life events and brand preference changes

Keywords:

Brand preference,

life events, stress

Anil Mathur306 Weller Hall,

Hofstra University,

Hempstead,

NY 11549,

USA

Tel: 516/463-5346

Fax: 516/463-5268

e-mail: mktazm@

hofstra.edu;

[email protected];

[email protected]

Life events and brandpreference changesReceived in revised form.

Anil Mathuris Associate Dean and Professor of Marketing at the Frank G. Zarb School of Business,

Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA.

George P. Moschisis Alfred Bernhardt Research Professor of Marketing and Director, Center for Mature

Consumer Studies at J. Mack Robinson College of Business at Georgia State

University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Euehun Leeis Associate Professor of Marketing at Information and Communications University in

Daejeon, Korea. He is an affiliate member of the Center for Mature Consumer Studies

at Georgia State University, USA.

AbstractThree types of variable have been used to explain brand preference changes: consumercharacteristics, marketing mix factors and situational influences. The study presented inthis paper focuses on the relationship between life events experienced by individuals,resultant stress and lifestyle changes and changes in brand preferences. Based on theoryand past research, a model is proposed and tested. The data support the notion that brandpreference changes may be viewed as the outcome of adjustments to new life conditions andchanges in consumption lifestyles that reflect consumer efforts to cope with stressful lifechanges. Implications for consumer research are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Most consumers change their

preferences for brands several times in

their lifetime; however, the question as

to what makes them change their

preferences has intrigued marketers and

consumer researchers for decades. Early

research in brand-switching behaviour

focused primarily on the effect of past

purchases on current purchase

behaviour (eg Morrison, 1966). It is now

known that three types of factor are

related to brand-switching behaviour

(Morgan and Dev, 1994): consumer

characteristics (eg Van Trijp et al., 1996),

marketing-mix strategies employed by

marketers (eg Deighton et al., 1994) and

situational influences (eg Bucklin and

Srinivasan, 1991).

Although it is known that consumer

characteristics are important

determinants of brand preference

switching, the present research presents

a relatively unexplored approach to

understanding changes in brand

preferences. Specifically, it is proposed

that when consumers experience life

changes (events) that signify transitions

into new roles and create stress, they

also modify their consumption lifestyles

(including brand preferences) to adapt

to new life circumstances. Theoretical

perspectives are presented followed by

the results of a large-scale national

study.

BACKGROUND

The fact that periods of life transition

are critical phases in one’s life and are

associated with significant changes in

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 129–141 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 129

one’s behaviour has been investigated

and is well documented by sociologists

and psychologists (eg Cohen, 1988;

Pearlin, 1982). In the same vein,

marketing and consumer behaviour

researchers have documented that

periods of life transition are associated

with significant changes in consumer

behaviour in general (eg Andreasen,

1984; Mehta and Belk, 1991; Price and

Curasi, 1996), and changes in store

preference in particular (Lee et al., 2001).

Explanations for these changes can be

found in two different theoretical

perspectives: the role transition

perspective and the stress perspective.

The role transition perspective suggests

that as people change roles, assume new

roles or relinquish old roles, their

behaviour also changes. As people enact

new roles or relinquish old ones they

experience a need to redefine their self-

concept (Mehta and Belk, 1991). Since

possessions are integral to the definition

of self and the expression and

performance of roles (Belk, 1988), role

transitions are associated with disposal

of products relevant to previous roles

and acquisition of products relevant to

new roles (eg McAlexander, 1991).

Disposal of older products and

acquisition of new products is necessary

in communicating important changes

both to the consumer and to others

(Young and Wallendorf, 1989).

Stress theory and research provides

the second perspective on behavioural

changes. Stress is often defined as

environmental, social or internal

demands that require the individual to

readjust his or her usual behaviour

patterns (Thoits, 1995). As a result of

these demands, more or less balanced

states that an individual maintained in

his or her life prior to experiencing

stress are usually disrupted causing a

need to change one’s behaviour or

psychological state. Major life

transitions are often considered as

‘stressors’ because these transitions

require one to readjust to new

situations. Thus, people find the

assumption of a new role or its

anticipation to be stressful because of

the need for readjustment in one’s

lifestyle. Furthermore, people attempt to

restore balance and relieve frustrations

and tensions accompanying

disequilibrium by initiating or

modifying their behaviour, ie initiating

coping strategies (eg Lazarus and

Folkman, 1984; Pearlin, 1982). Coping is

defined as actions and thoughts that

enable the individual to handle difficult

situations, solve problems and reduce

stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).

Based on the type of action, coping can

be divided into problem focused and

emotion focused (Lazarus and Folkman,

1984). Problem-focused coping activities

are directed towards solving the

problem or adjusting to the

environment to make life less stressful

for the individual, such as seeking

professional help or to initiating a self-

help programme. Emotion-focused

coping activities, on the other hand, are

directed towards one’s feelings and

emotions, such as avoiding a stressful

situation or engaging in activities that

take one’s mind away from the

problem. Previous consumer studies

have shown that initiation,

intensification or changes in

consumption habits reflect efforts to

handle stressful life events, providing

support for the stress perspective (eg

Andreasen, 1984; O’Guinn and Faber,

1989).

