Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Psychology and Marketing
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Psychol Mark. 2021;38:908–932.908
|
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar
Received: 21 April 2020
|
Revised: 18 February 2021
|
Accepted: 8 March 2021
DOI: 10.1002/mar.21482
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Saving money or losing face? An international study on social
stigmatization in discount stores
Christian Homburg |Kateryna Ukrainets
Chair of Business‐to‐Business Marketing,
Pricing and Sales, University of Mannheim,
Mannheim, Germany
Correspondence
Kateryna Ukrainets, Chair of Business‐to‐
Business Marketing, Pricing and Sales,
University of Mannheim, L5,1, Mannheim
68131, Germany.
Email: kateryna.ukrainets@bwl.uni-
mannheim.de
Abstract
Social stigmatization is detrimental to its victims, leaving them devalued and dis-
criminated against by society. Can social stigmatization of marginalized low‐income social
groups also influence non‐stigmatized high‐status consumers? If so, does the individual's
cultural value of power distance (PD) moderate this relationship? Previous consumer
research on social stigmatization has neglected these questions. In a discount‐store
context, we analyze the moderating effect of an individual's cultural value of PD on the
link between the social stigmatization of low‐income customers and the customer loyalty
of higher‐income customers. In an international scenario‐based experimental study, we
collected data in the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and Russia, resulting in a sample
size of 1675 consumers. The empirical findings, which are based on structural equation
modeling with latent variables, show the positive direct and negative indirect relationship
between the social stigmatization of low‐income customers and the customer loyalty of
higher‐income customers. The results of a multi‐group causal analysis indicate that an
individual's cultural value of PD strongly influences the strength of this relationship.
These findings demonstrate that social stigmatization has stronger effects on individuals
with a high level of PD.
KEYWORDS
customer loyalty, discount stores, power distance, social identity threat, social stigmatization
1|INTRODUCTION
Social stigmatization is a complex social process that puts its target
at risk of losing status and social rejection by other individuals (Link
& Phelan, 2001). More precisely, social stigmatization occurs when a
person possesses a characteristic that conveys a social identity that
is devalued in a particular social context or when the individual be-
longs to a marginalized group (Major & O'Brien, 2005). However,
membership in a marginalized group is not required to be a target of
stigmatization, as the transmissible nature of stigma can expose an
individual who is merely near a stigmatized group or associated with
stigmatized individuals to the threat of social stigmatization (Argo &
Main, 2008; Ellemers et al., 2002; Hebl & Mannix, 2003).
Prior studies focusing on social groups such as racial minorities
(Eijberts & Roggeband, 2016; Meuleman et al., 2019), sexual mino-
rities (Mays & Cochran, 2001), or overweight people (Decker
et al., 2018; Hunger et al., 2015) have shown that social stigmati-
zation has a strong effect on individual behavior and well‐being. Prior
work in psychology has also investigated adverse outcomes of social
stigmatization, such as low self‐esteem (Blodorn et al., 2016; Leary
et al., 1995), damaged physical or mental health (Hatzenbuehler
et al., 2009; Hunger & Major, 2015), and reduced opportunities for
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. Psychology & Marketing published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
academic and financial success (Derks et al., 2006; Inzlicht & Ben‐
Zeev, 2000; Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003) among marginalized
social groups. However, the literature has not addressed the ques-
tion whether social stigmatization of marginalized social groups can
also affect non‐stigmatized high‐status individuals. Our study ad-
dresses this study gap.
While social stigmatization can be an important driver of con-
sumer behavior (Mirabito et al., 2016; Wooten & Rank‐
Christman, 2019), marketing research on this phenomenon remains
rather scarce with the focus on specific topics. So far, qualitative
observational studies have investigated stigma management of social
minorities (Adkins & Ozanne, 2005; Crockett, 2017; Henry &
Caldwell, 2006; Kates, 2002; Kozinets, 2001), and several quantita-
tive studies have analyzed the social stigmatization of discount use
and coupon redemption (Argo & Main, 2008; Ashworth et al., 2005;
Brumbaugh & Rosa, 2009; Tepper, 1994).
In a low‐price context, a relatively small field of consumer re-
search on social stigmatization reveals the social stigmatization of
coupon redemption (Argo & Main, 2008; Ashworth et al., 2005;
Brumbaugh & Rosa, 2009). These studies show that consumers tend
to feel ashamed and embarrassed when redeeming coupons to save
money. For example, coupon redemption can create a negative im-
pression that the individual is being “cheap”or “stingy”(Ashworth
et al., 2005). Similarly, when one consumer is redeeming a coupon,
another consumer located nearby can also experience stigmatization
as being poor and “cheap”(Argo & Main, 2008). These studies
identify an interesting phenomenon: chasing lower prices can make
an individual subject to social stigmatization. However, the focus of
these studies is limited to coupon redemption, and generalizability of
the findings to the low‐price context is questionable.
A full understanding of the process of social stigmatization must
include recognition of its cultural aspect (Crocker, 1999; Major &
O'Brien, 2005). Research in psychology provides evidence for cul-
tural differences in individuals’tendency to stigmatize others and to
react to social stigmatization (Shin et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2013).
However, in a marketing context, social stigmatization has not pre-
viously been examined internationally.
Our study addresses this second research gap by showing that
the effect of stigmatization of discount stores’low‐income clientele
on higher‐income consumers’emotional and behavioral responses
depends on the latter's cultural value of power distance (PD). This
cultural orientation explains an individual's attitude toward power
disparities and acceptance of unequal distribution of power and
status in society (Hofstede, 1980). As we base our predictions on
social dominance theory, we use PD as a proxy for social dominance
orientation (SDO), or the extent to which an individual desires un-
equal relations among social groups (Pratto et al., 2006). Psychology
research has established that high‐SDO individuals show more sup-
port for hierarchy‐enhancing cultural beliefs (Pratto et al., 2006) and
tend to endorse power disparity (Fischer et al., 2012). In the same
vein, high‐PD individuals tend to accept inequality of power and
perceive it as legitimate (Hofstede, 1980). The presence and en-
dorsement of social hierarchies and power disparities in society are
necessary conditions for social stigmatization to occur and affect
individuals (Fiske, 1993; Link & Phelan, 2001; Major &
O'Brien, 2005). Therefore, we predict that individuals with a high PD
level will be more affected by social stigmatization—a prediction
supported by the tendency of high‐PD cultures to accept social in-
equality and be more sensitive to its negative consequences
(Hofstede et al., 2010; Oyserman, 2006).
As the theoretical foundation for our study, we employ two
theories prominent to psychology research. The first is social identity
theory, which posits that individuals view themselves and form their
self‐image on the basis of their membership in various social groups
(Turner & Tajfel, 1986). This theory supports the notion of social
groups formed on individuals’income level and social status, which is
the focus of our study. The second is social dominance theory, which
postulates that people tend to establish group‐based social hier-
archies in society and maintain unequal distribution of power
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). We employ social dominance theory in our
study to explain the process of social stigmatization and the role of
an individual's cultural value of PD in this process.
This study makes three contributions to psychology and mar-
keting research and practice. First, the increasing inequality in power
between the rich and poor has made social stigmatization of low‐
income individuals a prominent issue (Hamilton, 2012). Not only
does stigmatization traumatize its direct victims, but it can also ne-
gatively influence non‐stigmatized individuals located nearby (Hebl &
Mannix, 2003). Our study exposes this social dynamic. Second, the
magnitude of stigmatization's effect on consumers’behavior likely
varies with cultural beliefs and orientations (Link & Phelan, 2014;
Major & O'Brien, 2005). As the cultural aspect is a critical part of the
phenomenon of social stigmatization, our study analyzes how the
effect of stigmatization varies with an individual's cultural value of
PD. Third, although discount stores primarily target low‐status cus-
tomers, they also strive to attract higher‐status groups (Herstein &
Vilnai‐Yavetz, 2007). Our research focuses on the social interaction
between different income groups in a discount‐store context.
2|THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
We anchor our study in social identity theory and social dominance
theory. In essence, these theories aim to explain human behavior and
decision‐making in the context of interactions between social groups
and hierarchies, thus offering a sound foundation for this
investigation.
2.1 |Social identity theory and social identity
threat
Social identity theory offers a framework for explaining the re-
lationship between the self‐concept and a group as well as inter-
group processes (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Livingstone &
Haslam, 2008). The primary assumption of this theory is that identity
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
909
encompasses two levels: personal identity (i.e., the identity related to
an individual's sense of self) and social identity (i.e., the various as-
pects of the self‐concept that originate from social groups to which a
person belongs). That is, people define themselves not only by their
own unique individual characteristics but also by the collective
characteristics of the groups to which they belong (Brewer, 1991;
Turner & Tajfel, 1986). They also distinguish between their mem-
bership groups (i.e., in‐groups) and distinct social groups to which
they do not belong (i.e., out‐groups). People are motivated to es-
tablish favorable social identities because these result in positive
self‐worth (Tajfel, 1974). Therefore, people tend to evaluate their in‐
groups’worth by continually comparing them with out‐groups
(Festinger, 1954; Turner & Tajfel, 1986).
An essential element of the social identity approach is self‐
categorization theory (Turner & Reynolds, 2012). This theory as-
sumes that individuals try to simplify information acquired from the
social world by categorizing people into various groups (e.g., gender,
nationality, social status, occupation). Individuals perceive them-
selves as belonging to multiple social groups or categories
(Tajfel, 1974; Turner & Tajfel, 1986). According to self‐categorization
theory, an individual's behavior can be driven by his or her social
groups, depending on the salience of group membership in a parti-
cular situation (Turner & Reynolds, 2012). Salience refers to the
importance of a social category (e.g., age, gender, and social status) in
a specific situation and can function as a cue reminding an individual
of his or her social group membership. To influence an individual's
behavior, group membership must be salient (Trepte & Loy, 2017).
In this case, the individual will respond to a particular situation in a
way that is consistent with one of his or her social identities
(Turner & Tajfel, 1986).
The central assumption of social identity theory is that people
strive for a positive self‐image and try to accomplish this by joining
more favorable social groups and avoiding association with margin-
alized groups (Brewer, 1991; Tajfel, 1982). This assumption is re-
flected in two psychological principles of the theory (Trepte &
Loy, 2017; Turner & Tajfel, 1986). First, to ensure membership in a
favorable group, individuals engage in social comparison by assessing
their in‐group against a relevant out‐group (Buunk &
Mussweiler, 2001; Festinger, 1954). Second, individuals tend to
evaluate their in‐groups more favorably than out‐groups, a tendency
called “positive distinctiveness”(Appiah et al., 2013; Bettencourt
et al., 2001). A basic premise of positive distinctiveness is an in-
dividual's motivation to amplify the differences between in‐groups
and out‐groups, resulting in intergroup discrimination (Trepte &
Loy, 2017). Individuals tend to avoid any relation to dissociative out‐
groups owing to the fear of losing “face,”which refers to a favorable
self‐image and social position (Hwang, 1987).
Social identity is a fundamental and powerful driver of consumer
behavior (Berger & Heath, 2008; Escalas & Bettman, 2005; White &
Dahl, 2007). In situations in which social identity is salient, in-
dividuals view the world through the lens of identity‐consistent
paradigms (Turner & Tajfel, 1986). For example, when high social
status is salient, an individual with high socioeconomic status who
especially values his or her membership in a high‐status social group
will try to emphasize and maintain this membership (Scheepers &
Ellemers, 2005). Here, the consumer is motivated to behave in ac-
cordance with his or her social identity while avoiding inconsistent
behavioral patterns.
To define, emphasize, and communicate their social identities,
consumers make corresponding consumption choices (Berger &
Heath, 2008; White et al., 2012). For example, in the context of
social status salience, individuals with higher socioeconomic status
tend to engage in the consumption of luxuries and avoid low‐priced
brands to maintain face or a positive social identity (Li et al., 2015;
Wilcox et al., 2009; Zhan & He, 2012).
When the need for high status and a positive social identity is
not met, social identity threat arises (Ellemers et al., 2002; Scheepers
& Ellemers, 2005). Engaging in consumer behavior that is incon-
sistent with one's social identity and associated with a negatively
evaluated out‐group can result in a fear of losing face (Bian &
Forsythe, 2012; Ho, 1976). For example, people are exposed to social
identity threats if their consumption choices coincide with choices of
dissociative social out‐groups (Berger & Heath, 2008). Psychology
research has repeatedly demonstrated that individuals are motivated
to maintain positive self‐worth (i.e., keeping “face”) by avoiding as-
sociation with dissociative out‐groups (Branscombe & Wann, 1994).
This dissociative effect is also well established in consumer behavior
literature (Berger & Heath, 2008; White & Argo, 2009; White
et al., 2012).
Threats to social identity are often viewed as threats to the
group's value and status (Ellemers et al., 2002). However, social
identity threat can also arise when an individual is the target of a
negative social evaluation that is related to a particularly important
aspect of identity. One manifestation of negative social evaluation
that can threaten an individual's social identity is social stigmatiza-
tion (Major & O'Brien, 2005). As social stigmatization is closely re-
lated to the concepts of power and social hierarchies (Link &
Phelan, 2014), we also discuss stigmatization from the perspective of
social dominance theory, which we use as additional theoretical
background to investigate the effects of social stigmatization.
2.2 |Social stigmatization, social dominance
theory, and power distance
Social stigmatization occurs when a person has (or is believed to
have) some trait or characteristic that causes him or her to be de-
valued in the eyes of others (Major & O'Brien, 2005). Stigmatizing
attributes may be linked not only to devalued personal character-
istics but also to membership in some social groups (e.g., sexual
minorities, racial minorities, and low social status groups).
