomy; and socialidentification/affiliation.

The conceptualisation we present in Figure 3 does not represent a causal set ofconnections to be tested, but rather a series of analytic relationships (Miles andHuberman, 1994, p. 28) to be explored. Having recognised the importance ofunderstanding the negative inferences associated with products via user stereotypes,we can now identify three research questions: firstly, how do consumers investproducts and brands with negative symbolic meanings; secondly, how do consumersuse the rejection of products and brands to pursue and protect their self-esteem, whilstalso avoiding self-abasement; thirdly, how can fashion marketers and retailersencompass an understanding of consumer motivational drives and negative symbolicconsumption into their integrated marketing strategies?

MethodologyThis research was exploratory in nature and used qualitative methods – appropriatefor studies that focus on the constraints of the everyday social world (Denzin andLincoln, 1998). Qualitative methods usually feature richly descriptive accounts ofindividuals’ attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, views and feelings, and the meanings andinterpretations are combined into a framework (Hakim, 1994, p. 26). The emphasis ofqualitative data on people’s “lived experience” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 10)makes it particularly useful for exploring new research areas such as negativesymbolic consumption.

SampleQualitative research typically focuses in depth on a relatively small sample (Patton,1990) and facilitates the generation of more relevant knowledge than a large sample

Figure 3.Relationship betweenpossible selves, positiveand negative symbolicmeanings and the pursuitof self esteem within theself-concept

EJM38,7

856

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

would at an early exploratory stage. The sampling frame was a mixture ofconvenience, purposive (Patton, 1990) and snowball sampling. Bertaux andBertaux-Wiame (1981) advise sampling until saturation point – that is until you areconfident that you have a picture of what is going on and are able to produce anappropriate explanation for it (Mason, 1996). A total of 15 consumers were initiallyrecruited because of their suitability in terms of age, gender, life experience andinterests. They were then asked to select an acquaintance of the same gender, withsimilar attitudes to clothing, fashion retailers and brands. The thirty participantsinvolved in the study were all within the 18-30 age group. There were approximatelyequal numbers of men and women and they were from a variety of professionaloccupations (following Murray, 2002) including public, commercial and charityorganisations (except for the two youngest who at ages 18 and 19, were students). Allparticipants were British; the majority were white Caucasian, two women were fromAfro-Caribbean parentage and one woman was of mixed race.

Data collectionAn initial pilot study was carried out, using two mini-discussion groups (eachinvolving four same sex participants) to check the effectiveness of the research design.For the main study, in-depth consumer interviews were conducted in friendship pairs.These paired interviews were loosely structured, representing “conversations with apurpose” (Burgess, 1984; Mason, 1996) following what Robson (1993) termed “fluidagendas”. Friendship pairs were employed because these types of interviews – withindividuals sharing certain common characteristics – provide an effective meansthrough which to ensure a more natural setting within which to negotiate identity talk(Hunt and Miller, 1997). “Joint interviewing” also helps to establish rapport and createan atmosphere of confidence (Edgell, 1980; Arksey, 2000), and also to reveal the diversekinds of knowledge held by each person (Seymour et al., 1995; Arksey, 2000).Typically, the interviews began with general questions focused on participants’interest in clothing – for example what clothing they purchased and how often. Thediscussion became gradually more specific, focusing on personal style, image andparticipants’ thoughts regarding the communicative abilities of clothing (incorporatingvisual stimuli). All questions were open and for much of the time the ordering of topicswere decided on the basis of the discussion (with a guide employed to ensureconsistency across interviews).

Data analysisAll interviews were recorded and transcribed in their entirety. Analysis was ongoingthroughout the data collection (Robson, 1993) with notes and transcripts reviewedthroughout, as recommended by Patton (1990). The transcripts were analysed throughreading and re-reading, noting patterns and themes in a search for “patterns andrecurring organisations” (Wetherall and Potter, 1988, p. 177; Thompson and Haytko,1997) allowing earlier readings to inform later readings. This intuitive process wassupplemented by Spiggle’s (1994) framework of categorisation, abstraction,comparison and integration as the fundamental analytical operations. Spiggle (1994)encouraged the development of categories that were grouped into more generalconceptual classes through abstraction. The differences and similarities were then

Negativesymbolic

consumption

857

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

explored through comparison, and the data was finally integrated and reported withinthe context of the conceptual framework (Figure 3).

Findings and discussionThe presentation of the findings will focus on exploring consumers’ use of approachand avoidance strategies (and the associated end states) in identity negotiation. Webegin with a series of general observations from the data; and then examine a numberof themes related to the conceptual framework: clothing as a communicative device;identification and distinction and the associated approach and avoidance strategies;distinction, avoidance and consuming with primary reference to a negative drive; andidentification, approach and consuming with reference to a positive drive.

The general findings suggested that consumers’ drives were fairly fluid or flexible.The motivation of self-esteem functioned to encourage and discourage individualsfrom consuming certain items, brands and styles of clothing. Our primary focus was onthe style of clothing that participants consumed (or actively avoided). Althoughreferences to brands were included, they did not provide our specific focus and therewas considerable variation in attitudes to branding, with women seeming lessdependent (than men) on brands for identity communication. Consumers usedstrategies of approach and avoidance with reference to personalised desired andundesired end states or possible selves. The findings suggested that all consumersreferred to undesired end states at times, in an effort to maintain self-esteem, but thatsome consumers were more prone to these effects than others. Participantsacknowledged that a consideration of the repercussions of consumption (in the formof possible selves or end states) played a major part in their clothing choices.Underpinning the findings was the concern by consumers to present themselves in thebest or the “most suitable” light via their clothing choices. There were also a number ofoutside influences on consumers’ motivational drives and tendency for approach oravoidance strategies. Even consumers who considered themselves to dress solely forthemselves and with little regard to the opinions of others (e.g. “anti-fashion”)experienced some situations where they became more likely to conform to theexpectations of others.

Clothing as a communicative deviceThe findings confirmed earlier research (Belk et al., 1982, 1984; Elliott, 1994; Freitaset al., 1997; Holman, 1981), which indicated that clothing played an important role inidentity creation and symbolic consumption. Clear support was provided for the ideasof Georg Simmel (1904), who saw two motivating functions for fashion – that of socialidentification (approach) and distinction (avoidance) (see Figure 3) (Gronow, 1997, p.77). The participants in the study were clearly able to articulate negative feelingstowards avoidance groups that they would not wish to be associated with (distinction),in addition to those with which they would like to be identified.