While some life events, such as

natural disasters, may only create stress

(and not result in transition into a new

role), many other unpredictable events,

such as divorce and chronic illness, may

result in more permanent or long-

lasting changes and role transitions

(Hetherington and Baltes, 1988). Rutter

(1983) has referred to such events as

‘transactional events’. These are events

that increase the probability of a set of

other events occurring. For example, an

accident may result in physical

handicap, financial duress, career shifts

and alterations in social relations. Thus,

130 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 3, 2, 129–141 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Anil Mathur, George P. Moschis and Euehun Lee

the occurrence of an event, such as

divorce, not only creates stress, which

may be handled via product

consumption (and consequently may

result in changes in brand preferences),

but also raises the probability of the

occurrence of other events, such as

relocation and financial duress (eg Price

and Curasi, 1996), which could also

affect brand preferences.

MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Based on the preceding discussion it is

proposed that life events or role

transitions experienced by an individual

create stress and generalised demand

for readjustment. Individuals handle

this stress by making changes to their

lifestyle that influence their brand

preferences. Life events may directly

influence stress and change one’s

lifestyle as well as one’s brand

preferences. Very often the occurrence

of certain events leads to the occurrence

of other events, some of them

anticipated. For example, many people

relocate upon retirement. Therefore,

anticipated events or role transitions

may lead to stress and changes in

lifestyles and brand preferences. Major

relationships suggested by theory are

depicted in Figure 1 and discussed in

detail in the paragraphs below. In

developing the model depicted, the

authors not only relied on theory and

research, but also on preliminary

findings based on smaller samples (Lee

1995; Mathur et al., 2001). The present

research builds on the previous work by

providing a detailed analysis of

relationships between experience of

specific life events or lifestyle changes

and changes in brand preferences. It

also offers new insights based on

additional analyses.

Direct effects on brand switching

behaviour

Three variables in the model are

expected to affect the consumer’s

preferences for brands: life events

anticipated life events, and

consumption-related lifestyles. With

respect to the influence of life events, it

is proposed that life events lead to

changes in brand preferences. Because

many life events are markers of life

transitions (eg retirement, widowhood),

they are expected to result in changes in

consumer behaviour due to the person’s

need to enact new roles defined by these

events. At the same time a need to

change consumer behaviour (products/

services consumed) may be predicated

by a need or desire to relinquish old

roles or their memories. Changes in

consumer behaviour may include only

changes in preferences for brands and

stores rather than changes in the need

for products and services. For example,

a patient recovering from a serious

illness may have to change brands due

Experience of lifeevents or role

transitions

Global (chronic) stress Consumption-relatedlifestyles

Changes in brandpreferences

Anticipation of lifeevents or role

transitions

Figure 1: A model of changes in brand preferences


Life events and brand preference changes

to medical reasons, and a recent

divorcee may want to shun products

and brands preferred by his or her ex-

spouse. Andreasen (1984) provides

empirical evidence in support of the

influence of life status changes on

consumer behaviour (brand preference

change), even after the mediating

impacts of stress and lifestyle changes

are partialled out. Schewe and Meredith

(1994) cite a 1993 Yankelovich study

which found that 40 per cent of

households that changed their address

also changed their brand of toothpaste.

Anticipated life events and role

transitions may also lead to changes in

brand preferences, since consumers

often change their behaviour in

response to their perception of the

occurrence of future events, such as

death of a spouse or retirement (George,

1993; Wagner and Hanna, 1983). For

example, a person may purchase an

expensive car in anticipation of a big

inheritance.

H1: The larger the number of life events or

role transitions consumers experience,

the greater the number of changes in

their brand preferences.

H2: The larger the number of life events or

role transitions consumers anticipate,

the greater the number of changes in

their brand preferences.

Individuals may engage in a variety of

consumption-related activities to reduce

stress, and these activities might be

helpful in alleviating stress (eg

Andreasen, 1984; Lazarus and Folkman,

1984; O’Guinn and Faber, 1989). Much

consumption-related coping behaviour,

such as the use of psychotropic drugs

and impulsive shopping, may be

temporal activity that does not cause

significant long-term alterations in

already established patterns of

consumer behaviour. This behaviour

may cease or disappear once stress is

reduced and may not appear until

another stressful situation arises.

Although many such temporal changes

may not lead to the development of

long-lasting changes in patterns of

consumer behaviour, they may affect

certain aspects of consumer behaviour.

For example, shopping and over-

consumption may provide

opportunities to purchase new

products, change brands and patronise

different stores. Andreasen’s (1984)

unexpected positive relationship

between ‘lifestyle’ change (a construct

that included mostly consumption-

based lifestyle changes) and brand

preference change appears to support

this line of reasoning, and suggests the

following hypothesis:

H3: The number of changes in

consumption-related lifestyles is

positively related to changes in brand

preferences.