Social stigmatization is transmissible—a stigma imposed on one
individual can negatively affect another person located nearby or
associated with the stigmatized person (Argo & Main, 2008; Hebl &
Mannix, 2003). This transmissible nature implies that even if an in-
dividual is not a member of a stigmatized group but is associated
910
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
with it in a particular social context, he or she can be subject to
stigmatization (Ellemers et al., 2002).
Social dominance theory casts light on the social processes that
produce and maintain devaluation and discrimination as elements of
social stigmatization at multiple levels (Pratto et al., 2000; Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999). Independent of a society's regime, its shared beliefs, or
its socioeconomic environment, people tend to organize into group‐
based social hierarchies with unequal distribution of social status and
power. Social dominance theory attempts to explain how a group‐
based social hierarchy is formed and maintained in a society
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). According to the theory, a group‐based
social hierarchy results from discrimination against lower social
groups across individual, group, and institutional levels. Consensually
shared cultural and social ideologies and beliefs serve to maintain
discrimination across these levels in favor of dominant social groups
over low‐status groups (Pratto et al., 2006).
The theory also postulates that an important factor that leads to
the discrimination of low‐status social groups is an individual's SDO
(Pratto et al., 1994). As noted previously, SDO captures individuals’
desires for group‐based dominance and endorsement of power in-
equality, regardless of their position in the social hierarchy (Pratto
et al., 2006). Individuals with a high level of SDO believe in con-
ceptual ideas of hierarchical disparities reinforced by individual,
group, and institutional discrimination (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).
Thus, a high level of SDO relates strongly to cultural elitism, in which
an elite social class is superior to working‐class people (Pratto
et al., 1994). A strong positive correlation between national‐level
mean SDO scores and nation‐wide cultural orientations to a social
hierarchy (i.e., PD beliefs) has been established at the country level
(Fischer et al., 2012). Therefore, in the context of culture, SDO re-
sonates with a cultural dimension such as PD (Hofstede, 1980;
Oyserman, 2006; see Appendix A).
Shared cultural beliefs are essential for social stigmatization to
occur (Crocker, 1999; Major & O'Brien, 2005). Some cultures apply
moral and intellectual reasoning for group‐based inequality, deva-
luation, and discrimination (Pratto et al., 2006) and thus are more
inclined to avoid association with lower social classes (Hwang, 1987).
Cultures with high levels of PD emphasize the importance of face,
which denotes favorable social position, good reputation, and self‐
image (Hofstede, 2001; Hwang, 1987). High‐PD cultures originated
from feudal societies in which an individual's position in a social
hierarchy was reflected in the concept of face. In such cultures, loss
of face may lead to devastating social consequences, and as a result,
people in high‐PD cultures are constantly under strong social pres-
sure to meet social expectations (Hu, 1944). High‐PD cultures share
and accept ideologies promoting group inequality and legitimize
hierarchies and extensive social stratification (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Therefore, we employ the construct PD as a proxy for SDO and base
our predictions on social dominance theory.
3|CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND
HYPOTHESES
Figure 1represents the conceptual framework of our study. Below
we operationalize the constructs comprising our conceptual frame-
work and develop hypotheses on the relationships between them.
3.1 |Definition of key constructs
Social stigmatization is an independent variable in this study. It influences
consumer behavioral outcomes, specifically customer loyalty, in our
conceptual framework. Drawing from previous work investigating social
stigmatization (Link & Phelan, 2001;Tepper,1994), we define and ana-
lyze this variable as a two‐dimensional construct comprising devaluation
(i.e., downward placement in a status hierarchy) and discrimination (i.e.,
verbal or nonverbal expression of disrespect).
FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework and hypothesized relationships
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
911
Customer loyalty, the dependent variable, is a multifaceted con-
struct that has undergone substantial revision and redirection in
measurement (Dick & Basu, 1994; Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). In our
study, this construct has three dimensions: repeat purchase intention
(i.e., subjective estimates of the likelihood of future purchases in the
same store; MacKenzie et al., 1986), positive word‐of‐mouth (WOM)
intention (i.e., intention to informally communicate pleasant experi-
ences about goods or services as well as a desire to recommend a
product or service to others; Anderson, 1998), and cross‐buying
intention (i.e., intention to buy additional products or services from
the same company; Ngobo, 2004). We combine these dimensions in
the second‐order construct of customer loyalty.
We conceptualize social identity threat as a mediator of the re-
lationship between social stigmatization and customer loyalty. In line with
prior research, we define social identity threat as a psychological state
experienced when a person feels at risk of being judged through negative
evaluation of his or her social identity (Major & O'Brien, 2005; Steele
et al., 2002). In our study, respondents identify with middle‐or higher‐
income social groups, and we make their social status salient with the
help of the experimental scenario. Therefore, an individual's social iden-
tity, which derives from membership in higher‐status social groups, is
threatened when his or her peers associate him or her with stigmatized
low‐income customers of a discount store.
Finally, drawing on social dominance theory, we conceptualize
an individual's PD level as a proxy for SDO and use it as a moderating
variable in our conceptual framework. Of the six cultural dimensions
(Hofstede, 1980), PD is the most relevant to our study's context
because it explains power disparities in society and individuals’at-
titudes toward them. Individuals with high PD levels recognize the
importance of power and social status and are likely to accept a
power hierarchy and even discrimination based on race, gender, or
social class (Sharma, 2010). High‐PD people also tend to endorse the
belief about power disparity, independently of their position in a
social hierarchy (Kim & Zhang, 2014). We operationalize PD level as
the degree to which an individual expects and accepts that power is
distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980).
Importantly, our focus on the individual instead of the national
level of PD orientation follows best practices in cross‐cultural re-
search (Sharma, 2010; Taras et al., 2009). The rationale is that all
citizens of a country cannot share identical or similar cultural char-
acteristics (Bond, 2002; Hofstede, 1991; Oyserman, Heather,
et al., 2002; Sharma, 2010), and thus accounting for individual dif-
ferences is important. Indeed, scholars argue that only a limited part
of the overall variation in cultural orientation resides between
countries, with more than 80% residing within countries (Kirkman
et al., 2017; Taras et al., 2016). Moreover, nation‐level constructs of
cultural values may not fully represent the variation in cultural va-
lues of a country's citizens (Bond, 2002; Hofstede, 1991). Most
countries have mixed representations of worldviews. For example, in
Japan or Korea, some individuals share rather individualist and
egalitarian worldviews, which is contradictory to predictions based
on Hofstede's cultural orientations of high collectivism and high PD
in these countries (Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, et al., 2002).
Literature on consumer behavior in the low‐price context shows
that customers’price attitudes strongly influence their behavior
(Ailawadi et al., 2001; Alford & Biswas, 2002; Bailey, 2008). To re-
present an individual's attitude toward low prices, we employ price
consciousness as a control variable. Researchers have identified this
construct as an important driver of consumer behavior, especially in
a low‐price context (Kukar‐Kinney et al., 2007; Palazón &
Delgado, 2009). We define price consciousness as the degree to
which a customer focuses predominantly on paying low prices
(Lichtenstein et al., 1993). Therefore, we expect that a higher level of
price consciousness will increase loyalty to discount stores, while the
effects of social stigmatization and social identity threat will remain
significant.
In addition, we control for the effect of household income on
customer loyalty to a discount store. In the context of utilitarian
consumption, consumers with a low‐income level are more price‐
sensitive and consequently more responsive to low‐price stores than
consumers with higher incomes (Jones et al., 1994; Lichtenstein
et al., 1993; Wakefield & Inman, 2003). Indeed, prior research shows
that individuals with lower incomes are more likely to patronize low‐
price stores and to respond more favorably to retailers implementing
low‐pricing strategies (Bailey, 2008). Because low‐income customers
have tighter budget constraints than high‐income customers, they
tend to avoid overspending (Homburg et al., 2010) and therefore
would be more likely to develop loyalty to a discount store offering
low prices. Although we focus on average and above‐average income
groups, household income still varies in the sample. We expect that
customer loyalty to a discount store will decrease with an increase in
household income, while the effects of social stigmatization and so-
cial identity threat will remain significant.
3.2 |Hypotheses development
3.2.1 |Effect of social stigmatization on customer
loyalty
Social stigmatization has been shown to influence the consumer
behavior of its targets (Mirabito et al., 2016). Due to the devastating
nature of this social phenomenon, one could expect that individuals
would try to avoid socially stigmatized consumption practices.
However, consumer research on social stigmatization of margin-
alized minorities in the shopping context provides somewhat coun-
terintuitive findings. This stream of research argues that stigmatized
consumers may engage in stigmatized consumption as a strategy for
resisting mainstream norms and managing stigmas (Adkins &
Ozanne, 2005; Crockett, 2017; Henry & Caldwell, 2006; Kates, 2002;
Kozinets, 2001). For example, middle‐class African Americans, who
even in the 21st century are still targets of social stigmatization,
often apply the so‐called destigmatizing strategy, using black culture
as a source of high status (Crockett, 2017). In the same vein, gay
men, who are historically a stigmatized social group, tend to express
their individuality with consumption practices of homosexual
912
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
subcultures (Kates, 2002). Several studies of stigmatized minorities
support these findings regarding the oppositional character of sub-
cultural consumption, in which individuals engage in stigmatized
consumption practices as a means of resisting social norms—for ex-
ample, bikers (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995) and Star Trek fans
(Kozinets, 2001).
Even though limited, consumer research on social stigmatization
demonstrates that consumers can still choose consumption practices
associated with stigmatized groups. For example, consumers of “in-
die”music and fashion, which are stigmatized as elements of the
“hipster”culture, forge demythologizing symbolic boundaries be-
tween their consumer identities and the hipster icon. In doing so,
they are inclined to choose the stigmatized product despite the
prevailing stigmatizing myths (Arsel & Thompson, 2011). In the same
vein, a practice that was historically stigmatized in society—veiling
among Turkish women—became an attractive choice for middle‐class
women and then transformed into an acceptable consumption choice
for many despite the social stigmatization (Sandikci & Ger, 2010).
The process when the socially stigmatized practice becomes socially
accepted is referred to as de‐stigmatization and can lead to an un-
expected change in consumer behavior. We apply these findings to
high‐status non‐stigmatized consumers in the following way.
We suggest that while higher‐income individuals are aware of social
stigmatization of discount stores’low‐income clientele, they will still shop
at these stores because doing so has become a common consumption
practice (Arsel & Thompson, 2011;Sandikci&Ger,2010).
Based on the above‐discussed studies’findings, we expect that
the social stigmatization of discount stores’low‐income clientele
might even trigger higher‐income customers’loyalty to these stores.
Furthermore, keeping in mind the effect of social stigma on mar-
ginalized social groups and the process of de‐stigmatization of some
consumption practices, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H1:Social stigmatization of discount stores’low‐income clientele in-
creases higher‐income customers’intentions to repurchase, spread
positive WOM, and cross‐buy at a discount store as elements of
customer store loyalty.
3.2.2 |Effect of social stigmatization on social
identity threat
Social psychology literature on social stigmatization shows that the
influence of stigma on its victims is mediated by their understanding
of how other individuals view and evaluate them (Crocker &
Major, 1989; Crocker et al., 1998; Major & O'Brien, 2005). More
precisely, the social identity derived from membership in or asso-
ciation with a marginalized social group can be threatened by other
individuals’negative evaluation of this group (Steele et al., 2002;
Turner & Tajfel, 1986). Social stigmatization affects its victims di-
rectly in the forms of devaluation and discrimination and indirectly
through a threat to personal or social identity. Identity threat occurs
when a stigma‐related situation is potentially detrimental to one's
social identity derived from group membership, which is especially
relevant for an individual (Major & O'Brien, 2005). Notably, social
identity can only then be threatened when it becomes salient in a
specific situation (e.g., an in‐group member is questioning an in-
dividual's social group membership).
Prior psychology research on social stigmatization shows that stig-
matization can threaten the victim's social identity. These studies focus
on weight (Decker et al., 2018; Hunger et al., 2015;Majoretal.,2014),
gender (Metaxa‐Kakavouli et al., 2018; Stout & Dasgupta, 2011), and
race (Eijberts & Roggeband, 2016; Meuleman et al., 2019). With the
focus on social stigmatization as a source of social identity threat, psy-
chology research has established that a stigmatized individual experi-
ences stress and uncertainty as to whether stigmatization occurs because
of his or her personal or social identity (Crocker et al., 1998). According
to Steele et al. (2002), situational cues that signal low or marginalized
status of one's social group can lead to social identity threat. Possessing a
consensually devalued or marginalized social identity (i.e., being socially
stigmatized) increases a person's exposure and vulnerability to situations,
threatening his or her social identity.
However, given social stigmatization's transmissibility (Argo &
Main, 2008; Ellemers et al., 2002), even an individual who is not
stigmatized directly but only associated with a stigmatized group can
find his or her social identity threatened. Thus, we develop our
second hypothesis:
H2:Social stigmatization of discount stores’low‐income clientele leads
to social identity threat of higher‐income customers of discount
stores.
3.3 |Moderating role of power distance in the
stigmatization process
Although inequality and a hierarchical structure exist within any
society, cultures differ in the extent to which they accept inequality,
particularly in their PD level (Hofstede, 1980). As prior research has
shown (Hofstede et al., 2010; Oyserman, 2006), in contrast with low‐
PD cultures, high‐PD cultures tend to accept and appreciate the
unequal distribution of power, wealth, and prestige in society. When
measured at the individual level, this cultural dimension shares
several features with the central construct in social dominance
theory—namely, SDO (Pratto et al., 1994). An individual's PD level is
a measure of his or her belief in and desire to maintain social and
economic hierarchies (King et al., 2010).
As a process, social stigmatization depends on various types of
power—social, economic, and political. Power is an essential prerequisite
for social stigmatization (Link & Phelan, 2001; Major & O'Brien, 2005).