Consumption stereotypes provided an appropriate and important means to explorethe meanings that clothing encompassed for consumers. Although the term“stereotype” suggests universally defined categories, participants acknowledged thatdifferent social categories of consumers would interpret clothing in diverse ways (Belket al., 1982), offering different “readings” (Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998), and itemsmight be rejected on the basis of these different “readings”. It is clear that some of the

EJM38,7

858

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

“consumption stereotypes” evoked by consumers were at odds with the images thatmarketers brought to the products, and this supported observations made by Ligasand Cotte (1999). There were regional meanings (e.g. “Essex boys”) and lifestyleclassifications (e.g. the term “tart”), which were unlikely to be deliberatelycommunicated by advertisers. This divergent symbolism supported Kaiser et al.’s(1985) suggestion that varying interpretations of clothing symbols resulted fromindividuals’ diverse social experiences. Symbolism could also be associated withprivate experiences (or sentimental values) which would be invisible to observers(Campbell, 1996), and participants sometimes became attached to items of clothing thatwere of no obvious value to others.

Identification and distinction: approach and avoidance strategiesParticipants used the symbolic qualities of clothing to satisfy two opposing functions:social identification with (approach) groups, and distinction from less desirable(avoidance) groups, providing support for Simmel (1904) (see Figure 3) (Gronow, 1997).Social comparison, affiliation, conformity and autonomy were important themes in thediscussions. Participants’ comments reflected the search for affiliation, by meeting theexpectations of significant others, and achieving the goals of important referencegroups. A sense of two different end states emerged, indicating consistency withHiggins et al.’s (1994) self-regulatory system, and the approach and avoidance ofvarious end-states or possible selves (Markus and Nurius, 1986). Existing researchlargely ignores the influence of undesired end states on consumption, yet theconsumption activities of the majority of consumers in our study seemed to bepredominantly informed by the motivation to avoid consuming (or being identifiedwith) negative images, rather than reflecting attempts to achieve a positive image(implied by positive congruency):

The negative is bad because you know that you look bad and people talk about it so you aimfor the positive so you feel good and know that people will compliment you, so it is likeshying away from one and trying to achieve the other . . . they are very close together, I thinkthere is a fine line between them, you don’t buy anything that you know you look bad in. Youwill ask your friends’ advice and you do it for the very reason that you don’t want to go outlooking liking yesterday’s news do you? (Sara, age 25).

I think it is subconscious that you make yourself look positive, but it is conscious that youdefinitely don’t make yourself look negative . . . I think you definitely go out and you knowthat there are certain things that you don’t want to wear because you don’t want to projectyourself in a negative way and I think you consciously avoid those things when you go outshopping (Lisa, age 24).

There was a tendency for participants to operate with primary reference to either apositive or a negative end state, yet the motivational influence of the end state wasfairly fluid. This finding is consistent with the research of Higgins et al. (1994, p. 285)who suggested individuals might be orientated towards a particular strategy (i.e.approach versus avoidance), yet all individuals were likely to possess both systems,and temporary changes in circumstances could lead to the use of alternative strategies.Marketers therefore need to be able to identify the circumstances – buying situations,shopping environments or reasons for purchase – which are likely to encourage onesystem over the other.

Negativesymbolic

consumption

859

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Distinction and avoidance: consuming with primary reference to a negative driveThe majority of participants in the study seemed to consume with primary reference toa negative drive. This meant that participants’ primary concern and the way in whichthey maintained self-esteem was through ensuring that their dress could not beinterpreted negatively. Participants who consumed with reference to a negative drivesought to avoid censure, played it safe and attempted to remain inconspicuous byavoiding standing out from the crowd or competing for status. These concernsreflected the view that wearing the “wrong” item was likely to receive a strongerreaction than wearing the latest or the “best” (Wilk, 1994). Many of the participants inthis study interpreted what they termed “trying too hard” negatively, and this linkswith Wilk’s (1995) participants who criticised products that were too “flash” orexclusive:

. . . If you are seen negatively it is like rejection . . . being seen as not fitting in or being rejectedor whatever . . . you are accepted if you are OK, you are middle of the road, you are totallyaccepted you are not just making fashion statements . . . (Chloe, age 25).

Consumers used words like “cautious”, “not brave”, “safe”, “uncontroversial” and“simple” to describe their clothing and wore outfits they hoped would not (and couldnot) be interpreted negatively:

. . . I think I wear quite simple clothes, I don’t think there is anything that I think people wouldmake assumptions that I would consider to be negative or a bit controversial about me . . .(Penny, age 30).

My clothes are quite simple, they are not outrageous in any way so I am certainly not strivingto be individual (Katherine, age 27).

There was also the suggestion that groups of friends would tend to dress in a similarway – again reflecting a (conscious) concern not to “stand out”:

I think when you are with your mates you don’t really want to be individual anyway, youwant to be all the same I think (Patrick, age 27).

. . . You don’t want to stand out . . . it is comfortable in the crowd isn’t it? (Dean, age 27).

An important aspect of affiliation was consumers’ concern with fitting in with theirwider surroundings, and the people around them:

. . . If you are looking at everyone and they are wearing suits, shirt and tie and you arestanding there in a pair of jeans with a pair of trainers on, then you are not going to feel veryconfident at all . . . (Patrick, age 27).

Identification and approach: consuming with reference to a positive driveConsumption with reference to a positive drive (ideal self/ideal end state) was lesscommon amongst the participants, although some exhibited characteristics thatsuggested this positive drive could be prevalent at times. A positive drive wasassociated with personal characteristics such as individuality, confidence and a highinterest in clothing. The vast majority of participants in this research did not classifytheir dress sense as “individual”. However, they were able to give examples of peoplethey considered to be more individual and more likely to dress towards an ideal orpositive reference point (positive drive). Those consumers who dress to satisfy a

EJM38,7

860

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

positive drive are likely to be more fashion conscious, often fitting in with currentnorms. However, somewhat paradoxically, as their style is more “cutting edge”, theyare considered by others to be more individual in their style of dressing:

. . . If someone is wearing retro-ish sort of style clothes, maybe they are not quite but sort of

. . . it says . . . it is kind of rejection of fashion in a way at the same time as being quitefashionable . . . I think there is enough ambiguity in there to make that person look sort ofalmost interesting (John, age 26).