Indirect Effects

The occurrence of a life event often

depends upon the occurrence of another

life event. Many unexpected events may

occur due to the increased likelihood of

transitional events (eg Rutter, 1983).

Other events, both normative and

unexpected events, often serve as

signals of other forthcoming events or

role transitions. The person’s response

to such events can be through formation

of perceptions associated with the

assumption of a new role upon the

expected occurrence of the anticipated

event (eg parenthood upon birth of first

child). Thus, the number of events or

role transitions a consumer has

experienced within a recent period of

time is expected to have a positive

impact on the number of other events

and role transitions he or she expects to

experience in the foreseeable future.

H4: There is a positive relationship between

the number of life events experienced

and anticipated life events.

Consumers typically re-evaluate their

consumption needs at several transition

points in their lives, and many changes



in consumer behaviour are the result of

these assessments. Schewe and Balazs

(1992) discuss how transitions into

several roles in later life (eg retiree,

grandparent) may result in changes in

consumer behaviour due to the

enactment of such roles. For example, a

first-time grandparent may want to buy

toys appropriate for an infant and a

retiree may have more time to spend on

hobbies and other interests.

Mergenhagen (1995) presents several

examples of first-time decisions made

during transitional points. Thus, life

events may require changes in

consumption-related lifestyles.

Andreasen (1984), for example, found

life status changes to be positively

associated with changes in lifestyles (a

variable comprised of several

consumption-related lifestyles); he

concluded that ‘lifestyle change may

reflect both a positive reorientation and

a defensive adaptation to stressful

circumstances’ (p. 793). Similar

arguments can also be presented for

anticipated life events.

Most life-events studies have

measured accumulated life stress

through the use of self-report

questionnaires containing a list of

specific events. The overall life change

score (weighted or unweighted,

desirable or undesirable) is used as a

measure of stress (often known as ‘acute

stress’), which is inferred from one’s

experience of specific life events (Cohen,

1988). In the early 1980s, a series of

articles made the point that life events

may not only create a direct demand for

readjustment, which may involve

changes in consumption lifestyles (eg

Andreasen, 1984), but also affect one

indirectly through their exacerbation of

role strains (eg Pearlin et al., 1981).

Similarly, anticipation of acute stressors

(life events and role transitions) may

affect changes in brand preferences not

only directly but also indirectly through

mediating factors such as global stress.

Researchers have acknowledged that

both the assumption of a new role or its

anticipation can be stressful and

requires a major adjustment of one’s

lifestyle (Pearlin, 1982).

H5a: The greater the number of life events

consumers experience, the greater the

level of global stress.

H5b: The greater the number of life events

consumers experience the greater the

likelihood of change in their


H6a: The greater the number of life events

or role transitions consumers

anticipate, the greater the level of

global stress they are likely to

experience.

H6b: The greater the number of life events

consumers anticipate the greater the

likelihood of change in their


Lazarus and Delongis (1983) even

argued that chronic (global) stress

should be a better predictor of a

person’s response because it is a

proximal measure, reflecting the person’s

immediate experience of the social

environment, whereas life events are

more distal measures, that may not carry

a common meaning for all persons. The

idea that life events may heighten day-

to-day hassles flows easily from a large

body of literature on stress. Substantial

evidence has been accumulated

supporting the view that chronic stress

(whether defined as global stress,

hassles, daily stress, role strains, or

ongoing disadvantage) is a better

predictor than life events and mediates,

at least in part, the impact of those

events (Norris and Uhl, 1993).

H7: There is a positive relationship between

global stress and changes in


THE STUDY

Sample

Self-reported data collected through an

anonymous mail survey were used in

the study. Ten thousand names were

randomly drawn from the database of



R. L. Polk, which reportedly has

approximately 87 million household

names and addresses. The selection of

names was in proportion to the

population of each of the 50 states and

specific age groups. A copy of the

survey questionnaire, a covering letter

and a postage-paid return envelope

were mailed to each of the 10,000 names

in the sample. Completed

questionnaires were received from 1,534

respondents. In line with common

practice in psychological research to

compare those individuals who have

experienced certain events in the past

six to 12 months to a control group of

those who have not experienced them

(Norris and Uhl, 1993), the authors

included all individuals who had

experienced a wide range of events in

the sample. In addition, they selected a

random subsample of those who had

experienced only a few events in the

previous 12 months. Also included in

the sample was a large subsample of

those who had not experienced any of

the events in the life event list as the

control group. The final sample used

consisted of 866 questionnaires. The age

range of this sample was 21 to 84, with a

mean of 49.95 and a standard deviation

of 13.92 years, figures that compare

favourably to census data for the adult

population.

Variables

Changes in brand preferences were

measured by asking respondents to

indicate whether their brand preference

for 17 specific products had changed ‘in

the past six months’, ‘in the past six to

12 months’, ‘more than a year ago’ or

‘never changed’. They were also given

the option to indicate that they did not

use the products. Positive responses for

the first category (in the past six

months) were summed across the 17

items to form an index of ‘changes in

brand preferences’ 0 ¼ 2.095,

SD ¼ 2.597) (see the Appendix).