Importantly, however, an individual's level of PD is independent of
power: the social status of an individual does not determine his or her PD
beliefs (Oyserman, 2006; Zhang et al., 2010).
Furthermore, the degree to which power disparities are ac-
cepted in a social interaction largely defines the effects of social
stigmatization on individuals and their behavior (Hebl &
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
913
Dovidio, 2005). Related literature has shown that in cultures with a
higher level of PD, social stigmatization is more likely to have
stronger effects on an individual's behavior as well as on the well‐
being of society (Oyserman, 2006; Pratto et al., 2000; Shaffer
et al., 2000). Therefore, we expect an individual's level of PD or-
ientation to mitigate or accelerate the effects of social stigmatization
on his or her emotional (i.e., social identity threat) and behavioral
(i.e., customer loyalty) responses. Thus:
H3a:Social stigmatization of discount stores’clientele affects customer
loyalty more strongly if an individual has a high rather than low
level of PD orientation.
H3b:Social stigmatization of discount stores’clientele threatens a
consumer's social identity more strongly if he or she has a high
rather than low level of PD orientation.
3.4 |Effect of social identity threat on customer
loyalty
People are motivated to preserve positive self‐worth, which can be
accomplished by either imitating auspicious social groups’con-
sumption choices (Berger & Heath, 2007; Escalas & Bettman, 2003;
McFerran et al., 2010) or avoiding dissociative groups’consumption
choices (Berger & Heath, 2008; White & Dahl, 2007; White &
Argo, 2009). Consumer behavior research has established that if
individuals’social identity is threatened (i.e., they are associated with
a dissociative out‐group), they will respond by avoiding products or
brands that are associated with the threatening aspect of social
identity (Berger & Heath, 2007,2008; White & Dahl, 2006; White &
Argo, 2009). By diverging from members of a dissociative out‐group
in consumption choices, individuals avoid signaling undesired char-
acteristics (Berger & Heath, 2007; Brough et al., 2016; Escalas &
Bettman, 2005; White et al., 2012).
These findings align with psychology research suggesting that
individuals are motivated to avoid associating with marginal groups
to maintain positive self‐worth (Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Doosje
et al., 1995). Prior consumer behavior literature has closely ex-
amined the effects of social identity threat on consumer choices
(Berger & Heath, 2008; Brough et al., 2016; Gill & Lei, 2018; White &
Argo, 2009) and attitudes toward brands (Escalas & Bettman, 2005).
For example, people avoid products associated with an out‐group to
avoid signaling undesired identities (Berger & Heath, 2008) and tend
to diverge from dissociative out‐groups to avoid social identity
threat. Similarly, consumers can alter their product preferences and
choice behaviors to circumvent social identity threat, avoiding pro-
ducts associated with the threatening aspect of identity (White &
Argo, 2009). In support of these findings and broadening the re-
search on social identity threat and consumer behavior, Gill and Lei
(2018) develop a theoretical framework covering consumers’nega-
tive responses to products threatening their social identity.
Although none of these studies focus on the low‐price context,
we can transfer their common finding to our study: consumers tend
to avoid products and brands that lead to social identity threat. In-
tuitively, therefore, in the context of our study, social identity threat
will decrease customer loyalty. However, to replicate the existing
findings, we test the following:
H4:Social identity threat experienced by a higher‐income customer in a
discount store decreases his or her intentions to repurchase, spread
positive WOM, and cross‐buy at a discount store as elements of
customer store loyalty.
4|METHODOLOGY
4.1 |Pretest
Before conducting the main experiment, we ran a pretest to ensure
the effectiveness of the context priming of social stigmatization of
low‐status customers of a discount store (Stanovich & West, 1983).
Participants in the lab experiment were 150 international students
enrolled in a master's program at a large European university who
were asked to carefully read a scenario and imagine themselves in a
described situation. The priming (n= 75) and neutral (n= 75) sce-
narios were equally distributed among participants.
Both scenarios describe a shopping situation in a discount store.
In the priming scenario, participants encounter low‐status
individuals. We expect context priming to work when they read
information that these customers are “poorly dressed homeless
people who are noisy and appear to be drunk”and that they heard a
lot of “awkward stories that happened at this discount store because
of such customers”(see Appendix B). In the neutral scenario, no low‐
status individuals appear in the shopping situation. We anticipated
that participants who read the priming scenario would report a
higher level of social stigmatization, measured as devaluation and
discrimination. Furthermore, in both scenarios, we made group
membership salient. According to the described situation, after
leaving the discount store, participants meet a friend who makes a
comment about people who shop at the discount store.
After reading a scenario, participants filled out questionnaires
that included newly developed and established scales for measuring
the central constructs of the study—social stigmatization, customer
loyalty, and social identity threat. We dropped some items on the
basis of this pretest. The original scales had four to five items mea-
suring a construct. We ran a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
check the indicator reliabilities of each item and eliminated items
with indicator reliabilities below the required threshold of 0.4
(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The scales used in the pretest appear in
Appendix C.
Consistent with our expectations, the t‐test results showed that
participants in the priming condition reported a higher level of social
stigmatization (M
treatment
= 4.26, SD = 1.59) than those in the neutral
group (M
control
= 3.96, SD = 1.58), and this difference was significant
(p< 0.001). This result allowed us to conclude that the priming was
effective and that we could use both scenarios for the actual
914
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
experiment. In addition, we assessed the realism of the scenario on a
7‐point Likert scale (M= 5.3, SD = 1.07) using two items: “I can easily
imagine myself being in the described situation”and “The described
situation is likely to occur in real life.”
4.2 |Main study
4.2.1 |Sample characteristics
We report below how we determined our sample size, all experimental
conditions, all ad hoc data exclusions, and all measures in the study for
the sake of transparency (Simmons et al., 2012). The data was collected
via an international online consumer panel in the United Kingdom,
Germany, China, and Russia to achieve generalizability of the results and
high within‐sample variance on the key construct PD. The sample size
was predetermined based on Nunnally's (1967) recommendations, who
claims that sample size should be considered in light of the number of
items in a questionnaire (which in our case is N
items
=42). A widely ac-
cepted rule of thumb is 10 observations per item in setting a lower
threshold of an adequate sample size (Nunnally, 1967), which would
result in 420 necessary observations. Since the data collection was
planned in four countries, we aimed for this number of respondents in
each country, and the final sample size before outliers’elimination
comprised 1768 respondents.
In our experimental study, there were two conditions: a priming
condition (in which a negative image of low‐income individuals was
primed) and a neutral condition. As a result of random sampling, 903
respondents received a priming scenario, and 865 respondents received
a neutral scenario. Both scenarios and the final questionnaire were
translated into German, Russian, and Chinese and checked for accuracy
with back‐translation. After reading the scenario, respondents filled out a
questionnaire measuring 14 variables (for the experimental conditions,
see Appendix B; for the complete questionnaire, see Appendix D).
Furthermore, as the population of interest comprises individuals
with average or above‐average incomes, respondents with demo-
graphics signaling low socioeconomic status (those who reported
unemployment status and household income lower than average before
the study) were not admitted to the experiment. Each respondent
received a financial incentive of €5 for participating in the 15‐min‐
long study. Respondents read the scenarios followed by the ques-
tionnaire, in which we also included factual manipulation checks (i.e.,
objective questions about a scenario's content with correct answers)
of the experimental condition (i.e., “There were homeless people in the
store”vs. “There were no homeless people in the store”). From the results
of factual manipulation checks, we identified 34 respondents in the
priming group (3% of the control group sample) and 21 respondents
in the neutral condition (2% of the priming group sample) who did
not answer the factual manipulation check question correctly. We
defined respondents who failed the factual manipulation checks as
nonlegitimate observations and removed them from the sample
following the best experimental research practice (Kane &
Barabas, 2019; Turner, 2007).
Before data analysis, multivariate outliers (i.e., observations
with an atypical pattern across several variables; Leys et al., 2019)
were identified with the help of leverage‐versus residual‐squared
plots. Multivariate outliers are essential to detect before perform-
ing structural equation modeling (SEM) since they can easily jeo-
pardize fit indices (Kline, 2016). In the sample of 1768 observations,
38 multivariate outliers were detected (2% of the sample) and re-
moved from the sample. When these observations were retained in
the sample, the model fit was significantly poorer. There were no
missing data. Table 1provides the descriptive statistics of the final
sample.
4.3 |Measures
We measured all constructs in our study with multi‐item 7‐point
Likert scales. To assess measurement validity, we ran CFAs. Table 2
shows the results. As we analyzed the independent and dependent
variables as multidimensional constructs, we provide more details on
establishing the multidimensionality of the scales.
TABLE 1 Sample composition
The United
Kingdom
(n= 426)
Germany
(n= 428)
China
(n= 412)
Russia
(n= 409)
Gender
Female 52% 49% 52% 51%
Male 48% 51% 48% 49%
Age
18–24 1% 2% 4% 6%
25–34 5% 14% 42% 31%
35–44 11% 20% 20% 31%
45–54 19% 26% 6% 20%
55–64 23% 21% 3% 10%
65 and over 40% 17% 26% 2%
Education level
Technical training 21% 36% 4% 19%
High school graduate 44% 35% 11% 18%
Bachelor's degree or
higher
35% 29% 85% 63%
Household monthly
income
Average 65% 57% 48% 25%
Above average 35% 41% 52% 65%
Individual PD level
High 36% 31% 54% 48%
Low 64% 69% 46% 52%
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
915
4.3.1 |Social stigmatization
We followed the conceptualization of social stigmatization as a
multidimensional construct reflecting devaluation and discrimination
(Link & Phelan, 2001; Tepper, 1994). Drawing on labeling theory,
Tepper (1994) operationalizes stigmatization directed at elderly
consumers as a two‐dimensional construct reflecting devaluation and
discrimination. From the qualitative interviews with elderly con-
sumers, the author developed scales for measuring each of these
dimensions from the perspective of store employees, other custo-
mers in the store, and other people in the customer's shopping party.
We focused on the perspective of other customers and adapted the
items to the context of our study. An established guideline for
modification of the established scale's items is that changing the
subject (i.e., elderly consumers in the study of Tepper (1994)) of a
statement, provided that the statement still relates to the same
domain (i.e., in our case, social stigmatization), is generally acceptable
(Robinson, 2018). For instance, we modified the item measuring
TABLE 2 Scales measuring central constructs
MSDIR CR AVE CA
Social stigmatization
Discrimination (based on Tepper, 1994): 0.94 0.85 0.94
1. People may be less respectful of customers shopping in discount stores. 3.87 1.65 0.80
2. People may look down on customers shopping in discount stores. 3.96 1.72 0.88
3. People may show a lack of respect for customers shopping in discount stores. 3.82 1.71 0.86
Devaluation (based on Tepper, 1994): 0.95 0.86 0.95
4. People might think that customers of discount stores have less money to spend than average customers do. 4.34 1.65 0.75
5. People might view customers of discount stores as less wealthy. 4.43 1.67 0.92
6. People might think that customers of discount stores are financially not as well off as other customers. 4.39 1.67 0.89
Social identity threat (newly developed scale):
0.93 0.82 0.93
1. The fact that my friend saw me with bags from this discount store undermined my identity. 2.99 1.72 0.82
2. My personality was challenged when my friend saw me holding bags from this discount store. 3.00 1.77 0.84
3. The fact that my friend saw me with bags from this discount store threatened the way I feel about myself. 2.69 1.73 0.79
Customer loyalty
Repurchase intention (based on Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006): 0.93 0.82 0.93
1. If I need low‐priced products, I would choose the same discount store again. 5.44 1.42 0.80
2. It is very likely that I will purchase products in this discount store in the future. 5.38 1.42 0.79
3. I intend to purchase products in this discount store the next time I need low‐priced products. 5.44 1.39 0.86
Cross‐buying intention (based on Swinyard, 1993): 0.93 0.82 0.93
4. I would buy more groceries in this discount store. 5.11 1.45 0.74
5. I would buy other items than groceries in this discount store. 5.06 1.46 0.90
6. I would purchase additional products in this discount store. 5.00 1.47 0.83
Intention to recommend (based on Blodgett et al., 1997): 0.95 0.87 0.95
7. I would recommend my friends to purchase groceries in this discount store. 4.85 1.57 0.90
8. I would advocate shopping in this discount store when talking to my friends about grocery stores. 4.87 1.58 0.87
9. I would make sure to tell my friends to shop in this discount store. 4.60 1.67 0.83
Power distance level (by Sharma, 2010): 0.88 0.71 0.88
1. It is difficult for me to refuse a request if someone senior asks me. 4.01 1.57 0.61
2. I tend to follow orders from authority figures without asking any questions. 3.74 1.63 0.76
3. I find it hard to disagree with authority figures. 3.72 1.62 0.77
Note: All items were assessed on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree,”7=“strongly agree”).
916
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
discrimination “Store employees may act less respectful toward the user
of this discount”to “People may be less respectful of customers shopping
in discount stores.”Another example of the item's modification is the
item measuring devaluation “If someone uses this discount, other cus-
tomers may be less likely to view them as youthful”was modified to
“People might view customers of discount stores as less wealthy.”To
verify the applicability of the modified scales to our study, we
checked their psychometric properties, such as reliability and valid-
ity, with the help of CFA (see results in Table 2).
We conducted construct validation through specification and
testing of CFA models (MacCallum & Austin, 2000). In the pretest
study, we measured devaluation with six items and discrimination with
five items (see Appendix C). With the help of CFA, we evaluated the
model for discrimination measured by six items and devaluation
measured by five items. Drawing on the values of instrument relia-
bility (IR), we refined the scales, leaving only the items that achieved
IR above 0.4 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). As a result, devaluation and dis-
crimination were each measured by three items in the main study.