Consumers who dressed with reference to a positive drive were also likely to be fairlyat ease with themselves, and their selection of clothing provided an opportunity tomake a positive statement about who they are (enhancing their self esteem). This wasin contrast to those who consumed with reference to a negative drive who functionedwith regard to the possible negative effects if they misjudged a situation and “got itwrong”:

. . . You can spot someone walking along the street and they have got that flair because theyhave added something different and because they have taken whatever it is from the shopand they just carry it differently. They look individual; you can just spot someone who hasgot fashion sense I think that is individual. To me an individual can manipulate fashion tolook individual. I haven’t got that talent so I do conform (Sara, age 25).

However, consumption with reference to a positive drive or positive end state was notconfined to consumers who were interested in current fashions. One participant, Sam,dressed in an individual way, not fitting the mainstream “fashion ideal”. He seemed todress with regard to a positive ideal, yet was not concerned with current trends; in fact,he might be more accurately termed “anti-fashion”:

. . . In the morning when you are going into London on the train or tube and you have got allthe business people and of course they are wearing what they are wearing because it is whatis accepted in the business world, dark suits and stuff. But once or twice when I have headedinto London with grey flares and a green smallish jacket and red shirt and blue tie which istied so it is really long, and I have had my hair down or tied up, you know, I have really stoodout, and people . . . standing right up near me and laughing, so they would obviously neverwear anything like that (Sam, age 19).

Sam’s attitude to dress suggested he functioned with regard to a positive drive in thesense that he wore what he wanted to wear, rather than considering the reactions ofothers. Yet his behaviour also differentiated him from fashion leaders (Goldsmith et al.,1996). He often wore ripped clothing and described how he had deliberately flouted theuniform rules at the sixth form college he had just left. There is little doubt that hewould not have dressed or worn his hair in the way that he did if he wanted to mergeinto the background. Generally all of the participants were able to think of someonethey knew whom they felt dressed with regard to a positive drive, but conformity,affiliation and playing it safe and merely maintaining self-esteem seemed to be theprimary motivation for most consumers.

Managerial implications for fashion retailersIt is important for marketers to understand when the rejection of products and brandsresults from distastes (distinction), and when it reflects the constraints that operate onconsumers’ choices (Hogg, 1998), as each would require different managerial action.

Negativesymbolic

consumption

861

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Constraints on clothing purchase could reflect financial concerns, the accessibility ofclothing stores and consumers’ body size and shape. This corroborates Campbell’s(1996) point. He suggests that consumers are not always in a position to make a fullchoice regarding the clothing that they wear. McCracken and Roth (1989) view povertyand isolation as presenting potential limitations on the access to code information, aswell as the lack of economic resources to purchase the goods and access to thenecessary outlets.

The findings suggest self-esteem is a powerful motivator for consumer behaviourand is sought in two ways, via the approach towards an ideal, or the avoidance of anundesired, end state. Consumers’ perception of whether the main emphasis of theirconsumption behaviour is to “play it safe” or whether they like to dress in an individualway would seem to be important for marketing practitioners. It may be that everybodydoes both (approach the positive and avoid the negative) to varying degrees in differentsituations. It is clear that reaching an understanding of the function of the negativedrive (and negative end states) and recognising the importance of the negativedrive/end state for consumption is as important as understanding how consumersattempt to approach an “ideal self”, the subject of much consumer behaviour research(e.g. Erickson and Sirgy, 1992; Dolich, 1969). If, as the research findings suggest, themajority of consumers function with regard to a negative drive, it would benefitmarketing managers to develop marketing campaigns that recognise and appeal to thisdrive. Marketing managers may choose to use “negative associations” and avoidancegroups (Englis and Solomon, 1995) as a means to build brand loyalty amongst theircustomer base. Integrated marketing strategies should therefore attempt to achievetwo things. Firstly, positive associations should be made with the brand or product andsecondly, advertising could be used to encourage consumers to identify negativereference groups and negative user imagery with competitors, thus promotingaffiliation with the brand/product or company and a clear distinction fromnon-consumers of the product or brand. This presents a challenge for marketers, asdifferent groups of consumers will employ very different positive and negativeassociations.

It is also useful for marketers and retailers to consider the situations andcircumstances that encourage the prevalence of a particular drive (i.e. whetherconsumers will tend to focus on positive or negative outcomes). Examples are publicsituations versus private situations, work versus leisure, formal versus informaloccasions and so forth. Products (and in this case clothing) can then be produced,marketed and sold in such a way that fits with these circumstances and the associateddrive. The working environment was found to be particularly relevant to theparticipants in this study and was repeatedly cited as a situation in which certainexpectations about dress codes existed, which influenced the drive employed. Forexample, a consumer who works in an office may dress with reference to a negativedrive; yet in his or her free time wear fairly unusual clothes, reflecting a positive drive.Other examples of “conformity-inducing” situations were wearing a suit for a jobinterview, wearing formal clothing to a wedding or funeral, or a uniform imposed atwork or at school. In many situations consumers dressed how they wanted to butwithin certain boundaries (e.g. “smartly for work”), effectively meaning the individualis conforming but sometimes within fairly broad boundaries. Support was provided forthe importance of the “normative” (Miller, 1999), in understanding consumers’

EJM38,7

862

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

evaluations of clothing; and the dialectic between different “selves”. Breaking from“local” norms was interpreted as potentially risky and could lead to “avoidance”behaviours (Englis and Solomon, 1995). Retailers should consider different situationaleffects and understand how responding to these differences will help them to cater fortheir customers’ every need.

In their positioning strategies, fashion retailers (or retailers of any symbolic goods)should recognise their appeal in terms of customers’ concern with affiliation orautonomy and how this relates to consumers’ end states or possible selves. This shouldbe reflected right through the supply chain, from the design of the clothing/product tothe tools (advertising, celebrities, etc.) that are used for promotion, to the salesenvironment and the manner in which the sales team respond to customers. It may bethat some stores and product categories need to make more use of shop-floor assistantsin helping consumers to make decisions – perhaps encouraging consumers toexperiment with different items of clothing or reassuring them that the style/productthey have chosen is “suitable” for them.