Consumption-related lifestyles were

defined as consumption behaviour that

people may initiate, intensify or change

in response to stress. Seventeen such

consumption-related lifestyle activities

were selected based on the previous

research (eg Andreasen, 1984; Lazarus

and Folkman, 1984; O’Guinn and Faber,

1989) (see the Appendix). Respondents

were asked to indicate whether their

most recent change (or initiation) in

those activities was ‘in the previous six

months’, ‘six to 12 months’, ‘more than

12 months’ or ‘never had experienced or

done the activity’. A positive response

to any lifestyle item ‘in the previous six

months’ category was coded as 1 and a

negative response was coded as 0.

Responses were summed across the 17

items to form a 0–17 point index for this

variable (0 ¼ 1.945, SD ¼ 1.92).

Most studies of life events have

measured the amount of acute stress

one experiences through the use of self-

report questionnaires containing a list of

specific events. Accumulated life stress

experienced is assumed to be the

unweighted score of the number of

events occurring to the subject over a

specific period of time (eg Chiriboga,

1989; Cohen, 1988; Tausig, 1982).

Although life-event scales are still very

popular, another approach has become

increasingly common. This approach is

to study single life events, such as

retirement. While aggregate stress

measures ignore the nature of specific

stress, a single-stressor approach avoids

the lack of specificity associated with

aggregation. The present study used

both measurement approaches. For

testing of the hypotheses related to the

impact of acute stress, life-event scales

that measure the accumulated amount

of stress over a specified period of time

were used. The single-event approach

was used for exploratory purposes.

Respondents were asked to indicate

whether they had experienced 25 events

most recently ‘in the past six months’,

‘in the past six to 12 months’ or ‘more

than 12 months ago’. The selection of

the events was guided by previous

psychological and consumer studies (eg



Andreasen, 1984; Chiriboga, 1989;

Cohen, 1988; Schewe and Balazs, 1992;

Tausig, 1982). The number of life events

experienced in the previous six months

was used to construct the 0–25 point

index of life events experienced. Subjects

also responded to a list of 14 life events

they anticipated they would experience

‘in the next six months’ or ‘in the next

few years’. The total number of events

anticipated was used to form a 0–14

point index of anticipated events

(0 ¼ 1.763, SD ¼ 1.659) (see the

Appendix).

The global stress measure was a single-

item measure which had been used in

previous psychological studies of life

events and stress (eg Norris and

Murrell, 1984). Although single items

have limitations and should be used

with caution, many investigators have

found them to be both useful and

predictive in social science research and

have demonstrated both their construct

and face validity (see Casserta and

Lund, 1992 for a review of these

studies). Specifically, the respondent

was asked to indicate how stressful his/

her life had been in the previous six

months, with responses measured on a

seven-point ‘terribly stressful’ (7) to ‘not

at all stressful’ (1) scale. In order to

validate this measure, a global

depression measure was used.

Respondents were asked to indicate, on

a similar seven-point scale, whether in

the previous six months they had been

‘terribly depressed’ (7) to ‘not at all

depressed’ (1). These two variables were

strongly correlated (r ¼ 0.588,

p , 0.001), providing evidence of

validity (Cohen, 1988).

RESULTS

A series of regression analyses was

carried out to test for the relationships

indicated by the hypotheses. The

mediating role of various variables was

also tested by using the procedure

suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986).

Table 1 shows standardised coefficients

and their significance levels for the

various regression models. Various

diagnostic tests (eg variance inflation

factor and tolerance) revealed that there

were no major deviations from the

assumptions of regression to cause any

concern regarding interpretation of

these results. The sizes of R2 are

relatively low, but this does not reduce

the value of these findings. As noted by

Novak and MacEvoy (1990), even low

R2 could reflect significant differences

across consumer groups. In this context

Duncan (1975) noted ‘it is a mistake to

focus too much attention on the

Table 1 Results of regression analysis (n ¼ 866)

Dependent variables

Global Consumption Change inIndependent Anticipated (chronic) lifestyle brandvariables events stress changes preferences

Constant 1.36a 3.81a 0.90a 1.24a

Life events 0.29a 0.25a 0.34a 0.13c

(0.27a) (0.23a) (0.26a) (0.08c)Anticipated events 0.21a 0.05 0.02

(0.22a) (0.04) (0.01)Global stress 0.11b

(0.09b)Consumption 0.33a

lifestyle changes (0.25a)

F-value 66.64a 63.24a 32.78a 24.66a

Adjusted R2 0.071 0.126 0.099 0.076

Note: Table entries are regression coefficients. Standardised regression coefficients (Beta) are given inparentheses.ap , 0.001bp , 0.01cp , 0.05



magnitude of R2’ (p. 65). Since the

primary focus here is on the hypotheses

testing the authors decided to proceed

with further analysis and interpretation

of results.