After collecting the data in the main study, we validated the scale
measuring social stigmatization with our international sample of 1675
consumers. We ran a model with devaluation and discrimination and
measured each variable with three items. Table 2shows that all indicator
reliabilities were above the required threshold of 0.4 (Bagozzi &
Yi, 1988), with the lowest at 0.75. The scale achieved an adequate level
of reliability as measured by Cronbach's α. Composite reliability (CR) and
average variance extracted (AVE) were above the recommended
threshold (Hu & Bentler, 1999). To further clarify the dimensionality of
the scale, we compared our model with an alternative one‐factor model
in which all items loaded on one factor. Akaike's information criterion
(AIC) is lower for the two‐factor model (AIC
difference
= 2793.192), in-
dicating its superiority (Homburg, 1991). We also conducted exploratory
factor analysis with varimax rotation to establish the dimensionality of
the scale. The results revealed two factors with an eigenvalue higher than
1. Thus, dimensionality of the scale was confirmed, and social stigmati-
zation was measured by the two subscales “devaluation”and
“discrimination.”
4.3.2 |Customer loyalty
We used a multidimensional scale to measure customer loyalty. As
mentioned previously, we operationalize customer loyalty as a second‐
order reflective construct comprising implies an intention to repurchase
(RI), intention to shop more (ISM), and intention to recommend (WOM).
We adapted the scale from Pavlou and Fygenson (2006)tomeasureRI,
adapted the ISM scale from Swinyard (1993),andusedthescalefor
WOMfromBlodgettetal.(1997). Following the best research practice,
we adapted the existing scales and used them in our study context while
retaining their original face and content validity (Robinson, 2018).
The scales for measuring RI, ISM, and WOM were modified by adding
the context‐related subject “discount store”to each statement.
Furthermore, we conducted CFA for each of the scales to check their
validity in the context of our study. Table 2shows the CFA results, which
confirm validity and internal reliability of the adapted scales. To confirm
the dimensionality of the customer loyalty scale, we compared the three‐
factor model with a one‐factor model, in which all items measuring RI,
ISM, and WOM loaded on one factor. This comparison showed that a
three‐factor model had a much better goodness‐of‐fit and a lower AIC
(AIC
difference
= 3423.661).
Table 3shows correlations and descriptive statistics of the in-
dependent, mediating, and grouping variables. The square root of the
AVE for each construct exceeds the correlation with the other
constructs, meeting the criterion of Fornell and Larcker (1981) and
supporting discriminant validity of the customer loyalty construct.
4.3.3 |Social identity threat
To measure the mediating variable social identity threat, we developed the
scale based on the definitions of the construct in line with Major and
O'Brien (2005) and Steele et al. (2002). According to their oper-
ationalizations, social identity threat is a type of psychological stress an
individual experiences when his or her group membership is considered
devalued or marginalized by others. Even if an individual does not belong
to a marginalized group but is associated with it, social identity is
threatened (Branscombe & Wann, 1994). It is also well established in
psychology research that social identitythreatisaccompaniedbypsychic
costs (Steele et al., 2002) and feelings of confusion regarding one's self‐
view (Crocker & Major, 1989). Since no suitable scale to measure social
identity threat exists in consumer behavior research, we developed the
scale, drawing on well‐established principles (Hinkin, 1998; Kline, 2000).
First, based on the above‐discussed definitions and premises of
social identity threat, we generated five preliminary theory‐driven
items reflecting the concept of social identity threat in the context of
our study. Since the presence of an in‐group member is an important
condition for social identity threat to occur (Steele et al., 2002), we
include “my friend saw me”in each item. Further, we included an
aspect that is signaling association with a low‐status group
(Branscombe & Wann, 1994), which is “bags from this discount store”.
Finally, confusion regarding one's self‐view and psychic costs
(Crocker & Major, 1989) are reflected in such elements of the items
as “undermined my identity”,“my personality was challenged”,“threa-
tened the way I feel about myself”, and “made me feel unworthy”.
Second, these items were evaluated by researchers for clarity of
expressions. As a third step, the items were incorporated in a
questionnaire used in the pre‐test with 150 participants. After col-
lecting the data, we ran CFA and EFA to check the factor structure
within the items and preliminary psychometric properties
(Robinson, 2018). Based on CFA results, we retained three out of five
items with the highest IR (as recommended by Hu & Bentler 1999).
As a final step, we included the refined scale in the main study
questionnaire, and based on CFA results, we assessed construct
validity and internal reliability (see Table 2). The results demonstrate
that the developed scale is valid and reliable and can be applied
cross‐culturally (all the items were back‐translated and carefully
assessed by German, Russian, and Chinese native speakers).
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
917
5|ANALYSIS
Having operationalized our latent constructs and run CFAs on
each, we proceeded with path analysis. First, we tested the direct
relationships (H1 and H2). We relied on SEM using maximum
likelihood estimation to conduct a three‐path analysis to test the
hypotheses on the relationships between social stigmatization,
social identity threat, and customer loyalty. We also included a
categorical variable indicating the absence or presence of a
priming condition (0 = neutral condition, 1 = priming condition) in
the model and directed a path from this variable to the “true”
independent variable social stigmatization (Aiken et al., 1994;
Bagozzi, 1977; MacCallum & Austin, 2000).
Second, we analyzed the impact of the moderator variable (i.e., PD)
on the relationships between stigmatization and social identity threat and
customer loyalty. We ran multi‐group SEM, which helps determine
whether the phenomena of interest produce different results when the
same measurement model is run on multiple samples. We deemed this
method appropriate for our study because we consider relationships
between second‐order latent constructs (Arnold, 1982; Dimitrov, 2006;
Myers et al., 2000). We performed a median split of the sample using the
value of the moderator variable PD. That is, in multi‐group SEM we
compared two subsamples, one with a high PD level and one with a low
PD level.
6|RESULTS
6.1 |Initial model testing
Table 4reports the results of the general model. We achieved good
model fit with the observed data (TLI = 0.977; CFI = 0.973;
RMSEA = 0.055; SRMR = 0.048). The parameter estimates are sig-
nificant and support the relationships represented in the model (see
Figure 1). The effect of the categorical independent variable (de-
noting the priming or neutral condition) on the latent independent
variable social stigmatization was significant (γ= 0.145, p< 0.01),
suggesting a significant difference between the treatment and con-
trol groups. We tested H1 and H2 using SEM with an examination of
the structural coefficients summarized in Table 4.
6.1.1 |Direct effect of social stigmatization on
customer loyalty
In H1, we proposed that the direct effect of social stigmatization on
customer loyalty was positive. As Table 4shows, this relationship
was positive and significant (γ= 0.103, p< 0.01), so the hypothesized
effect was supported.
6.1.2 |Direct effect of social stigmatization on
social identity threat
In H2, we proposed that social stigmatization of buying in discount stores
would have a significant, positive effect on social identity threat. We
assessed this relationship by examining the structural coefficients and
foundthatitwassignificant(γ= 0.542, p< 0.01). Thus, H2 is supported.
We examined the total and indirect effects of social stigmatization
on customer loyalty through social identity threat. Although the indirect
effect is significantly negative (γ=−0.099, p<0.001), the total effect is
positive but not statistically significant (γ=0.040, p= 0.888). An ex-
planation of this result is that the direct and indirect effects are in op-
posite directions and therefore cancel each other out (MacKinnon
et al., 2000).
6.1.3 |Direct effect of social identity threat on
customer loyalty
In H4, we proposed that social identity threat would have a sig-
nificant, negative effect on customer loyalty. By examining the
structural coefficients, we assessed this relationship and found that it
was significant (γ=−0.183, p< 0.01). Thus, H4 is supported.
6.1.4 |Effect of control variables
To account for respondents’sensitivity to low prices, we employed
price consciousness as a control variable and expected it to increase
their loyalty to a low‐price store. Indeed, as Table 5shows, price
consciousness significantly increases customer loyalty to a discount
TABLE 3 Descriptive statistics and
correlations
MSDCR AVE CA 1 2 3 4 5
1. Devaluation 4.41 1.59 0.95 0.86 0.94 (0.93)
2. Discrimination 3.87 1.63 0.94 0.85 0.95 0.68*** (0.92)
3. Social identity threat 2.89 1.63 0.93 0.82 0.93 0.39*** 0.46*** (0.91)
4. Power distance 3.77 1.47 0.88 0.71 0.88 0.22*** 0.24*** 0.45*** (0.84)
5. Customer loyalty 5.08 1.27 0.95 0.70 0.95 0.07 0.09 −0.12*** 0.10*** (0.84)
Note: CA, Cronbach's alpha. The square roots of the AVEs are on the diagonal.
*p< 0.05.
**p< 0.01.
***p< 0.001.
918
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
store (γ= 0.517, p< 0.001). After including price consciousness in the
model, we still find strong positive direct effects discussed above.
We also controlled for the effect of household income on cus-
tomer loyalty to a discount store. We expected a reverse relationship
between the level of household income and loyalty to a low‐price
store. As Table 5shows, income level indeed has a negative effect on
customer loyalty (γ=−0.06, p< 0.05), and the hypothesized re-
lationships remain statistically significant.
6.2 |Power distance moderator effects
In finding support for the main hypothesized relationships, the next
step was to analyze the suggested moderator effects. After
establishing measurement invariance, we compared the relationships
between constructs across the low‐and high‐PD groups. Testing for
cross‐group invariance involved comparing two nested models: (1) a
baseline model in which no constraints were specified and (2) a
second model in which paths of interest were constrained to be
invariant between the groups. Comparison of nested models em-
ployed a robust nested chi‐square test.
The model with all parameters freely estimated in the two
groups fit the data well (CFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.07), according to the
criteria suggested by Hu & Bentler, 1999, and the overall Χ
2
was
significant. The fit of the partial invariance model with three path
coefficients constrained to be equal across groups was significantly
poorer, and the resulting Χ
2
difference was significant
(Δχ
2
(3) = 22.92, p< 0.001).
TABLE 4 Estimated structural relations coefficients (general sample)
Coefficient Total effect Indirect effect 95% CI lower 95% CI upper
Priming dummy > stigmatization 0.145*** 0.081 0.185
Stigmatization > customer loyalty (H1) 0.103*** 0.034 0.172
Stigmatization > social identity threat (H2) 0.542*** 0.499 0.584
Social identity threat > customer loyalty −0.183*** −0.247 −0.118
Stigmatization > social identity threat > customer loyalty 0.004 (n.s.) −0.099*** −0.128 −0.058
Note: Standardized coefficients are reported.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; n.s., not significant.
*p< 0.05.
**p< 0.01.
***p< 0.001.
TABLE 5 Estimated coefficients in
models with and without control
variables (CVs)
General sample Low PD High PD
CV: Price consciousness
Stigmatization > customer loyalty 0.074** 0.038 (n.s.) 0.133**
Social identity threat > customer loyalty −0.203*** −0.211*** −0.208***
Stigmatization > social identity threat 0.540*** 0.435*** 0.643***
Price consciousness > customer loyalty 0.517*** 0.477*** 0.541***
CV: Household income
Stigmatization > customer loyalty 0.096** 0.064 (n.s.) 0.150**
Social identity threat > customer loyalty −0.145*** −0.278*** −0.132*
Stigmatization > social identity threat 0.528*** 0.413*** 0.634***
Household income > customer loyalty −0.060*−0.84** −0.009 (n.s.)
No control variables
Stigmatization > customer loyalty 0.103*** 0.001 (n.s.) 0.159**
Social identity threat > customer loyalty −0.183*** −0.238** −0.121***
Stigmatization > social identity threat 0.542*** 0.432*** 0.654***
Stigmatization > social identity
threat > customer loyalty
−0.099*** −0.103*** −0.079*
Abbreviation: PD, power distance.
*p< 0.05.
**p< 0.01.
***p< 0.001.
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
919
These findings suggest that the low‐and high‐PD groups differ in
terms of the relationships between social stigmatization, customer
loyalty, and social identity threat. Specifically, in the high‐PD group,
social stigmatization had a significant, positive direct effect on cus-
tomer loyalty (γ= 0.16, p< 0.01). However, the results showed no
significant association between social stigmatization and customer
loyalty in the low‐PD group. Thus, H3a is supported. Furthermore,
the effect of social stigmatization on social identity threat was
stronger in the high‐PD group (γ= 0.65, p< 0.001) than in the low‐PD
group (γ= 0.43, p< 0.001). Thus, H3b is also supported. The re-
lationships remained significant after we controlled for price con-
sciousness and household income (see Table 5).
6.3 |Post hoc analysis: Mediation test
To assess the effect of the psychological mechanism underlying so-
cial stigmatization (i.e., social identity threat) in low‐and high‐PD
groups, we conducted a post hoc mediation analysis. To test for
mediation, we fit one model via SEM, in which the direct and indirect
paths are fit simultaneously to estimate each effect while statistically
controlling for the other (Iacobucci et al., 2007). As Figures 2and 3
show, the path coefficients between social stigmatization and social
identity threat and between social identity threat and customer
loyalty are significant. Thus, we conclude that mediation occurs in
both groups (Baron & David, 1986).
SEM provides unbiased estimates of mediation, and the bias‐
corrected bootstrap method provides the most accurate confidence
intervals (CIs) and performs best in testing for mediation (Cheung &
Lau, 2008). Therefore, we estimated indirect effects for the media-
tion model using 95% bias‐corrected CIs obtained from boot-
strapping with 5000 iterations (Preacher et al., 2007).
The results show significant indirect effects in both groups.