Consumers’ reliance on positive and negative drives may be fluid in the sense thateven the most conforming individual may sometimes fancy breaking free from the“norm”. However, for retailers their image is more fixed. A retailer that is currentlyperceived as stocking highly conforming product lines (appealing to consumersfunctioning on a negative drive) would find it difficult to switch to selling highlyindividual and high fashion designs. A research strategy that incorporates theframework in Figure 3 and recognises the importance of consumers’ possibleselves/end states and approach and avoidance strategies, should be valuable forcompanies assessing the effectiveness with which they cater for markets, and mayprovide a useful tool for companies embarking on re-branding strategies.

ConclusionFor many consumers in this study, clothing selection entailed a delicate balancing act.It was of utmost importance that consumers should not upset this balance in theattempt to create a positive image for themselves. The safest option was to avoidprojecting a negative image (employing a negative drive) thus ensuring themaintenance of self-esteem. We would argue that if marketers are able to understandhow consumers invest products and brands with negative meanings; and also howconsumers associate these negative meanings with their rejected selves, they will bemuch nearer to understanding and managing the impact of negative symbolicconsumption in the market place. The framework provided in Figure 3, along with anappropriate research strategy, should help marketing managers to be better equippedto understand and predict the rejection of products and brands. With this clearerunderstanding of negative symbolic consumption we can then begin to generalise thewider implications for marketing strategy of the symbolic bases for the rejection ofother goods and services.

LimitationsThe emphasis of this study was on conceptualisation and the overall emphasis was onreaching understanding rather than generalisation. As the exploration of this area is inits initial stages, a small, yet in-depth empirical study was considered to be the bestmeans by which to draw out the main themes and concentrate on theory building.

Negativesymbolic

consumption

863

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Interviews were conducted in friendship pairs because of the benefits this could offer interms of the stimulation of discussion of a potentially difficult and fairly abstract topic.Individual interviews would have provided more intimidating surroundings, andmight have proved less conducive to exploring the topic. It was also consideredimportant to address the social contexts within which meaning is created, a point thatRitson and Elliott (1999) claim is often missed with consumer research. However, thesocial interaction of “paired” interviews, although promoting discussion, couldpotentially have encouraged careful self-presentation and impression management bythe participants. It is acknowledged that the comments of the participants could havebeen influenced by past, present, or the possibility of future interaction with theirfriendship partners. However, there did not appear to be any strained or powerrelationships at work, and all the participants seemed genuinely open and candid,during the course of the interviews.

The findings are limited to the population under consideration. However, throughthe development of themes and examples, the conceptualisation is intended to be morefar reaching than individual observations. It is acknowledged that more experiencesand findings would have been forthcoming if participants with wider rangingexperiences had been deliberately sought. Although age was deliberately kept within alower and upper limit in order to gauge the experience of a particular segment of thepopulation, the participants represented a wide range of backgrounds. This range ofexperience was considered sufficient for the purposes of an exploratory study.

Finally, at present the findings are limited to the product category under study.However, clothing is a very important category, and provides an important means bywhich to gain a greater insight into the self, benefitting additional areas of study. Thefindings are also likely to be adaptable and relevant to product categories that sharesimilarities with clothing – for example other fashion categories such as homefurnishings, footwear, textiles – and also categories where product symbolism isespecially high – for example cars, mobile phones, travel and so forth. A similarprocess with other product categories could refine the conceptualisation, and exploreits relevance to other categories for which considerations regarding identitynegotiation are paramount.

Future researchIt is clear this study has focused on a topic ripe for exploration and theoreticaladvances. It has been possible for the research to clarify a number of issues associatedwith identity negotiation and the rejection of products. In addition a conceptualframework has been suggested, which should be useful for future studies. Clearly agreat deal of research remains to be conducted in order that we can understand thecomplicated relationship that consumers have with their goods (or those goods thatthey reject), but this research has made an important contribution. We do not claim toanswer all of the questions that have emerged from the investigation. Rather it is hopedthat the study has provided “food for thought” and a sense that the combinedmotivational effects of self esteem, possible selves, consumers’ associated drives andthe rejection of consumption goods are topics worthy of future research.

Future research could investigate a greater range of consumption situations: such asthe implications for consumers’ possible selves and sense of identity when clothingchoices are made by significant others. It became clear that a proportion of male

EJM38,7

864

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

participants’ clothing was bought for them by their partners, or their partners wouldaccompany them shopping. Sometimes the possible selves of most significance forconsumption decisions may have been those held by the partner or friend on behalf ofthe participant – this would provide an interesting topic for future research.

It would also be useful for research to involve different ages of respondents. Theindication from the young adults in this study was that their approach to image andconsumption had changed considerably over their lifespan. It would be interesting toconduct a study with a much older or younger selection of respondents and talkthrough the same issues with them, which would be likely to reveal a whole range ofissues and dilemmas. Research could usefully focus on a small sample of respondentsfollowing their changing requirements through the aging process (incorporating thelikely changing context of their consumption during the lifespan). In order forresearchers (and marketing professionals) to understand today’s consumer, it isimportant that consumers are not considered to be static beings that “are what theyare” but considered as products of their surroundings.

Note

1. The authors acknowledge the important issues raised by Holt’s (1997, 2002) papers.

References

Arksey, H. (2000), “Collecting data through joint interviews”, Social Research Update, No. 15,available at: www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU15.html

Belk, R.W., Bahn, K.D. and Mayer, R.N. (1982), “Developmental recognition of consumptionsymbolism”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, June, pp. 4-17.

Belk, R., Mayer, R. and Driscoll, A. (1984), “Children’s recognition of consumption symbolism inchildren’s products”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, March, pp. 386-97.

Bertaux, D. and Bertaux-Wiame, I. (1981), “Life stories in the bakers’ trade”, in Bertaux, D. (Ed.),Biography and Society: The Life History Approach in the Social Sciences, Sage, London.

Biernat, M., Vescio, T.K. and Green, M.L. (1996), “Selective self-stereotyping”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 71, pp. 1194-209.