Direct effects

H1,H2 andH3 suggested that life events

experienced, life events anticipated and

changes in consumption lifestyles would

have a direct and positive effect on

changes in brand preferences. To test for

these relationships a regression model

with changes in brand preferences as the

dependent variable and the other three

variables as independent variables was

used. As shown in Table 1, the overall

model was significant (F ¼ 24.66,

p , 0.001, R2 ¼ 0.076). As anticipated,

life events experienced had a direct

positive effect on changes in brand

preferences (9 ¼ 0.08, p , 0.05),

providing support forH1. Anticipated

events did not have any effect on

changes in brand preferences, thus

failing to provide support forH2.

Changes in consumption lifestyles were

the strongest predictors of changes in

brand preferences (9 ¼ 0.25, p , 0.001),

providing support forH3.

Indirect and mediation effects

Anticipation of life events

H4 suggested a positive relationship

between life events experienced and life

events anticipated. The data support

this hypothesis with a significant

regression model (F ¼ 66.64, p , 0.001,

R2 ¼ 0.071) and a significant parameter

(9 ¼ 0.27, p , 0.001).

Global stress

H5a and H6a suggested that life events

experienced and life events anticipated

will positively affect global (chronic)

stress. These hypotheses were

supported by the data (F ¼ 63.24,

p , 0.001, R2 ¼ 0.126). As expected, life

events experienced had a positive effect

on global stress (9 ¼ 0.23, p , 0.001),

providing support for H5a. Similarly, life

events anticipated had a positive effect

on global stress (9 ¼ 0.22, p , 0.001),

providing support for H6a.

Consumption lifestyle changes

H5b, H6b and H7 suggested that life

events experienced, life events

anticipated and global stress will

positively influence consumption-

related lifestyles, respectively. While the

overall regression model was significant

(F ¼ 32.78, p , 0.001, R2 ¼ 0.099), not all

parameters were significant. H5b

suggested that life events experienced

will have a positive effect on

consumption-related lifestyle changes.

This hypothesis was supported by the

data (9 ¼ 0.26, p , 0.001); however, the

data did not provide support for H6b.

Finally, H7 suggested that global stress

will positively affect lifestyle changes.

This hypothesis was supported by the

data (9 ¼ 0.09, p , 0.01).

Mediation

The model also implied that lifestyle

changes act as a mediator between life

events experienced and changes in

brand preferences. Similarly, the model

suggested that global stress acts as a

mediator between life events

experienced and consumption-related

lifestyles. Baron and Kenny (1986)

suggested a procedure to assess such a

mediation by using a series of

regression models. Perfect mediation is

suggested when the independent

variable has no effect on the dependent

variable when the mediator is also

present in the regression model. Based

on this analysis, it appears that the

effects of life events on consumption-

related lifestyle changes is mostly

direct. The standardised regression

coefficient without the mediator (global

stress) is 0.302; it changes slightly

(9 ¼ 0.273) when the effects of the

mediator are assessed along with life

events.

A similar analysis to assess the

mediating role of consumption lifestyles

revealed that consumption lifestyles

partially mediate the relationship



between life event experienced and

brand preference changes. The

regression coefficient for life events

(9 ¼ 0.153, p , 0.001) drops significantly

(9 ¼ 0.078, p , 0.05) when the mediator

variable is introduced into the

regression model. Another set of

regression analyses was carried out to

assess the mediating role of

consumption-related lifestyles between

global (chronic) stress and brand

preference changes. The coefficient for

global stress (9 ¼ 0.132, p , 0.001) drops

significantly (9 ¼ 0.086, p , 0.01) when

the mediator is introduced. Similar

analysis was not necessary for the

anticipation of life events variable as it

was not a significant predictor of

changes in brand preferences.

The effects of specific events and

specific coping behaviour

Although many different types of event

cause stress, not all events produce

similar reactions among all people.

Also, different events may produce

different levels and types of stress.

Furthermore, not all lifestyle changes

might be induced by stress or cause

changes in brand preferences.

Therefore, this research sought to

explore further the effects of individual

events on brand switching behaviour

(direct effects). Similarly, the authors

sought to explore the effects of specific

changes in consumption lifestyles on

brand switching preferences. Since the

number of people experiencing specific

events varied widely, this analysis was

limited to only those events that had a

frequency of 30 or more in the ‘past six

months’ category. A series of t-tests was

conducted with changes in brand

preference as the dependent variable

and experience of a specific event as the

independent variable for 13 events

separately. The results are shown in

Table 2.

In almost all cases those who

experienced specific events indicated a

higher propensity to change brand

preferences compared with those who

had not experienced the event; however,

only four such differences were

significant at the individual-event level.

Health-related events, such as serious

injury and gaining a lot of weight,

producing changes in brand preferences

can be easily explained. These brand

preference changes might reflect one’s

attempt to correct a medical situation.