In the low‐PD group, the indirect effect of social stigmatization on
customer loyalty through social identity threat was γ=−0.10
(p< 0.001) with 95% CI (−0.14 to −0.06), whereas in the high‐PD
group, the size of the indirect effect was γ=−0.08 (p< 0.05) with
95% CI (−0.12 to −0.01). However, we found no significant differ-
ences between the indirect effects in the two groups. We isolated
each path in the indirect effect model, which resulted in no sig-
nificant change in chi‐square: Δχ2(Δdf) = 0.72 (2). Therefore, al-
though the indirect effects of social identity threat are significant in
both groups, there is no significant difference in these effects be-
tween groups. That is, when social identity is threatened, social
stigmatization negatively influences customer loyalty, independently
of an individual's PD level.
7|FOLLOW‐UP QUALITATIVE STUDY
To validate the counterintuitive finding of the positive effect of social
stigmatization on customer loyalty to discount stores in the high‐PD
group, we conducted a follow‐up qualitative study that relied on
short interviews with customers of discount stores in Russia (n= 10)
and Germany (n= 10). The prerequisite for the sample composition
was that respondents belong to a high social class. We determined
the social class of the interviewees using Warner's Index of Status
Characteristics (ISC; Warner & Lunt, 1941). The respondents were
recruited at the entrance to the discount store Pyaterochka in Russia
and Lidl in Germany. The sample of customers in Russia comprised
five men and five women (average age = 47 years), and the sample of
customers in Germany comprised four women and six men (average
age = 54 years). Respondents were from an upper‐middle social class
(ISC score: 25–37) and a lower‐upper social class (ISC score: 18–24;
Lantos, 2015).
Respondents were informed of the general purpose of the study
(i.e., to analyze consumer behavior in discount stores) and assured
anonymity. Interviews were conducted in front of the discount store
as free conversations lasting from 10 to 15 min. The structured
interview format had three parts: (1) questions to determine an
individual's socioeconomic status and opinion about power disparity,
(2) questions about an individual's shopping experience in a discount
store and his or her opinion about the typical clientele of a discount
store, and (3) questions about an individual's shopping behavior, in-
cluding questions about occasions for which he or she would or
would not shop at a discount store. Deductive coding of the quali-
tative data involved a search for words and expressions that cap-
tured a similar interpretation and could be assigned a shared code.
FIGURE 2 Mediation model for high power distance group
920
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
To analyze the answers, we applied a thematic analysis in which two
of the researchers analyzed the answers independently and then
together searched for common patterns across the data set to
identify themes related to research questions (Braun &
Clarke, 2012). We analyzed transcriptions of the recorded interviews
for content according to three themes: (1) a social aspect of the
shopping experience (i.e., stigmatization of low‐status customers), (2)
reasons for choosing a store (i.e., customer loyalty), and (3) feelings
experienced when members of an individual's social groups observe
shopping behavior (i.e., social identity threat).
The results of the interviews confirmed the findings of our
quantitative study. In Russia, the respondents revealed a tendency to
stigmatize low‐income customers of discount stores. They stated
that when they shopped in a discount store, they sometimes felt
irritated by “those unemployed alcoholics who go there to buy their
cheap [alcohol]”—one of the responses reflecting social stigmatiza-
tion of low‐status customers. In addition, some respondents men-
tioned that they “would never buy products here for meeting with
friends or colleagues”and “it is not common in my circle of people”
(see Appendix E). These answers resonate with our previous finding
that individuals experience social identity threat when their peers
associate them with low‐status individuals. A common answer to the
question about choosing a discount store again was: “Why not? If I
need to buy something quickly, I will come back to this store. I do not
care what people say about it.”From this answer, we conclude that
high‐status customers will develop loyalty to a discount store, de-
spite the social stigmatization of low‐status customers. Another
pattern identified for the theme of customer loyalty is that some
respondents confirmed that in the past, they were more reluctant to
buy groceries in discount stores. “Times are changing, and these
stores get more inviting. No one cares where you do shopping,
nowadays”—this expression can be interpreted as proof of de‐
stigmatization of buying in discount stores, despite the social stig-
matization of their low‐status clientele.
By contrast, in Germany, we identified no content related to a
stigmatizing aspect of discount stores. The German customers did
not mention a feeling of “embarrassment”or “irritation”due to
shopping in a discount store. They also described a discount store's
clientele as diverse. However, the German respondents indicated
that they would be unlikely to buy groceries for a special occasion
(e.g., dinner with friends, family, or colleagues) in a discount store.
Thus, the results of the interviews in Germany corroborated our
finding that in a low‐PD group, social stigmatization of low‐status
individuals does not seem to impact consumer behavior of high‐
status individuals. However, in a social context in which an in-
dividual's shopping choice is apparent to members of his or her social
groups, social identity threat can arise and will serve as a mediator of
a relationship between social stigmatization and consumer behavior.
8|DISCUSSION
This study proposes and tests an integrated framework rooted in
social identity theory and social dominance theory. The suggested
framework explains the effect of social stigmatization of low‐status
customers on non‐stigmatized high‐status customers, moderated by
an individual's cultural value of PD. The results of our study show
that social stigmatization of low‐income social groups leads to social
identity threat experienced by higher‐income customers at discount
stores, which in turn decreases their customer loyalty. That is, social
identity threat is the mediating mechanism through which social
stigmatization decreases a non‐stigmatized customer's loyalty to a
discount store. This result implies that non‐stigmatized high‐status
customers are indirectly negatively affected by social stigmatization
of low‐status customers, with whom they share a shopping en-
vironment if social identity threat is apparent. To the best of our
knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate that social stig-
matization can threaten social identity of an individual, who is not its
initial target.
However, given that one's social identity is not threatened by
devaluation or condemnation of an in‐group member, the direct ef-
fect of social stigmatization on one's consumer behavior was shown
to be positive. This result means that when a non‐stigmatized con-
sumer's favorable group membership and social identity are not
threatened, his or her loyalty to low‐price stores can even be trig-
gered by the stigmatization of low‐status customers in these stores.
With the help of the qualitative follow‐up study, we shed light on this
finding. The results of 20 semi‐structured interviews show that one
of the reasons for the positive effect of social stigmatization is the
so‐called phenomenon of de‐stigmatization, which denotes the
FIGURE 3 Mediation model for low power distance group
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
921
transition of a socially stigmatized practice into a socially accepted
one. Future studies should investigate further the direct effect of
social stigmatization on consumer behavior by drawing on our
study's findings. Furthermore, given the positive direct effect of so-
cial stigmatization demonstrated by our study, future research could
search for possible mediators that might produce a positive indirect
path (e.g., empathy, moral identity).
An important finding of our study is that an individual's cultural
value of PD has a positive moderating effect on the social stigmati-
zation's effect on customer loyalty and social identity threat. That is,
the effects of social stigmatization were significantly stronger among
individuals with a high level of PD. Thus, in accordance with social
dominance theory, high‐PD individuals are more sensitive to social
stigmatization than individuals with low levels of PD. We validated
this finding with the help of qualitative interviews, which we con-
ducted with high‐status customers of discount stores in Russia
(mostly individuals with relatively high levels of PD) and Germany
(predominantly low‐PD individuals).
This study addresses two major neglected areas of research on
social stigmatization. First, previous research has largely disregarded
the issue of the effect of social stigmatization of social minorities on
the non‐stigmatized population. Research to date has focused on
consumer stigmatization related to old age (Tepper, 1994), certain
subculture groups (Henry & Caldwell, 2006; Kozinets, 2001), race
(Crockett, 2017), and low literacy levels (Adkins & Ozanne, 2005).
However, whereas these studies unpack the consumption practices
of historically stigmatized minorities, our study broadens this study
by focusing on high‐status non‐stigmatized social groups. That is, we
show that social stigmatization of low‐status customers can also
affect consumer behavior of high‐status non‐stigmatized customers.
Second, although psychology literature has extensively in-
vestigated the link between social stigmatization and individuals’
affective and behavioral responses (Blodorn et al., 2016; Derks
et al., 2006; Inzlicht & Ben‐Zeev, 2000; Leary et al., 1995;
Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003), research has not examined
moderator effects on this relationship. In view of the importance of a
cultural aspect of social stigmatization (Crocker, 1999; Major &
O'Brien, 2005), the lack of research on culture's moderating role in
the stigmatization–response link is surprising. Against this back-
ground, we analyzed the moderating impact of an individual's cul-
tural value of PD. Employing multi‐group SEM, we found significant
differences between low‐and high‐PD groups with regard to the
stigmatization–response link. More specifically, we show that the
direct effect of social stigmatization of low‐income customers on a
higher‐income customer's loyalty to a store is significantly stronger
when the latter has a high level of PD.
Our online experimental study relies on a large international sample
of 1675 respondents across four countries, the results of which we va-
lidate with a follow‐up qualitative study comprising 20 interviews. We
develop the conceptual framework using two theories popular in psy-
chology and marketing research: social identity theory and social dom-
inance theory. By doing so, we demonstrate the prevalence of social
stigmatization in a discount‐store environment and reconcile two
phenomena central to both psychology and marketing research: social
identity and social hierarchies.
8.1 |Research contributions
Our findings broaden the understanding of social stigmatization as a
complex social phenomenon. We find that the effect of social stig-
matization of discount stores’low‐income customers on higher‐
income customers’loyalty to the store unfolds in two distinct ways.
First, we find that social stigmatization of low‐income clientele has a
positive direct effect on customer loyalty of higher‐income custo-
mers. This finding broadens existing consumer research by empiri-
cally showing that this negative social phenomenon can positively
trigger consumer behavior. To validate these findings, we conducted
20 interviews with higher‐income customers of discount stores in
Russia and Germany, the results of which provide additional support
for our findings. This counterintuitive outcome highlights the need
for further investigation of social stigmatization and its influence on
consumer behavior of the non‐stigmatized individuals, not only
through the lens of its negative effects.
Second, the results of the mediation analysis show that the in-
direct effect of social stigmatization on customer loyalty is reversed.
That is, in light of social identity threat, an individual's customer
loyalty to a discount store, in which the low‐income clientele is
stigmatized, decreases. This decrease in loyalty occurs because of the
fear of losing membership in a salient high‐status social group or, in
other words, losing face (Li et al., 2015; Wilcox et al., 2009; Zhan &
He, 2012). Individuals are motivated to avoid any relationship with
out‐groups (as well as cues related to them) not because they dislike
the groups but because of the fear of losing a self‐image that is based
on approved social attributes and membership in accepted groups
(Goffman, 1955). This finding emphasizes the importance of a deeper
investigation of the underlying psychological processes that can ex-
plain the effects of social stigmatization on consumer behavior.
An important contribution of our study is that, on the macro
level, we identify the prevalence of social stigmatization of discount
stores’low‐income clientele. In the context of consumer behavior, we
show that this negative social phenomenon can threaten higher‐
income customers of discount stores. The findings of our study also
contribute to research outside the domain of social stigmatization,
including literature in psychology on social identity threat and in
marketing on social dominance. Through these contributions, we
advance the understanding of social identity theory and social
dominance theory.
First, drawing on social identity theory, we show that even a
historically non‐stigmatized individual (i.e., a member of a high‐status
group) can experience social identity threat caused by stigmatization
of marginal groups. Stigmatization is possible in situations when a
high‐status individual is at risk of being associated with marginal out‐
groups and when the social status is questioned by his or her peers.
Future research could expand on this finding by focusing on con-
sumers whose social identities are threatened indirectly.
922
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
Second, drawing on social dominance theory, we show that, re-
gardless of their position in a social hierarchy, any individual can be
influenced by social stigmatization. Furthermore, the individual level
of PD (used in our study as a proxy for SDO) intensifies the effect of
social stigmatization on individuals, independently of their position in
the social hierarchy. Further research could build on these insights
by investigating how individual PD beliefs vary with social status.
In addition, studies could focus on the effects of social stigmatization
of poverty on both low‐and high‐income consumers.
The findings of our study uncover new avenues for research on
how social stigmatization of social minorities influences non‐
stigmatized high‐status individuals and their consumer behavior.
In light of recent events related to racial discrimination, investigation
of these social dynamics is especially important. Future studies could
examine the psychological processes behind the social interaction
between stigmatized social minorities and the non‐stigmatized
population.
Our findings also emphasize the importance of the cultural as-
pect of social stigmatization. Future research could extend this study
by investigating cross‐cultural differences in stereotypes about low‐
status individuals that prevail in a society (e.g., low‐status people are
lazy or have alcohol addiction). In addition, future research might
apply other cultural dimensions to the cross‐cultural research on
social stigmatization in a consumption context.
A final contribution of our study is the developed and validated
scale for measuring social identity threat. We operationalized and
measured this construct through an extensive literature review. We
refined the items of the scale in a pretest and validated them in the
main study. Furthermore, we established measurement invariance
across four countries. Therefore, this scale is reliable and can be used
in future cross‐cultural studies.
8.2 |Managerial implications
Our results have managerial implications. The context of our study is
discount stores, which initially targeted low‐income customers but,
today, also attract higher‐income groups (Herstein & Vilnai‐
Yavetz, 2007). Therefore, understanding the social interaction be-
tween different income groups (i.e., stigmatized vs. non‐stigmatized
groups) is relevant for companies that target customers from dif-
ferent social classes. Our finding that social stigmatization can in-
directly decrease customer loyalty through social identity threat may
motivate marketing managers to apply various marketing tools to
help customers protect their identity related to social status. Whe-
ther designing a new communication strategy, rebuilding a store
layout, or updating product assortments, marketing managers should
add social stigmatization as a new but relevant element to their
marketing strategy.
To help high‐status customers keep face, discount stores could
apply marketing tools across both merchandising and promotional
dimensions. While some marketing instruments can protect high‐
status customers' social identities, others can change their
perceptions of a “stressor”(i.e., low‐status customers). From the
merchandising perspective, to protect high‐status customers' social
identities, managers of discount stores could implement environ-
mental techniques, such as a spacious store layout and ambient
music. Both instruments can decrease customers' stress experienced
in a shopping environment (Baker et al., 2002). Another strategy is to
introduce more expensive organic products or "gourmet" product
lines on separate shelves.