Burgess, R.G. (1984), In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research, Allen & Unwin, London.

Campbell, C. (1996), “The meaning of objects and the meaning of actions: a critical note on thesociology of consumption and theories of clothing”, Journal of Material Culture, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 93-105.

Cantor, N., Markus, H., Niedenthal, P. and Nurius, P. (1986), “On motivation and the self-concept”,in Sorrentino, R.M. and Higgins, E.T. (Eds), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition:Foundations of Social Behaviour, Wiley, Chichester.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds) (1998), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials,Sage, London.

Dittmar, H. (1992), The Social Psychology of Material Possessions, Harvester Press, HemelHempstead.

Dolich, I.J. (1969), “Congruence relationships between self-images and product brands”, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 11, pp. 80-4.

Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, FortWorth, TX.

Negativesymbolic

consumption

865

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Edgell, S. (1980), Middle-Class Couples: A Study of Segregation, Domination and Inequality inMarriage, George Allen & Unwin, London.

Eisenstadt, D. and Leippe, M.R. (1994), “The self-comparison and self-discrepant feedback:consequences of learning you are what you thought you were not”, Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 611-26.

Elliott, R. (1994), “Exploring the symbolic meaning of brands”, British Journal of Management,Vol. 15, pp. S13-S19.

Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998), “Brands as symbolic resources for the construction ofidentity”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 131-44.

Englis, B.G. and Solomon, M. (1995), “To be and not to be: lifestyle imagery, reference groups,and the clustering of America”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 13-29.

Erickson, M.K. and Sirgy, M.J. (1992), “Employed females’ clothing preference, self-imagecongruence, and career anchorage”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 5,pp. 408-22.

Freitas, A., Davis, C.H. and Kim, J.W. (1997), “Appearance management as border construction:least favourite clothing, group distancing and identity . . . not!”, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 67No. 3, pp. 323-35.

Gergen, K.J. (1991), The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life, Basic Books,New York, NY.

Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Moore, M.A. (1996), “The self-concept of fashion leaders”,Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 242-8.

Greenwald, A.G. (1989), “Why attitudes are important: defining attitude and attitude theory 20years later”, in Pratkins, A.R., Beckler, S.J. and Greenwald, A.G. (Eds), Attitude Structureand Function, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 429-39.

Gronow, J. (1997), The Sociology of Taste, Routledge, London and New York, NY.

Grubb, E.L. and Grathwohl, H.L. (1967), “Consumer self-concept, symbolism and marketbehaviour: a theoretical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, pp. 22-7.

Hakim, C. (1994), Research Design: Strategies and Choices in the Design of Social Research,Routledge, London.

Haslam, S.A., Oakes, P.J., McGarthy, C., Turner, J.C., Reynolds, K.J. and Eggins, R.A. (1996),“Stereotyping and social influence: the mediation of stereotype applicability andsharedness by the views of in-group and out-group members”, British Journal of SocialPsychology, Vol. 35, pp. 369-97.

Higgins, E.T., Roney, C.J.R., Crowe, E. and Hymes, C. (1994), “Ideal versus ought predilections forapproach and avoidance: distinct self-regulatory systems”, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 276-86.

Hilton, J.L. and Von Hippel, W. (1996), “Stereotypes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47,pp. 237-71.

Hogg, M.K. (1998), “Anti-constellations: exploring the impact of negation on consumption”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 133-58.

Holman, R.H. (1981), “Apparel as communication”, in Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (Eds),Symbolic Consumer Behavior, Proceedings of the Conference on Consumer Ethics andSymbolic Consumption, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI.

Holt, D.B. (1997), “Post-structuralist lifestyle analysis: conceptualizing the social patterning ofconsumption in postmodernity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, March, pp. 326-50.

EJM38,7

866

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture andbranding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 326-50.

Hoyer, W.D. and MacInnis, D.J. (1997), Consumer Behavior, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Company,Boston, MA and New York, NY.

Hunt, S.A. and Miller, K.A. (1997), “The discourse of dress and appearance: identity talk and arhetoric of review”, Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 69-82.

Jagger, E. (1998), “Marketing the self, buying and other: dating in a postmodern, consumersociety”, Sociology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 795ff.

Kaiser, S.B. (1997), The Social Psychology of Clothing, 2nd rev. ed., Fairchild Publications, NewYork, NY.

Kaiser, S.B., Nagasawa, R.H. and Hutton, S.S. (1991), “Fashion, postmodernity and personalappearance: a symbolic interactionist formulation”, Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 165-85.

Kaiser, S.B., Schutz, H.G., Chandler, J.L. and Lieder, L.M. (1985), “Shoes as sociocultural symbols:retailers’ versus consumers’ perceptions”, in Solomon, M.R. (Ed.), The Psychology ofFashion, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 127-41.

Karniol, R. and Ross, M. (1996), “The motivational impact of temporal focus: thinking about thefuture and the past”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 593-620.

Kefgen, M. and Touchie-Specht, P. (1986), Individuality in Clothing Selection and PersonalAppearance: A Guide for the Consumer, 4th ed., Macmillan, New York, NY.

Kleine, R.E., Kleine, S.S. and Kernan, J.B. (1993), “Mundane consumption and the self: asocial-identity perspective”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 209-35.

Levy, S.J. (1959), “Symbols for sale”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 117-24.

Ligas, M. and Cotte, J. (1999), “The process of negotiating brand meaning: a symbolicinteractionist perspective”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 609-14.

McCracken, G.D. and Roth, V.J. (1989), “Does clothing have a code? Empirical findings andtheoretical implications in the study of clothing as a means of communication”,International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 13-33.

Markus, H. and Nurius, P. (1986), “Possible selves”, American Psychologist, Vol. 41 No. 9,pp. 954-69.

Mason, J. (1996), Qualitative Researching, Sage Publications, London.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis,2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.

Miller, D. (1999), “The irrelevance of self as a concept in consumer research”, unpublished paperpresented at European Association of Consumer Research, Paris.

Morgan, A.J. (1993), “”The evolving self in consumer behaviour: exploring possible selves”,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 429-32.

Muniz, A.M. and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-32.