Family-related events, such as a major

conflict with a family member or more

responsibility for an aged relative,

create significant stress and a sense of

psychological dislocation requiring

readjustment of consumption habits

including changes in preferred brands.

Table 2 Effect of individual events on changes in brand preferences

Changes in brand preferences

Events (independent variables) Experienced Not experienced

1. Moved to a different place (n ¼ 30) 2.50 2.082. Death of parent or close family member (n ¼ 61) 2.54 2.063. Major conflict with family member (168) 2.74a 1.944. Significant success at work or personal life (n ¼ 154) 2.32 2.045. Changed jobs, same or different type (n ¼ 69) 2.55 2.066. Major improvement in financial status (n ¼ 46) 1.80 2.117. Financial status a lot worse than usual (n ¼ 103) 2.56 2.038. Family member’s health a lot worse (n ¼ 114) 2.46 2.049. More responsibility for aged relative (n ¼ 88) 2.61c 2.0410. Gained a lot of weight (n ¼ 41) 3.29b 2.0411. Chronic illness or condition diagnosed (n ¼ 35) 3.09 2.0512. Serious injury, illness or major surgery (n ¼ 60) 2.75c 2.0513. Death or loss of a pet (dog or cat) (n ¼ 46) 2.78 2.06

Note: Table entries are mean values for respective groupsap , 0.001bp , 0.01cp , 0.05



A similar analysis was carried out

with all 17 lifestyle changes as

independent variables (separately). The

results are shown in Table 3. As shown

in the table, all but four individual

lifestyle changes produced significant

changes in brand preferences. Holidays

abroad, receiving professional

counselling, changes in key investments

and an increase in the consumption of

alcohol are not related to changes in

brand preferences. It might be that these

events are not significant predictors of

brand preference changes, or the

instrument may not be sensitive enough

to capture such changes.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The main objective of this research was

to assess the stress- and lifestyle-

mediated effects of life events on brand

preference changes. This research

confirms the idea that when individuals

experience certain events in their lives

they also experience stress. As they

attempt to deal with the stress through

various coping mechanisms and/or

lifestyle changes, they also might

change their preferences for specific

brands.

This research has implications for

theory and marketing practice.

Andreasen (1984) hypothesised that

consumers do not change their brand

preferences during life transitions. This

has an intuitive appeal in the sense that

one may want to keep some continuity

in one’s life by continuing to use

preferred brands while other changes

are going on. Continuous use of

preferred brands might make the life of

the person undergoing life changes less

complicated; however, Andreasen’s

own data proved otherwise, showing a

positive relationship between brand

preference changes and life changes.

The present research confirmed the

finding that life events and stress are

positively associated with brand

preference changes. A possible

explanation for the present finding and

that of Andreasen (1984) is that people

Table 3 Changes in brand preferences among consumers who experienced change and those who didnot experience change in each consumption-related lifestyle (n ¼ 866)

Change in brand preferences

Consumption-related lifestyles Experienced Not experienced

1. Went on a vacation abroad for the first time or after notgoing for a long time (n ¼ 62)

2.63 2.05

2. Took a new hobby or recreational activity (n ¼ 122) 2.75b 1.993. Change in attendance of religious activities (n ¼ 60) 2.93b 2.034. Change in social relations (n ¼ 103) 3.08a 1.965. Home remodeling or refurnishing (n ¼ 214) 2.48c 1.976. Received professional counseling for the first time or after

not receiving for a long time (n ¼ 41)2.37 2.08

7. Used more antidepressants or tranquilisers than usual(n ¼ 30)

3.07c 2.06

8. Increased consumption of alcoholic beverages (n ¼ 30) 2.53 2.089. Gave more money or time than usual to charities (n ¼ 108) 3.01b 1.9610. Made more changes than usual in key investments (CDS,

mutual funds, stocks and bonds) (n ¼ 118)2.08 2.10

11. Received professional legal or financial advice for the firsttime or after not receiving for a long time (n ¼ 111)

2.61c 2.02

12. Started diet/weight control or exercise programme (n ¼ 152) 3.07a 1.8913. Change in attendance of cultural events (n ¼ 44) 3.25c 2.0314. Change in amount or type of insurance coverage (n ¼ 119) 2.62c 2.0115. Change in amount or type of television viewing (n ¼ 157) 3.15a 1.8616. Bought more gifts than usual (n ¼ 63) 3.25b 2.0017. Ate out a lot more than usual (n ¼ 150) 2.85a 1.94

Note: Table entries are mean values for changes in brand preferences between those who experiencedeach consumption-related lifestyle and those who did not.ap , 0.001bp , 0.01cp , 0.05



associate their old favourite brands with

stressful conditions or events as well as

with new or old roles. Brands that

remind them of the event and or the

stress associated with the event may be

avoided, resulting in brand preference

changes. For example, after an

acrimonious divorce or separation an

individual may be reminded of their ex-

spouse when they see a specific brand of

toothpaste because it happened to be

the favourite brand of the ex-spouse.