Discount stores could also implement promotional strategies
that emphasize the popularity of low‐price stores among high‐status
individuals. For example, the concept of a “smart consumer”can be
accentuated in advertising campaigns. Furthermore, marketing
communication strategies can be built around topics of sustainability,
corporate social responsibility, and charitable activities of the brand.
Consumer research has established that cause‐related marketing
helps activate individuals’moral identity, which in turn improves
their attitudes toward out‐group brands (Choi & Winterich, 2013;
Winterich et al., 2009). Therefore, by supporting a charitable orga-
nization fighting poverty or hunger, discounters may trigger moral
identity in high‐status customers, improving their perceptions of low‐
status social groups. This marketing tool is especially important in
countries where individuals have high‐PD beliefs and therefore are
more sensitive to social stigmatization.
The results of our study also show that the magnitude of stigmati-
zation's effect on consumers’behavior varies with cultural orientation.
This knowledge is vital for discount stores operating internationally or
planning to enter new markets. With every new market entry, marketing
managers have a chance to re‐invent a discount store's brand, as was
done by Aldi's repositioning as a new, exciting shopping experience in
China, and managers should be ready to understand and reduce social
identity threat of various customer groups. Our findings indicate that
especially high‐PD individuals require comprehensive marketing efforts
to mitigate the negative effects of social stigmatization. Marketing
managers of discount stores operating in high‐PD countries should be
aware of the prevailing social stigmatization and its negative effects on
consumers’social identity.
8.3 |Limitations
Within the scope of the present study, the cultural value of PD is the
only cultural dimension employed to explain the effect of social
stigmatization on consumer behavior. Even though theoretically
justified, the focus on one cultural dimension can be considered a
limitation of the present study. However, we hope our study inspires
psychology and marketing researchers to focus more on the cultural
aspect of social stigmatization and analyze the role of other cultural
dimensions in the process of social stigmatization.
In our study, we also refer to the construct of face, which is
especially relevant to the process of social stigmatization (Yang &
Kleinman, 2008). This multifaceted social phenomenon, which
evolved and gained importance in Asian cultures (Hwang, 1987;
Hofstede, 2010), denotes not only social power and status
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
923
(Hwang, 1987) but also reciprocity, obligation (Yang &
Kleinman, 2008), and moral status (Hu, 1944). We operationalized
face as a favorable social status but recognize that we did not
measure it explicitly and analyzed only a single aspect of this con-
struct. Future consumer behavior studies focusing on social stigma-
tization can address this limitation. In addition, to check the
consistency of our findings, future studies could examine the role of
product category. Consumer research has shown that the nature of a
product—whether it is a utilitarian product or a status symbol—has
different effects on consumer behavior (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000;
Okada, 2005). Therefore, future studies could replicate our study by
applying a different product category.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The authors invited 1768 respondents from online consumer panels
from four countries—the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, and
China—to participate in the experiment via the online survey plat-
form. Using leverage‐versus‐residual‐squared plots, the authors
identified 93 outliers and removed them from the sample, leaving a
final sample size of 1675 respondents.
ORCID
Kateryna Ukrainets https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7805-8718
REFERENCES
Adkins, N. R., & Ozanne, J. L. (2005). The low literate consumer. Journal of
Consumer Research,32(1), 93–105.
Aiken, L. S., Stein, J. A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Structural equation
analyses of clinical subpopulation differences and comparative
treatment outcomes: characterizing the daily lives of drug addicts.
Journal of consulting and clinical psychology,62(3), 488–499.
Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value‐
conscious consumer: Store brands versus national brand
promotions. Journal of Marketing,65(1), 71–89.
Alford, B. L., & Biswas, A. (2002). The effects of discount level, price
consciousness and sale proneness on consumers' price perception and
behavioral intention. Journal of Business Research,55(9), 775–783.
Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal
of Service Research,1(1), 5–17.
Appiah, O., Knobloch‐Westerwick, S., & Alter, S. (2013). Ingroup
favoritism and outgroup derogation: Effects of news valence,
character race, and recipient race on selective news reading.
Journal of Communication,63(3), 517–534.
Argo, J. J., & Main, K. J. (2008). Stigma by association in coupon
redemption: Looking cheap because of others. Journal of Consumer
Research,35(4), 559–572.
Arnold, H. J. (1982). Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual,
analytic, and psychometric issues. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance,29(2), 143–174.
Arsel, Z., & Thompson, C. J. (2011). Demythologizing consumption
practices: How consumers protect their field‐dependent identity
investments from devaluing marketplace myths. Journal of Consumer
Research,37(5), 791–806.
Ashworth, L., Darke, P. R., & Schaller, M. (2005). No one wants to look
cheap: Trade‐offs between social disincentives and the economic
and psychological incentives to redeem coupons. Journal of
Consumer Psychology,15(4), 295–306.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1977). Structural equation models in experimental
research. Journal of Marketing Research,14(2), 209–226.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation
models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16(1), 74–94.
Bailey, A. A. (2008). Evaluating consumer response to EDLPs. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services,15(3), 211–223.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. B. (2002). The influence
of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value
and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing,66(2), 120–141.
Baron, R. M., & David, A. K. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,51(6), 1173–1182.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self‐categorization, affective
commitment and group self‐esteem as distinct aspects of social
identity in the organization. The British Journal of Social Psychology,
39(Pt 4), 555–577.
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others:
Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer
Research,34(2), 121–134.
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2008). Who drives divergence? Identity signaling,
outgroup dissimilarity, and the abandonment of cultural tastes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,95(3), 593–607.
Bettencourt, B. A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status
differences and in‐group bias: A meta‐analytic examination of the
effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability.
Psychological Bulletin,127(4), 520–542.
Bian, Q., & Forsythe, S. (2012). Purchase intention for luxury brands:
A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Business Research,65(10),
1443–1451.
Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., & Stephen, S. T. (1997). The effects of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on postcomplaint
behavior. Journal of Retailing,73(2), 185–210.
Blodorn, A., Major, B., Hunger, J., & Miller, C. (2016). Unpacking the
psychological weight of weight stigma: A rejection‐expectation
pathway. Public Opinion Quarterly,63,69–76.
Bond, M. H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede's ecological
analysis—A20‐year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).
Psychological Bulletin,128(1), 73–77.
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self‐esteem consequences
of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European
Journal of Social Psychology,24(6), 641–657.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In C. E. Hill (Ed.),
Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating
social science phenomena (pp. 57–71). American Psychological
Association.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at
the same time. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,17(5),
475–482.
Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco‐
friendly unmanly? The green‐feminine stereotype and its effect on
sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research,43(4), 567–582.
Brumbaugh, A. M., & Rosa, J. A. (2009). Perceived discrimination, cashier
metaperceptions, embarrassment, and confidence as influencers of
coupon use: An ethnoracial–socioeconomic analysis. Journal of
Retailing,85(3), 347–362.
Buunk, B. P., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). New directions in social comparison
research. European Journal of Social Psychology,31(5), 467–475.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects
of latent variables. Organizational Research Methods,11(2), 296–325.
Choi, W. J., & Winterich, K. P. (2013). Can brands move in from the
outside? How moral identity enhances out‐group brand attitudes.
Journal of Marketing,77(2), 96–111.
924
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
Crocker, J. (1999). Social stigma and self‐esteem: Situational construction
of self‐worth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,35(1),
89–107.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self‐esteem: The self‐
protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review,96(4),
608–630.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (Eds.). (1998). Social stigma.McGraw‐Hill.
Crockett, D. (2017). Paths to respectability: Consumption and stigma
management in the contemporary black middle class. Journal of
Consumer Research,44(3), 554–581.
Decker, K. M., Thurston, I. B., & Kamody, R. C. (2018). The mediating role
of internalized weight stigma on weight perception and depression
among emerging adults: Exploring moderation by weight and race.
Body Image,27, 202–210.
Derks, B., vanLaar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2006). Striving for success in outgroup
settings: Effects of contextually emphasizing ingroup dimensions on
stigmatized group members' social identity and performance styles.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,32(5), 576–588.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic
and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research,37(1), 60–71.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated
conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
22(2), 99–113.
Dimitrov, D. M. (2006). Comparing groups on latent variables: A
structural equation modeling approach. Work,26(4), 429–436.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup
variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,31(5), 410–436.
Eijberts, M., & Roggeband, C. (2016). Stuck with the stigma? How Muslim
migrant women in the Netherlands deal –Individually and
collectively –With negative stereotypes. Ethnicities,16(1), 130–153.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity.
Annual Review of Psychology,53, 161–186.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The
influence of reference groups on consumers’connections to brands.
Journal of Consumer Psychology,13(3), 339–348.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self‐construal, reference groups,
and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research,32(3), 378–389.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations,7(2), 117–140.
Fischer, R., Hanke, K., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Cultural and institutional
determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross‐cultural
meta‐analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology,33(4), 437–467.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on
stereotyping. American Psychologist,48(6), 621–628.
Flynn, L. R., & Eastman, J. K. (1996). Status consumption and fashion
behavior: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the Association of
Marketing Theory and Practice,5, 309–316.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and
statistics. Journal of Marketing Research,18(3), 382–388.
Gao, H., Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2016). All that glitters is not gold:
How others’status influences the effect of power distance belief on
status consumption. Journal of Consumer Research,43(2), 265–281.
Gill, T., & Lei, J. (2018). Counter‐stereotypical products: Barriers to their
adoption and strategies to overcome them. Psychology & Marketing,
35(7), 493–510.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face‐work: An analysis of ritual elements in social
interaction. Psychiatry,18(3), 213–231.
Hamilton, K. (2012). Low‐income families and coping through brands:
Inclusion or stigma?”.Sociology,46(1), 74–90.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Keyes, K. M., & Hasin, D. S. (2009). Associations
between perceived weight discrimination and the prevalence of
psychiatric disorders in the general population. Obesity,17(11),
2033–2039.
Hebl, M. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Promoting the "social" in the
examination of social stigmas. Personality and Social Psychology
Review,9(2), 156–182.
Hebl, M. R., & Mannix, L. M. (2003). The weight of obesity in evaluating
others: A mere proximity effect. Personality & social psychology
bulletin,29(1), 28–38.
Henry, P., & Caldwell, M. (2006). Self‐empowerment and consumption.
European Journal of Marketing,40(9/10), 1031–1048.
Herstein, R., & Vilnai‐Yavetz, I. (2007). Household income and the
perceived importance of discount store image components. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,
17(2), 177–202.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in
survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods,1(1), 104–121.
Ho, D. Y.‐F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology,
81(4), 867–884.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of
Management & Organization,10(4), 15–41.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
McGraw‐Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations, Sage publications.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and
Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and expanded.
McGraw‐Hill.
Homburg, C. (1991). Cross‐validation and information criteria in causal
modeling. Journal of Marketing Research,28(2), 137–144.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Totzek, D. (2010). How price increases
affect future purchases: The role of mental budgeting, income, and
framing. Psychology & Marketing,27(1), 36–53.
Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of "face". American Anthropologist,
46(1), 45–64.
Hu,L.T.,&Bentler,P.M.(1999).Cutoffcriteriaforfitindexesincovariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal,6(1), 1–55.
Hunger, J. M., & Major, B. (2015). Weight stigma mediates the association
between BMI and self‐reported health. Health Psychology,34(2),
172–175.
Hunger, J. M., Major, B., Blodorn, A., & Miller, C. T. (2015). Weighed down
by stigma: How weight‐based social identity threat contributes to
weight gain and poor health. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass,9(6), 255–268.
Hwang, K.‐K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American
Journal of Sociology,92(4), 944–974.
Inzlicht, M., & Ben‐Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual
environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing
problem‐solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological
Science,11(5), 365–371.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on mediation:
Evidence that structural equations models perform better than
regressions. Journal of consumer psychology,17(2), 139–153.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. (1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement and
management. Journal of Marketing Research,15(4), 659.
Jones, E., Chern, W. S., & Mustiful, B. K. (1994). Are lower‐income
shoppers as price sensitive as higher‐income ones? A look at
breakfast cereals. Journal of Food Distribution Research,25(1), 82–92.
Kane, J. V., & Barabas, J. (2019). No harm in checking: Using factual
manipulation checks to assess attentiveness in experiments.
American Journal of Political Science,63(1), 234–249.
Kates, S. M. (2002). The protean quality of subcultural consumption: An
ethnographic account of gay consumers. Journal of Consumer
Research,29(3), 383–399.
Kemmelmeier, M. (2005). The effects of race and social dominance
orientation in simulated juror decision making. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology,35(5), 1030–1045.
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
925
Kim, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2014). The impact of power‐distance belief on
consumers’preference for status brands. Journal of Global Marketing,
27(1), 13–29.
King, E. B., Knight, J. L., & Hebl, M. R. (2010). The influence of economic
conditions on aspects of stigmatization. Journal of Social Issues,66(3),
446–460.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.‐L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009).
Individual Power Distance Orientation and Follower Reactions to
Transformational Leaders: A Cross‐Level, Cross‐Cultural
Examination. Academy of Management Journal,52(4), 744–764.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2017). A retrospective on
culture's consequences: The 35‐year journey. Journal of International
Business Studies,48(1), 12–29.
Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing. Psychology Press.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.
Guilford Press.
Kozinets, R. V. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meanings of
Star Trek's culture of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research,
28(1), 67–88.
Kukar‐Kinney, M., Walters, R. G., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2007). Consumer
responses to characteristics of price‐matching guarantees: The
moderating role of price consciousness. Journal of Retailing,83(2),
211–221.