Murray, J.B. (2002), “The politics of consumption: a re-inquiry on Thompson and Haytko’s (1997)‘Speaking of fashion’”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 427-40.

Niedenthal, P.M., Cantor, N. and Kihlstrom, J.F. (1985), “Prototype matching: a strategy for socialdecision making”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 575-84.

Ogilvie, D.M. (1987), “The undesired self: a neglected variable in personality research”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 379-85.

Negativesymbolic

consumption

867

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,London.

Power, F.C. (1997), “Understanding the character in character education”, paper presented atDevelopmental Perspectives and Approaches to Character Education, Nucci, L. (chair),symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Chicago, IL, March, available at: www.uic.edu/, Inucci/MoralEd/aotm/article12.html

Reicher, S. and Hopkins, N. (1996), “Seeking influence through characterizing self-categories: ananalysis of anti-abortionist rhetoric”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 35,pp. 297-311.

Ritson, M. and Elliott, R. (1999), “The social uses of advertising: an ethnographic study ofadolescent advertising audiences”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 260-77.

Robson, C. (1993), Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and PractitionerResearchers, Blackwell, Oxford.

Rosenberg, M. (1979), Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Seymour, J., Dix, G. and Eardley, T. (1995), Joint Accounts: Methodology and Practice in ResearchInterviews with Couples, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, York.

Shavitt, S. (1989), “Operationalizing functional theories of attitude”, in Pratkanis, A.R., Breckler,S.J. and Greenwald, A.G. (Eds), Attitude Structure and Function, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ,pp. 311-38.

Shavitt, S. (1990), “The role of attitude objects in attitude functions”, Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 124-48.

Shih, M., Pittinsky, T.L. and Ambady, N. (1999), “Stereotype susceptibility: identity salience andshifts in quantitative performance”, Psychological Science, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 80-4.

Simmel, G. (1904), “Fashion”, International Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 130-55.

Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behaviour: a critical review”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 9, December, pp. 287-300.

Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, J., Chon, K., Claiborne, C.B., Johar, J.S. andBerkman, H. (1997), “Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuringself-image congruence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3,pp. 229-41.

Spiggle, S. (1994), “Analysis and interpretation of qualitative research in consumer research”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 491-503.

Sproles, G.B. (1979), Fashion: Consumer Behavior toward Dress, Burgess, Minneapolis, MN.

Tajfel, H. and Fraser, C. (1978), Introducing Social Psychology, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

Thompson, C.J. and Haytko, D.L. (1997), “Speaking of fashion: consumers’ uses of fashiondiscourses and the appropriation of countervailing cultural meanings”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 15-28.

Wetherall, M. and Potter, J. (1988), “Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretativerepertoires”, in Antaki, C. (Ed.), Analysing Everyday Explanation, Sage Publications,London, pp. 168-83.

Wilk, R. (1994), “‘I hate pizza’: distaste and dislike in the consuming lives of Belizeans”, paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropology Association, Atlanta, GA.

Wilk, R. (1995), “Learning distaste the social importance of not wanting”, paper prepared for theConference Learning to Consume, Lund University, Lund, August.

Wilk, R. (1997), “A critique of desire: distaste and dislike in consumer behavior”, Consumption,Markets and Culture, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 175-96.

EJM38,7

868

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Hanna Berg. 2015. Headless: The Role of Gender and Self-Referencing in Consumer Response toCropped Pictures of Decorative Models. Psychology & Marketing 32:10.1002/mar.2015.32.issue-10,1002-1016. [CrossRef]

2. Guy Parrott, Annie Danbury, Poramate Kanthavanich. 2015. Online behaviour of luxury fashion brandadvocates. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 19:4, 360-383.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Yelena Tsarenko, Yuliya Strizhakova. 2015. “What does a woman want?” The moderating effect of age infemale consumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 26, 41-46. [CrossRef]

4. Gianfranco Walsh, Arne K. Albrecht, Charles F. Hofacker, Ian Grant, Ikuo Takahashi. 2015. Developingand validating a scale of consumer brand embarrassment tendencies. Journal of Business Research .[CrossRef]

5. Micael-Lee Johnstone, Lay Peng Tan. 2015. An exploration of environmentally-conscious consumersand the reasons why they do not buy green products. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:5, 804-825.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Damien Chaney, Christina Goulding. 2015. Dress, transformation, and conformity in the heavy rocksubculture. Journal of Business Research . [CrossRef]

7. Lorna Ruane, Elaine Wallace. 2015. Brand tribalism and self-expressive brands: social influences and brandoutcomes. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:4, 333-348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Martin J. Liu, Natalia Yannopoulou, Xuemei Bian, Richard Elliott. 2015. Authenticity Perceptions in theChinese Marketplace. Journal of Business Research 68, 27-33. [CrossRef]

9. 2015. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 26. . [CrossRef]10. Nelson A. Barber, Melissa Bishop, Thomas Gruen. 2014. Who pays more (or less) for pro-environmental

consumer goods? Using the auction method to assess actual willingness-to-pay. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology 40, 218-227. [CrossRef]

11. Kim Johnson, Sharron J Lennon, Nancy Rudd. 2014. Dress, body and self: research in the socialpsychology of dress. Fashion and Textiles 1. . [CrossRef]

12. Muhammad Asif Khan, Michael S.W. Lee. 2014. Prepurchase Determinants of Brand Avoidance: TheModerating Role of Country-of-Origin Familiarity. Journal of Global Marketing 27, 329-343. [CrossRef]

13. Julie S. Tinson, Peter J. Nuttall. 2014. Social Collective Decision Making among Adolescents: A Reviewand a Revamp. Psychology & Marketing 31:10.1002/mar.2014.31.issue-10, 871-885. [CrossRef]

14. Arpita Khare. 2014. How cosmopolitan are Indian consumers?: a study on fashion clothing involvement.Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 18:4, 431-451. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

15. Micael-Lee Johnstone, Lay Peng Tan. 2014. Exploring the Gap Between Consumers’ Green Rhetoricand Purchasing Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]

16. Cagri Yalkin, Richard Rosenbaum-Elliott. 2014. Talking Fashion in Female Friendship Groups:Negotiating the Necessary Marketplace Skills and Knowledge. Journal of Consumer Policy 37, 301-331.[CrossRef]