Such reminders may cause

psychological distress, and one may

attempt to deal with averse

psychological states by changing

preferences for brands. Similarly, many

life events serve as markers of

transitions into new roles, leading to

changes in consumer behaviour as

people are trying to enact new roles and

relinquish old ones (eg Belk, 1988;

McAlexander, 1991; Mehta and Belk,

1991). It is suggested that enactment of a

new role may influence brand

preferences because brand images are

known to be associated with a person’s

self-concept because not only products

but also brands contribute to the

person’s definition of self (eg Mehta and

Belk, 1991).

Consumer transitions into new roles,

or attempts to adjust to stressful life

events, create opportunities for

marketers to position their products. As

consumers are likely to re-evaluate their

consumption priorities due to major life

changes (eg retirement or widowhood),

needs for a specific product and

different brands may develop or

intensify. Marketers have long used

broad measures like life stage or age to

segment the market. The present

research suggests that life events and

life status changes might prove to be

better predictors of consumer behaviour

and hence better variables for

segmenting the market.

In their attempts to build their

customer base and to preserve their

existing base, marketers should also

recognise the opportunities created by

life events. This is particularly true for

mature product categories characterised

by slow or no growth, such as those

used in this study (eg toothpaste). Since

loss of customers to competitors due to

brand switching could have a significant

impact on market share and

profitability, it is of great importance for

a marketer to identify individuals or

subsegments that are more prone to

changing preferences. The findings of

this research can help marketers in this

direction. Thus, marketers who wish to

attract new customers from among

those who use competing products may

want to appeal to those who recently

have experienced or are about to

experience major life events (eg

marriage or relocation). By the same

token, marketers should be aware that

their loyal customers are at greater risk

of ‘defecting’ once they experience or

are about to experience major life

changes.



APPENDIX: ITEMS USED IN SCALE CONSTRUCTION

REFERENCESAndreasen, A. R. (1984) ‘Life status changes and changes

in consumer preferences and satisfaction’, Journal of

Consumer Research, 11, December, 784–794.

Baron, R. and Kenny, D. A. (1986) ‘The moderator-

mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical

considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Belk, R. W. (1988) ‘Possessions and the extended self’,

Journal of Consumer Research, 15, September, 139–168.

Bucklin, R. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1991) ‘Determining

interbrand substitutability through survey

measurement of consumer preference structures’,

Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 58–71.

Casserta, M. S. and Lund, D. A. (1992) ‘Bereavement

stress and coping among older adults: Expectations

versus the actual experience’, Journal of Death and

Dying, 25(1), 33–46.

Chiriboga, D. A. (1989) ‘The measurement of stress

exposure in later life’, in Markides, K. S. and Cooper,

C. L. (eds) Aging Stress and Health, Wiley and Sons,

New York, 13–41.

Cohen, L. H. (1988) Life Events and Psychological

Functioning, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Deighton, J., Henderson, C. M. and Neslin,

S. A. (1994) ‘The effects of advertising on brand

switching and repeat purchasing’, Journal of Marketing

Research, 31(1), 28–43.

Duncan, O. D. (1975) Introduction to Structural Equation

Models, Academic Press, New York, NY.

George, L. K. (1993) Financial Security in Later Life: The

Subjective Side, Boettner Institute of Financial

Gerontology, Philadelphia, PA.

Hetherington, E. M. and Baltes, P. B. (1988) ‘Child

psychology and life-span development’, in

Hetherington, E. M., Lerner, R. M. and Purlmutter, M.

(eds) Child Development Life-span Perspective, Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1–19.

Lazarus, R. and Delongis, A. (1983) ‘Psychological stress

and coping in aging’, American Psychologist, 38,

245–254.

Lazarus, R. and Folkman, S. (1984) Stress Appraisal and

Coping, Springer, New York, NY.

Lee, E. (1995) ‘Life events and consumer behaviour’,

unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State

University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Lee, E., Moschis, G. P. and Mathur, A. (2001) ‘A study of

life events and changes in patronage behaviour’, Journal

of Business Research, 54, 25–38.

Life events Consumption-related lifestyles

Moved to a different place� Went on a vacation abroad for the first time or afternot going for a long time

Marriage� Took on a new hobby or recreational activityBirth or adoption of a child� Change in attendance of religious activitiesDivorce or separation� Change in attendance of cultural eventsLast child moved out of household� Change in the amount or type of television viewingDeath of spouse Increased consumption of alcoholic beveragesDeath of a parent or close family member� Used more antidepressants or tranquilisers than usualBirth of first grandchild� Change in social relationsMajor conflict with family member Started diet/weight control or exercise programmeRetirement (at own will)� Bought more gifts than usualLost job/business or forced to retire� Ate out a lot more times than usualStarted work for the first time or after not

working for a long time�Home remodelling or refurnishing

Reduction in hours of employment or givingup employment (at own will)�

Received professional counselling for the first time orafter not receiving for a long time

Significant success at work or personal life Received professional legal or financial advice for thefirst time or after not receiving for a long time