Lantos, G. P. (2015). Consumer behavior in action: Real‐life applications for
marketing managers. Routledge.
Lawler, J. J. (1996). MNCs, national culture, and gender‐based
employment discrimination. In proceedings of the annual meeting‐
industrial relations research association. Industrial relations research
association, 319–328.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self‐
esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,68(3), 518–530.
Leys, C., Delacre, M., Mora, Y. L., Lakens, D., & Ley, C. (2019). How to
classify, detect, and manage univariate and multivariate outliers,
with emphasis on pre‐registration. International Review of Social
Psychology,32,1.
Li, J., Zhang, X.‐A., & Sun, G. (2015). Effects of "face" consciousness on
status consumption among Chinese consumers: Perceived social
value as a mediator. Psychological Reports,116(1), 280–291.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price
perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal
of Marketing Research,30(2), 234–245.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. (2014). Stigma power. Social Science & Medicine,
103,24–32.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of
Sociology,27(1), 363–385.
Livingstone, A., & Haslam, S. A. (2008). The importance of social identity
content in a setting of chronic social conflict: Understanding
intergroup relations in Northern Ireland. The British Journal of
Social Psychology,47(Pt 1), 1–21.
MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural
equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of
Psychology,51, 201–226.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward
the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing
explanations. Journal of Marketing Research,23(2), 130–143.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of
the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention
Science,1(4), 173–181.
Major, B., Hunger, J. M., Bunyan, D. P., & Miller, C. T. (2014). The ironic effects
of weight stigma. JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,51,74–80.
Major, B., & O'Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual
Review of Psychology,56, 393–421.
Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of
perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in
the United States. American Journal of Public Health,91(11),
1869–1876.
McFerran,B.,Dahl,D.W.,Fitzsimons,G.J.,&Morales,A.C.(2010).I'llhave
what she's having: Effects of social influence and body type on the food
choices of others. Journal of Consumer Research,36(6), 915–929.
Metaxa‐Kakavouli, D., Wang, K., Landay, J. A., & Hancock, J. (2018),
Gender‐inclusive design. In CHI (Ed.) Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–6), April
21–26, 2018, Montreal, QC, Canada, ACM.
Meuleman, B., Abts, K., Slootmaeckers, K., & Meeusen, C. (2019).
Differentiated threat and the genesis of prejudice: Group‐specific
antecedents of homonegativity, islamophobia, anti‐semitism, and
anti‐immigrant attitudes. Social Problems,66(2), 222–244.
Mirabito, A. M., Otnes, C. C., Crosby, E., Wooten, D. B., Machin, J. E.,
Pullig, C., Adkins, N. R., Dunnett, S., Hamilton, K., Thomas, K. D.,
Yeh, M. A., Davis, C., Gollnhofer, J. F., Grover, A., Matias, J.,
Mitchell, N. A., Ndichu, E. G., Sayarh, N., & Velagaleti, S. (2016). The
stigma turbine: A theoretical framework for conceptualizing and
contextualizing marketplace stigma. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing,35(2), 170–184.
Myers, M. B., Calantone, R. J., Page, T. J., & Taylor, C. R. (2000). Academic
insights: An application of multiple‐group causal models in assessing
cross‐cultural measurement equivalence. Journal of International
Marketing,8(4), 108–121.
Ngobo, V. P. (2004). Drivers of customers' cross‐buying intentions.
European Journal of Marketing,38(9/10), 1129–1157.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. McGraw‐Hill
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic
and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research,42(1), 43–53.
Oyserman, D. (2006). High power, low power, and equality: Culture
beyond individualism and collectivism. Journal of Consumer
Psychology,16(4), 352–356.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical
assumptions and meta‐analyses. Psychological Bulletin,128(1), 3–72.
Oyserman,D.,Kemmelmeier,M.,&Coon,H.M.(2002).Culturalpsychology,A
new look: Reply to Bond (2002), Fiske (2002), Kitayama (2002), and
Miller (2002). Psychological Bulletin,128(1), 110–117.
Palazón, M., & Delgado, E. (2009). The moderating role of price consciousness
on the effectiveness of price discounts and premium promotions. Journal
of Product & Brand Management,18(4), 306–312.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting
electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of
planned behavior. MIS Quarterly,30(1), 115.
Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., &
Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the
legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross‐Cultural
Psychology,31(3), 369–409.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the
dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward.
European Review of Social Psychology,17(1), 271–320.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance
orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political
attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67(4), 741–763.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing
moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and
prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,42(1), 185–227.
Robinson, M. A. (2018). Using multi‐item psychometric scales for research
and practice in human resource management. Human Resource
Management,57(3), 739–750.
Sandikci, Ö., & Ger, G. (2010). Veiling in style: How does a stigmatized practice
become fashionable? Journal of Consumer Research,37(1), 15–36.
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2005). When the pressure is up: The
assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,41(2), 192–200.
926
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of
consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of
Consumer Research,22(1), 43.
Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat,
and performance expectancies: Their effects on women's
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,39(1), 68–74.
Shaffer, M. A., Joplin, J. R. W., Bell, M. P., Lau, T., & Oguz, C. (2000).
Gender discrimination and job‐related outcomes: A cross‐cultural
comparison of working women in the United States and China.
Journal of Vocational Behavior,57(3), 395–427.
Sharma, P. (2010). Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale
development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science,38(6), 787–806.
Shin, H., Dovidio, J. F., & Napier, J. L. (2013). Cultural differences in
targets of stigmatization between individual‐and group‐oriented
cultures. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,35(1), 98–108.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of
social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and
the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,67(6), 998–1011.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 Word solution.
SSRN Electronic Journal,26(2).
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1983). On priming by a sentence context.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,112(1), 1–36.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group
image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(pp. 379–440). Academic.
Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn't mean you: Gender‐
exclusive language as ostracism. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin,37(6), 757–769.
Swinyard, W. R. (1993). The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of
store experience on shopping intentions. Journal of Consumer
Research,20(2), 271.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science
Information,13(2), 65–93.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annual Review
of Psychology,33(1), 1–39.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring
culture: Review of approaches, challenges, and limitations based on
the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of
International Management,15(4), 357–373.
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2016). Does country equate with
culture? Beyond geography in the search for cultural boundaries.
Management International Review,56(4), 455–487.
Tepper, K. (1994). The role of labeling processes in elderly consumers'
responses to age segmentation cues. Journal of Consumer Research,
20(4), 503.
Trepte, S., & Loy, L. S. (2017). Social identity theory and self‐
categorization theory. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. vanZoonen
(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–13). John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Turner, J. (2007). The messenger overwhelming the message: Ideological
cues and perceptions of bias in television news. Political Behavior,
29(4), 441–464.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2012). Self‐categorization theory. In A. W.
Kruglanski, E. T. Higgins, & P. A. M. vanLange (Eds.), Theories of social
psychology (pp. 399–417). Sage.
Turner, J. C., & Tajfel, H. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of
intergroup relations. Nelson.
Wakefield, K. L., & Inman, J. J. (2003). Situational price sensitivity: The
role of consumption occasion, social context and income. Journal of
Retailing,79(4), 199–212.
Warner, W. L., & Lunt, P. S. (1941). The social life of a modern community.
Greenwood Press.
White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not be? The influence of
dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of
Consumer Psychology,16(4), 404–414.
White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2007). Are all out‐groups created equal?
Consumer identity and dissociative influence. Journal of Consumer
Research,34(4), 525–536.
White, K., & Argo, J. J. (2009). Social identity threat and consumer
preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology,19(3), 313–325.
White, K., Argo, J. J., & Sengupta, J. (2012). Dissociative versus associative
responses to social identity threat: The role of consumer self‐
construal. Journal of Consumer Research,39(4), 704–719.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit
luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research,46(2), 247–259.
Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. (2009). Donation behavior
toward in‐groups and out‐groups: The role of gender and moral
identity. Journal of Consumer Research,36(2), 199–214.
Wooten, D., & Rank‐Christman, T. (2019). Stigmatized‐identity cues:
Threats as opportunities for consumer psychology. Journal of
Consumer Psychology,29(1), 142–151.
Yang, L. H., & Kleinman, A. (2008). 'Face' and the embodiment of stigma in
China: The cases of schizophrenia and AIDS. Social Science &
Medicine,67(3), 398–408.
Yang, L. H., Purdie‐Vaughns, V., Kotabe, H., Link, B. G., Saw, A., Wong, G.,
& Phelan, J. C. (2013). Culture, threat, and mental illness stigma:
Identifying culture‐specific threat among Chinese‐American groups.
Social Science & Medicine,88,56–67.
Zhan, L., & He, Y. (2012). Understanding luxury consumption in China:
Consumer perceptions of best‐known brands. Journal of Business
Research,65(10), 1452–1460.
Zhang, Y., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Power distance belief and
impulsive buying. Journal of Marketing Research,47(5), 945–954.
How to cite this article: Homburg, C., & Ukrainets, K. (2021).
Saving money or losing face? An international study on social
stigmatization in discount stores. Psychol Mark, 38, 908–932.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21482
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
927
APPENDIX A: Summary of different operationalizations of power distance and social dominance orientation
Power distance Social dominance orientation
“Power Distance is related to how much an individual is inclined to accept the
unequal distribution of power and status within society.”(Kirkman
et al., 2009)
“SDO captures the extent of an individual's desire for unequal and dominant/
subordinate relations among salient social groups, regardless of whether
this implies ingroup domination or subordination.”(Pratto
et al., 2006, p. 281)
“Power distance refers to the extent to which hierarchy and extensive social
stratification are legitimized. In a high power‐distance culture, higher‐
status individuals are more prone to exercise power as a means of
maintaining or enhancing their positions, while lower‐status individuals are
less inclined to challenge power and status discrepancies.”
(Lawler, 1996, p. 319)
“High‐SDO individuals show more support for hierarchy‐enhancing
legitimizing myths (ideologies that provide moral and intellectual
justification of the hierarchy).”(Pratto et al., 2006, p.281)
“Power distance involves the extent to which a society accepts and views as
inevitable or functional human inequality in power, wealth, and prestige”
(Hofstede, 1980). “It is the extent to which people accept and expect that
power is distributed unequally.”(Hofstede, 2001, p. 83)
High‐SDO individuals favor unequal allocation of resources: more resources
are allocated to the in‐group than to the out‐group, even if such resource
allocation is costly for the in‐group. (based on Sidanius et al., 1994)
“Power distance highlights the extent to which individual differences are
related directly to inequalities in power, wealth, or prestige, and the extent
to which these inequalities are seen as legitimate or illegitimate.”
(Oyserman, 2006, p. 353).
“SDO can be viewed as a general preference for group‐based hierarchy that
predicts prejudice. SDO is influenced by socialization and existing power
relations.”(Fischer et al., 2012, p. 439)
“The central difference between high‐and low‐PD cultures lies not in an actual
power disparity per se but rather in people's positive attitudes toward
power disparity.”(Zhang et al., 2010, p. 945)
“People with high levels of SDO tend to make decisions that reinforce the
dominance hierarchy.”(Pratto et al., 2006, p. 286, based on
Kemmelmeier, 2005)
“Low PD cultures minimize the inequalities among individuals in terms of social
status, privileges and status symbols; high PD cultures emphasize prestige,
wealth, and power and are more likely to accept a power hierarchy, tight
control, and even discrimination based on age, gender, social class,
education level, or job positions.”(Sharma, 2010, p. 790)
“Individuals with high SDO believe in conceptual ideas of hierarchical
disparities supported by individual, group, and organizational
discriminatory practices.”(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999)
“People from high power‐distance belief cultures such as Japan, regardless of
their position in the social hierarchy, tend to endorse the belief about power
disparity. In general, people in high power‐distance belief cultures are more
likely to believe in inequality and are more accustomed to accommodating
it than those in low power‐distance belief cultures. Accordingly, high
power‐distance belief cultures facilitate a norm that everyone should have
a defined place within the social order.”(Kim & Zhang, 2014, pp. 15–16)
“Individuals high in SDO justify their discriminatory actions by supporting a
wide variety of legitimizing myths that have in common the notion that
dominant and subordinate groups deserve their relative positions of
superiority and inferiority in the social hierarchy.”(Pratto
et al., 2006, p. 281)
“The central difference between high and low PDB lies neither in the actual
power disparity a person experiences nor in the degree of power a person
has, but rather in people's attitudes toward power disparity.”(Gao
et al., 2016, p. 266)
“SDO is a generalized orientation towards and desire for unequal and
dominant/subordinate relations among salient social groups, regardless
of whether this implies ingroup domination or subordination.”(Pratto
et al., 2006, p. 282).
APPENDIX B: Experimental Scenarios
Priming scenario
Today, you organize a barbeque party and have to do grocery
shopping. There are a couple of stores in your neighborhood. Usually,
as most of your friends do, you shop in mid‐priced grocery stores.
However, today you decide to go to a discount store with prices much
lower than in mid‐priced grocery stores.
You enter the store. Suddenly, among other customers, you
see poorly dressed homeless people who are noisy and appear to
be drunk. You are not surprised to see them here behaving this
way. You remember that your friends told you some awkward
stories that happened at this discount store because of such
customers.
As you expected, prices are low at this store. You buy everything
you need for the upcoming party. After you put your purchase in
store‐branded shopping bags, you leave the store.
On your way home, you run into a good friend who sees you holding
the branded shopping bags from the discount store. After a warm
greeting, you invite your friend to the party. You have a short con-
versation and your friend seems to be surprised: “Iwouldnothavethought
that you shop at this store. I always felt the people there to be quite strange.”
After chatting for another couple of minutes, you go home to get ev-
erything ready for the party.