17. Mary Ho, Stephanie O’Donohoe. 2014. Volunteer stereotypes, stigma, and relational identity projects.European Journal of Marketing 48:5/6, 854-877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

18. Yu Pan, Lijuan Luo, Dan Liu, Li Gao, Hengyi Rao. 2014. Functional and Symbolic Values of CloudTerminals: A Study of User Acceptance and Purchasing Behaviors. International Journal of InformationTechnology & Decision Making 13, 603-621. [CrossRef]

19. Weng Marc Lim. 2014. Sense of virtual community and perceived critical mass in online group buying.Journal of Strategic Marketing 22, 268-283. [CrossRef]

20. Sandy Bulmer, Margo Buchanan-Oliver. 2014. Contextualising brand consumption experiences: a multi-modal enabling technique. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 17:2, 151-167. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

21. Enrico Bonetti, Francesco Schiavone. 2014. Identifying and Mapping Strategic Groups in the FashionIndustry. International Studies of Management and Organization 44, 55-69. [CrossRef]

22. Ronan de Kervenoael, Jonathan Elms, Alan Hallsworth. 2014. Influencing online grocery innovation:Anti-choice as a trigger for activity fragmentation and multi-tasking. Futures . [CrossRef]

23. Arpita Khare. 2014. Antecedents to fashion clothing involvement: role of global self-identity,cosmopolitanism, and normative influence. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 5, 39-59. [CrossRef]

24. Stuart Roper, Cathy Parker. 2013. Doing well by doing good: A quantitative investigation of the littereffect. Journal of Business Research 66, 2262-2268. [CrossRef]

25. Julie Tinson, Angeline Close, Linda Tuncay Zayer, Peter Nuttall. 2013. Attitudinal and behavioralresistance: A marketing perspective. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 12:10.1002/cb.v12.6, 436-448.[CrossRef]

26. Margee Hume, Michael Mills. 2013. Uncovering Victoria's Secret. Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagement: An International Journal 17:4, 460-485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

27. Jeremy J. Sierra, Ravi K. Jillapalli, Vishag A. Badrinarayanan. 2013. Determinants of a lasting purchase:The case of the tattoo patron. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20, 389-399. [CrossRef]

28. Fajer Saleh Al-Mutawa. 2013. Consumer-Generated Representations: Muslim Women RecreatingWestern Luxury Fashion Brand Meaning through Consumption. Psychology & Marketing 30:10.1002/mar.2013.30.issue-3, 236-246. [CrossRef]

29. Juneman, Eko A. Meinarno, Wahyu Rahardjo. 2012. Symbolic Meaning of Money, Self-esteem, andIdentification with Pancasila Values. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65, 106-115. [CrossRef]

30. Michael Antioco, Joëlle Vanhamme, Anaïk Hardy, Lidwine Bernardin. 2012. On the importance of socialintegration for minority targeting effectiveness. International Journal of Research in Marketing 29, 380-389.[CrossRef]

31. Michael Shyue Wai Lee, Denise Conroy, Judith Motion. 2012. Brand avoidance, genetic modification,and brandlessness. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 20, 297-302. [CrossRef]

32. Kim Willems, Wim Janssens, Gilbert Swinnen, Malaika Brengman, Sandra Streukens, Mark Vancauteren.2012. From Armani to Zara: Impression formation based on fashion store patronage. Journal of BusinessResearch 65, 1487-1494. [CrossRef]

33. José Paulo Santos, Daniela Seixas, Sofia Brandão, Luiz Moutinho. 2012. Neuroscience in branding: Afunctional magnetic resonance imaging study on brands’ implicit and explicit impressions. Journal of BrandManagement 19, 735-757. [CrossRef]

34. Phoebe Wong, Margaret K. Hogg, Markus Vanharanta. 2012. Consumption narratives of extendedpossessions and the extended self. Journal of Marketing Management 28, 936-954. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

35. Nelson Barber, Pei‐Jou Kuo, Melissa Bishop, Raymond Goodman Jr. 2012. Measuring psychographics toassess purchase intention and willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:4, 280-292. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

36. Arpita Khare, Ankita Mishra, Ceeba Parveen. 2012. Influence of collective self esteem on fashion clothinginvolvement among Indian women. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An InternationalJournal 16:1, 42-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

37. Maribel Suarez, Marie Agnes ChauvelDifferent Ways of Saying Goodbye: Outlining Three Types ofAbandonment of a Product Category 277-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

38. Yu-Tse Lin, Kang-Ning Xia. 2012. Cognitive age and fashion consumption. International Journal ofConsumer Studies 36:10.1111/ijc.2012.36.issue-1, 97-105. [CrossRef]

39. Peter Nuttall, Julie Tinson. 2011. Resistance to ritual practice: exploring perceptions of others. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 45:11/12, 1725-1735. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

40. Thomas Boysen Anker, Peter Sandøe, Tanja Kamin, Klemens Kappel. 2011. Health Branding Ethics.Journal of Business Ethics 104, 33-45. [CrossRef]

41. Ulf Aagerup. 2011. The influence of real women in advertising on mass market fashion brand perception.Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 15:4, 486-502. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

42. Iain R. Black. 2011. Sorry not today: Self and temporary consumption denial. Journal of ConsumerBehaviour 10:10.1002/cb.v10.5, 267-278. [CrossRef]

43. Michael Breazeale, Jason E. Lueg. 2011. Retail shopping typology of American teens. Journal of BusinessResearch 64, 565-571. [CrossRef]

44. Allison R. Johnson, Maggie Matear, Matthew Thomson. 2011. A Coal in the Heart: Self-Relevanceas a Post-Exit Predictor of Consumer Anti-Brand Actions. Journal of Consumer Research 38, 108-125.[CrossRef]

45. Seong-Yeon Park, Yumi Ko. 2011. The Effect of Social Comparison of Appearance on CompensatoryBuying and Symbolic Consumption: The Mediating Role of Body Esteem. Journal of Global FashionMarketing 2, 76-85. [CrossRef]

46. Kim Willems, Gilbert Swinnen, Wim Janssens, Malaika Brengman. 2011. Fashion Store Personality:Scale Development and Relation to Self-Congruity Theory. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 2, 55-65.[CrossRef]