Change jobs, same or different type� Made more changes than usual in key investments(CDS, mutual funds, stocks and bonds)

Major improvement in financial status Gave more money or time than usual to charitiesFinancial status a lot worse than usual� Change in amount or type of insurance coverageFamily member’s health a lot worseMore responsibility for aged relative�Gained a lot of weightChronic illness or condition diagnosedSerious injury, illness or major surgeryCommunity crisis or disaster (hurricane,

crime, fire, flood, earthquake, etc)Death or loss of a pet (dog or cat)Stopped smoking

Asterisk (�) indicates item used in anticipated events scale.Changes in brand preferences include responses to the following: coffee, bread, cereal, deodorant,shampoo, cigarettes, toothpaste, cookies, automobiles, frozen dinners, potato chips, cologne orperfume, soft drink, cold/allergy remedies, telephone (any type), blue jeans or casual slacks and wine,beer or spirits.



Mathur, A., Moschis, G. P. and Lee, E. (2001) ‘A study of

changes in brand preferences’, in Tidwell, P. M. and

Muller, T.E. (eds) Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer

Research, Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta,

GA, 133–139.

McAlexander, J. H. (1991) ‘Divorce, the disposition of the

relationship and everything’, in Holman, R. and

Solomon, M. R. (eds) Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 18, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,

43–48.

Mehta, R. and Belk, R. (1991) ‘Artifacts, identity, and

transitions: Favourite possessions of Indians and Indian

immigrants to the US’, Journal of Consumer Research, 17,

March, 398–411.

Mergenhagen, P. (1995) Targeting Transitions: Marketing to

Consumers During Life Changes, American

Demographics, Inc, Ithaca, NY.

Morgan, M. S. and Dev, C. S. (1994) ‘An empirical study

of brand switching for a retail service’, Journal of

Retailing, 70(3), 267–282.

Morrison, D. G. (1966) ‘Testing brand switching models’,

Journal of Marketing Research, 3, November, 401–409.

Novac, T. P. and MacEvoy, B. (1990) ‘On comparing

alternative segmentation schemes: The list of values

(LOV) and values and life styles (VALS)’, Journal of

Consumer Research, 17, June, 105–109.

Norris, F. H. and Murrell, S. A. (1984) ‘Protective function

of resources related to life events, global stress, and

depression in older adults’, Journal of Health and Social

Behaviour, 25, December, 424–437.

Norris, F. H. and Uhl, G. A. (1993) ‘Chronic stress as a

mediator of acute stress: The case of Hurricane

Hugo’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(16),

1263–1284.

O’Guinn, T. C. and Faber, R. J. (1989) ‘Compulsive

buying: A phenomenological exploration’, Journal of

Consumer Research 16, September, 147–157.

Pearlin, L. I. (1982) ‘Discontinuities in the study of aging’,

in Hareven, T. K. and Adams, K. J. (eds) Aging and Life

Course Transitions: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, The

Guildford Press, New York, NY.

Pearlin, L. I., Liebermann, M. A., Menaghan, E. G and

Mullan, J. T. (1981) ‘The stress process’, Journal of Health

and Social Behaviour, 22, 337–356.

Price, L. and Curasi, C. (1996) ‘If one thing doesn’t get

you, another will: Old age transitions and market

vulnerabilities’, paper presented at the Association for

Consumer Research Annual Conference, Tucson, AZ.

Rutter, M. (1983) ‘Stress, coping, and development: Some

issues and some questions’, in Garmezy, N. and Rutter,

M. (eds) Stress, Coping, and Development in Children,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 25–44.

Schewe, C. D. and Balazs, A. L. (1992) ‘Role transitions in

older adults: A marketing opportunity’, Psychology and

Marketing, 9, March/April, 85–99.

Schewe, C. D. and Meredith, G. E. (1994) ‘Digging deep to

delight the mature adult consumer’, Marketing

Management, 3(3), 21–35.

Tausig, M. (1982) ‘Measuring life events’, Journal of Health

and Social Behaviour, 23, 52–64.

Thoits, P. (1995) ‘Stress, coping, and social support

processes: Where are we? What Next?’, Journal of Health

and Social Behaviour, Extra Issue, 53–79.

Van Trijp, H. C. M., Hoyer, W. D. and Inman, J. J. (1996)

‘Why switch? Product category-level explanations for

true variety-seeking behaviour’, Journal of Marketing

Research, 33, August, 281–292.

Wagner, J. and Hanna, S. (1983) ‘The effectiveness of life

cycle variables in consumer expenditure research’,

Journal of Consumer Research, 10, December, 281–291.

Young, M. M. and Wallendorf, M. (1989) ‘Ashes to ashes,

dust to dust: Conceptualizing consumer disposition of

possessions’, in Childers, T. et al. (eds) Proceedings of the

1989 AMA Winter Educators’ Conference: Marketing

Theory and Practice, American Marketing Association,

Chicago, Illinois, 33–39.



life events and brand preference changes

Documents