Control scenario
Today, you organize a barbeque party and have to go
grocery shopping. There are a couple of stores in your
928
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
neighborhood. Usually, as most of your friends do, you shop in
mid‐priced grocery stores. However, today you decide to go to a
discount store with prices much lower than in mid‐priced grocery
stores.
You enter the store. As you expected, prices are low at this store.
You buy everything you need for the upcoming party. After you put your
purchase in store‐branded shopping bags, you leave the store.
On your way home, you run into a good friend who sees you
holding the branded shopping bags from the discount store. After a
warm greeting, you invite your friend to the party. You have a short
conversation and your friend seems to be surprised: “I would not have
thought that you shop at this store.”After chatting for another couple
of minutes, you go home to get everything ready for the party.
APPENDIX C: Initial scales used in the pretest
(Items used in the actual experiment appear in bold)
Repurchase Intention (adapted from Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006):
1. If I need cheap products, I would choose the same discount store
again.
2. I would possibly come back to this store again.
3. It is very likely that I will purchase products in this discount
store in the future.
4. I intend to continue purchasing products in this store
occasionally.
5. I intend to purchase products in this discount store the next
time I need low‐priced products.
Word‐of‐Mouth Intentions (adapted from Blodgett et al., 1997):
1. I would recommend my friends to purchase groceries in this
discount store.
2. I would advocate shopping in this discount store when talking to
my friends about grocery stores.
3. I would tell my friends that this choice is a good place for grocery
shopping.
4. I would make sure to tell my friends to shop in this discount
store.
Intention to Shop More (adapted from Swinyard, 1993):
1. I would buy more groceries in this discount store.
2. I would buy other items than groceries in this discount store.
3. I would spend more time shopping in this store.
4. I would purchase additional products in this discount store.
Discrimination (adapted from Tepper, 1994):
1. People may be less respectful of customers shopping in discount
stores.
2. People may become amused when observing customers shopping
in discount stores.
3. People may talk down to customers shopping in discount stores.
4. People may show a lack of respect for customers shopping in
discount stores.
5. People may look down on customers shopping in discount stores.
Devaluation (adapted from Tepper, 1994):
1. People typically think that customers shopping in discount stores
are poor.
2. People might think that customers of discount stores are fi-
nancially not as well off as other customers.
3. People may think that more attractive customers would be less
likely to do shopping in discount stores.
4. People may view customers shopping in discount stores as a
“second‐class citizen.”
5. People might think that customers of discount stores have less
money to spend than average customers do.
6. People might view customers of discount stores as less wealthy.
Social Identity Threat (newly developed scale based on the defi-
nition of the construct):
1. The fact that my friend saw me with bags from this discount
store undermined my identity.
2. I feel that I should have avoided meeting a friend after shopping
in a discount store.
3. The fact that my friend saw me with bags from a discount store
made me feel unworthy.
4. My personality was challenged when my friend saw me holding
bags from this discount store.
5. The fact that my friend saw me with bags from this discount
store threatened the way I feel about myself.
Power Distance (adapted from Sharma, 2010):
1. It is difficult for me to refuse a request if someone senior
asks me.
2. I think it is fair that some groups of people are simply not the
equals of others.
3. I tend to follow orders from authority figures without asking any
questions.
4. I find it hard to disagree with authority figures.
Status‐Oriented Consumption (adapted from Flynn & Eastman, 1996):
1. Just as some of my friends, I would buy a product just because it
has status.
2. I am interested in new products with status, just as my
friends do.
3. Like some of my friends, I would pay more for a product if it had
status.
4. The status of a product is very important for me.
5. A product is more valuable to me if it has some snob and luxury
appeal.
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
929
APPENDIX D: Questionnaire
Repurchase Intention
1. If I need cheap products, I would choose the same discount store
again.
2. It is very likely that I will purchase products in this discount store
in the future.
3. I intend to purchase products in this discount store the next time I
need low‐priced products.
Word‐of‐Mouth Intentions
1. I would recommend my friends to purchase groceries in this dis-
count store.
2. I would advocate shopping in this discount store when talking to
my friends about grocery stores.
3. I would advocate shopping in this discount store when talking to
my friends about grocery stores.
Intention to Shop More
1. I would buy more groceries in this discount store.
2. I would buy other items than groceries in this discount store.
3. I would purchase additional products in this discount store.
Discrimination
1. People may be less respectful of customers shopping in discount
stores.
2. People may show a lack of respect for customers shopping in
discount stores.
3. People may look down on customers shopping in discount stores.
Devaluation
1. People might think that customers of discount stores are finan-
cially not as well off as other customers.
2. People might think that customers of discount stores have less
money to spend than average customers do.
3. People might view customers of discount stores as less
wealthy.
Social Identity Threat
1. The fact that my friend saw me with bags from this discount store
undermined my identity.
2. My personality was challenged when my friend saw me holding
bags from this discount store.
3. The fact that my friend saw me with bags from this discount store
threatened the way I feel about myself.
Manipulation Check
1. There were homeless people in the store.
2. There were no homeless people in the store.
Power Distance
1. It is difficult for me to refuse a request if someone senior asks me.
2. I tend to follow orders from authority figures without asking any
questions.
3. I find it hard to disagree with authority figures.
Collectivism
1. Individuals should sacrifice self‐interest for the group.
2. Individuals should stick with the group even through difficulties.
3. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards.
Status‐Oriented Consumption
1. Just as some of my friends, I would buy a product just because it
has status.
2. I am interested in new products with status, just as my friends do.
3. A product is more valuable to me if it has some snob and luxury
appeal.
Customer–Store Association
1. I associate this discount store with low‐income individuals.
2. This discount store reflects its customers’social status.
3. Customers in this discount store fit well into the store's environment.
Public Self‐Consciousness
1. I am concerned about how I present myself to others.
2. I usually worry about making a good impression.
3. I am concerned about what other people think of me.
Individual Self‐esteem
1. In general, I am satisfied with myself.
2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
3. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
4. I feel that I am a person of worth.
Price Consciousness
1. I am willing to go the extra mile to find lower prices.
2. The money saved by finding low prices is usually worth the time
and effort.
3. I would shop at more than one store to find low prices.
4. The time it takes to find low prices is usually worth the effort.
Prestige Sensitivity
1. Buying a high‐priced brand makes me feel good about myself.
2. Buying the most expensive brand of a product makes me feel special.
930
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
3. I enjoy the prestige of buying a high‐priced brand.
4. I think others make judgments about me based on the brands
I buy.
Scenario Realism
1. The presented scenario was realistic.
2. I would well imagine being in the situation described in the scenario.
Demographics
Sex
1. Female
2. Male
3. Other
Age
1. 18–24
2. 25–34
3. 35–44
4. 45–54
5. 55–64
6. 65 and over
Education
1. Technical training
2. High school graduate
3. Bachelor's degree or higher
APPENDIX E: Quotes from Qualitative Interviews
Quotes from conversations with customers of a discount store "Pyaterochka" in Moscow, Russia:
Respondent Social stigmatization Customer loyalty Social identity threat
R1 “Did I ever have an unpleasant shopping
experience here? Happens sometimes,
when I encounter those unemployed
alcoholics who come here to buy their
cheap vodka.”
“The assortment of products is O.K. If I need
something basic like pasta or cereals, I
would shop here. It's around the corner of
my house. I don't care what people
would say.”
“Well, it's fine to buy some products here for a
regular dinner. But you don't want to buy
groceries here for a dinner with friends.
It's inappropriate.”
R2 “Mostly poor people shop here. Sometimes it
can be quite unpleasant to be around
them. But, as you can see, people with
higher income can also come over for a
quick purchase.”
“Of course, I would shop here again, the
quality is fine, price is great. Why should I
pay more?”
“I won't brag to my friends what an amazing
bargain I found in this store or whatever. I
don't want them to think that I am trying
to save money on food.”
R3 “You can see that there are a lot of pensioners
and unemployed people here. Those who
barely meet their ends meet. No wonder
they shop here!”
“I buy groceries here from time to time. And I
couldn't care less what someone would
think of me. I have income high enough to
shop wherever I want.”
“I doubt that, for example, my colleagues shop
here. It is not common among people who
have such high salaries as we do.”
R4 “I had a couple of situations where I wished I
could have avoided those ‘working‐class
heroes’in this store. Their behavior was
outrageous!”
“This is a basic store with a rich assortment of
products for really low prices. Why not to
shop here sometimes?”
“If you're having a party with friends or a
meeting with colleagues, you won't put a
cheap bottle of wine on a table, right?”
R5 “The typical clientele of this discounter is a low
social class. You know, all these lazy
loafers who spend their last money for
alcohol. Obviously, it's not the nicest
encounter.”
“Even though my family is not a target
audience, we still shop here sometimes.
Times are changing, you know. These
stores are getting more inviting and
pleasant.”
“If my boss would see my car parked in front
of this store? Then I'll have to tell him that
I had an emergency stop [laughing].”
R6 “The target audience here are pensioners,
students, and other low‐income folks.”
“I am doing grocery shopping here only for a
standard product basket. Why not?”
“I would definitely feel embarrassed if my
colleagues or friends would see me
shopping here. But it's an unlikely
scenario.”
R7 “My wife says that if you go to this store in the
morning, you can meet all local alcoholics
there. Good that I am a rare visitor here
[laughing].”
“I was shopping here quickly because we ran
out of milk. Usually, I don't go to such
supermarkets. However, my wife does.
She is a real deal‐hunter.”
“We definitely don't buy groceries here if we
throw a party and invite all our friends.
This would be really embarrassing if some
of them would figure out that we save
money on food.”
R8 “This store is designed for lower social classes,
and I would be happy to avoid
shopping here.”
“This is the closest grocery store to our home,
so we come over sometimes for a quick
shopping. But only for really basic stuff.”
“I don't know whether my colleagues are
shopping in this discounter –and even if
this is the case, none of them would
reveal it.”
(Continues)
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
|
931
Respondent Social stigmatization Customer loyalty Social identity threat
R9 “I meet pretty weird people here all the time.
Usually, those low‐status folks. But of
course, there are also people from higher
social strata here. Those who don't want
to pay more.”
“Why shouldn't I buy here? Times are over
when it is embarrassing to save money on
basic things. I am even proud that I can
choose where to shop.”
“When it is about some social context, then of
course I want to offer my guests only the
best products. I won't shop cheap in this
discounter for special occasions.”
R10 “I cannot really say who is the typical clientele
here. There are people like me, there are
students, pensioners, and those poor
alcoholics.”
“I am buying here some groceries in case of
emergency –like now, we simply ran out
of sault, so I had to go [laughing].”
“If I invite friends for dinner or bring some
sweets for my colleagues, I would go for
more expensive grocery store –my people
are sophisticated foodies.”
Quotes from conversations with customers of a discount store "Lidl" in Mannheim, Germany:
Respondent Social stigmatization Customer loyalty Social identity threat
R1 “In these discount stores, you have typically a
higher percentage of ethnicities different from
German.”
“This shop offers even more
products than for my basic
needs –so I am well covered.”
“I would never buy a cheap alternative to a branded
product such as Coca‐Cola –for me, it is
important that I can buy the branded product
here. Especially when I have guests over, I want
to serve them well.”
R2 “Price‐conscious customers purchase here,
whether rich or poor.”
“I know exactly which products to
buy here, I visit up to three
different grocery chains
per week.”
“Despite good quality, I still distinguish where to
buy it with regard to the occasion I want to
consume it: a bottle of wine for a dinner with
friends I would not buy here.”
R3 “I would say here shop rather ordinary folks, and
foreigners ‐like Turkish, Middle‐East families.”
“I prefer this grocery chain over
others ‐yes, one could say that
I am somewhat a loyal
customer.”
“My friends rather don't shop here; I am an
exception. Sometimes I wonder why they spend
so much for their products, but I keep this for
myself –they don't know that I shop here.”
R4 “Rather blue‐collar people shop here during lunch,
the up‐scale grocery store near my office has
completely different customers.”
“This store is the closest to the
place I live.”
“At work, my colleagues and I go to the grocery
shop for a lunch break, not the discounter next
to it. And probably no one would suggest going
there.”
R5 “Price –but also quality‐conscious customers
come here.”
“I am happy with the assortment
here and don't try out other
discount stores.”
“I would feel like I have to justify my purchase if I
would offer my friends or colleagues cookies
bought in this store.”
R6 “You see here many students and foreign families
shopping.”
“I am a fan of Lidl, especially with
its new app for coupons.”
“So what? My friends know that I buy here, but my
teenage kids want to have certain products
from grocery stores, they feel ashamed.”
R7 “Everyone buys here by now, but rather price‐
conscious people.”
“I do my weekly shopping at Lidl,
happy with the price/value.”
“I would feel a bit embarrassed being seen with this
full cart, it is not that I want to come across as a
bargain‐hunter.”
R8 “Depends on what you buy here: you have food in
cans but also delicate and expensive products
‐and so there are different people in the same
store.”
“Lidl has better quality of
vegetables that other grocery
chains, I know what I can
buy here.”
“I tell my friends that I buy here only because I have
to. If I want to have a pleasant shopping
experience and inspiration, I go to more
expensive grocery stores –especially on
weekends.”
R9 “Rather lower social class [is shopping here] –
because it is way cheaper, but many products
are of same quality as the ones in pricey
markets.”
“I occasionally recommend their
promoted electronic products
to friends ‐it's a bargain!”
“I have no problem buying in discount stores, but I
would have to explain to my friends why I
decided to buy beer here for our party.”
R10 “Low‐income people buy here as well as high‐
income people, I cannot really tell who is who.”
“We don't want to pay more for the
same quality, that's why we
buy here.”
“We buy here products for self‐consumption, for
hosted get‐togethers we rather go to a more
expensive grocery store.”
932
|
HOMBURG AND UKRAINETS
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