47. Seong-Yeon Park, Young Yang. 2010. The Effect of Celebrity Conformity on the Purchase Intentionof Celebrity Sponsorship Brand: The Moderating Effects of Symbolic Consumption and Face-Saving.Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1, 215-229. [CrossRef]

48. Sandy Bulmer, Margo Buchanan-Oliver. 2010. Experiences of brands and national identity. AustralasianMarketing Journal (AMJ) 18, 199-205. [CrossRef]

49. Barbara J. Phillips, Edward F. McQuarrie. 2010. Narrative and Persuasion in Fashion Advertising. Journalof Consumer Research 37:10.1086/652247, 368-392. [CrossRef]

50. Candice R. Hollenbeck, George M. Zinkhan. 2010. Anti‐brand communities, negotiation of brandmeaning, and the learning process: The case of Wal‐Mart. Consumption Markets & Culture 13, 325-345.[CrossRef]

51. Ulf Aagerup. 2010. To sell or not to sell: Overweight users’ effect on fashion assortments. Journal ofBrand Management 18, 66-78. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

52. Kathy Hamilton, Louise Hassan. 2010. Self‐concept, emotions and consumer coping. European Journalof Marketing 44:7/8, 1101-1120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

53. Insa‐Mascha Matthiesen, Ian Phau. 2010. Brand image inconsistencies of luxury fashion brands. Journalof Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 14:2, 202-218. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

54. Gonzalo Díaz Meneses, Julia Nieves Rodríguez. 2010. A synchronic understanding of involvement withfashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 14:1, 72-87. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

55. M.S.W. LeeAnti-consumption: a cause for concern in the food and personal care products sectors?539-569. [CrossRef]

56. Robin Pentecost, Lynda Andrews. 2010. Fashion retailing and the bottom line: The effects of generationalcohorts, gender, fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse buying on fashion expenditure. Journal of Retailingand Consumer Services 17, 43-52. [CrossRef]

57. Jane Boyd Thomas, Cara Lee Okleshen Peters. 2009. Silver seniors. International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management 37:12, 1018-1040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

58. Malaika Brengman, Kim Willems. 2009. Determinants of fashion store personality: a consumerperspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management 18:5, 346-355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

59. Wendy Moody, Peter Kinderman, Pammi Sinha, Kyung-Sook You. 2009. Identifying the CausalRelationships of Appearance Management through an Analysis of One's Own Clothing and WearingExperiences over a 10-day Period. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 33, 841-852.[CrossRef]

60. Wei-Qiang DU, Chun-Ling YU, Ping ZHAO. 2009. The Influence of Different Kinds of ReferenceGroups on Self-brand Connections. Acta Psychologica Sinica 41, 156-166. [CrossRef]

61. Wi-Suk Kwon, Sharron J. Lennon. 2009. What induces online loyalty? Online versus offline brand images.Journal of Business Research 62, 557-564. [CrossRef]

62. Maria G. Piacentini, Emma N. Banister. 2009. Managing anti-consumption in an excessive drinkingculture. Journal of Business Research 62, 279-288. [CrossRef]

63. Michael S.W. Lee, Judith Motion, Denise Conroy. 2009. Anti-consumption and brand avoidance. Journalof Business Research 62, 169-180. [CrossRef]

64. Margaret K. Hogg, Emma N. Banister, Christopher A. Stephenson. 2009. Mapping symbolic (anti-)consumption. Journal of Business Research 62, 148-159. [CrossRef]

65. Pedro Dionísio, Carmo Leal, Luiz Moutinho. 2008. A Phenomenological Research Study on SportsFandom in Portugal: A Comparative Study of Surfing and Football. Journal of Euromarketing 17, 233-253.[CrossRef]

66. Thinada Piamphongsant, Rujirutana Mandhachitara. 2008. Psychological antecedents of career women'sfashion clothing conformity. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal12:4, 438-455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

67. Michael Bosnjak, Nina Rudolph. 2008. Undesired self‐image congruence in a low‐involvement productcontext. European Journal of Marketing 42:5/6, 702-712. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

68. Elfriede Penz, Barbara Stöttinger. 2008. Original brands and counterfeit brands—do they have anythingin common?. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 7:10.1002/cb.v7:2, 146-163. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)

69. Pedro Dionísio, Carmo Leal, Luiz Moutinho. 2008. Fandom affiliation and tribal behaviour: a sportsmarketing application. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 11:1, 17-39. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

70. Luiz Moutinho, Pedro Dionísio, Carmo Leal. 2007. Surf tribal behaviour: a sports marketing application.Marketing Intelligence & Planning 25:7, 668-690. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

71. Anthony R Wheeler, R Glenn Richey, Mert Tokkman, Chris J. Sablynski. 2006. Retaining employeesfor service competency: The role of corporate brand identity. Journal of Brand Management 14, 96-113.[CrossRef]

72. Katherine White, Darren W. Dahl. 2006. To Be or Not Be? The Influence of Dissociative ReferenceGroups on Consumer Preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16, 404-414. [CrossRef]

73. José Antonio Rosa, Ellen C. Garbarino, Alan J. Malter. 2006. Keeping the Body in Mind: The Influenceof Body Esteem and Body Boundary Aberration on Consumer Beliefs and Purchase Intentions. Journalof Consumer Psychology 16, 79-91. [CrossRef]

74. Ronan de Kervenoael, Mark Palmer, N. Meltem CakiciExploring Civil Servant Resistance to M-Government 1554-1579. [CrossRef]

75. Ronan de Kervenoael, Christophe Bisson, Mark PalmerWeb Designers, Social E-Value Creation and E-Business Planning 330-351. [CrossRef]

76. Ronan de Kervenoael, Mark Palmer, N. Meltem CakiciExploring Civil Servant Resistance to M-Government 134-160. [CrossRef]

77. Ronan de Kervenoael, Christophe Bisson, Mark PalmerAre Web Designers Resisting the Inclusion ofSocial Cues when Creating Website’s User Interface? 209-225. [CrossRef]

78. Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro, Ana Regina Pires, Ricardo CayollaConsumption, Anti-Consumption andConsumption Communities: 510-536. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

OPE

NH

AG

EN

BU

SIN

ESS

SC

HO

OL

At 0

3:30

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15 (

PT)