Compensatory Consumer Behavior: How Self-Discrepancies Drive Consumer Behavior, Exams of French Language

Download Compensatory Consumer Behavior: How Self-Discrepancies Drive Consumer Behavior and more Exams French Language in PDF only on Docsity! Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2787451 Compensatory Consumer Behavior 1 The Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model: How Self-Discrepancies Drive Consumer Behavior Journal of Consumer Psychology, forthcoming 2016 Naomi Mandel Arizona State University Derek D. Rucker Northwestern University Jonathan Levav Stanford University Adam D. Galinsky Columbia University Address Correspondence to: Naomi Mandel, Ph.D. State Farm Professor of Marketing W. P. Carey School of Business Arizona State University PO Box 874106 Tempe, AZ 85287-4016 Naomi.Mandel@asu.edu This is a preprint version of the article. The final version may be found at < https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.05.003 >. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2787451 Compensatory Consumer Behavior 2 Abstract Consumer goods and services have psychological value that can equal or exceed their functional value. A burgeoning literature demonstrates that one source of value emerges from the capacity for products to serve as a psychological salve that reduces various forms of distress across numerous domains. This review systematically organizes and integrates the literature on the use of consumer behavior as a means to regulate self-discrepancies, or the incongruities between how one currently perceives oneself and how one desires to view oneself (Higgins, 1987). We introduce a Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model to explain the psychological consequences of self-discrepancies on consumer behavior. This model delineates five distinct strategies by which consumers cope with self-discrepancies: direct resolution, symbolic self- completion, dissociation, escapism, and fluid compensation. Finally, the authors raise critical research questions to guide future research endeavors. Overall, the present review provides both a primer on compensatory consumer behavior and sets an agenda for future research. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 5 The potential for compensatory consumer behavior begins when a person perceives a self-discrepancy, or an inconsistency between one’s ideal and actual self (Higgins, 1987). For example, a person who fails an important test might view himself as unintelligent, and thus experience a self-discrepancy between how he currently sees himself (i.e., unintelligent) and how he wants to see himself (i.e., intelligent). Typically, an event occurs that either triggers a self- discrepancy (such as scoring poorly on a test) or that makes an existing self-discrepancy more salient (such as being reminded about a recent failure). For instance, exposure to idealized (vs. average-looking) advertising models can increase the discrepancy between participants’ ratings of their ideal and actual self-ratings (Sobol & Darke, 2014), social exclusion can increase the distance between one’s actual and desired level of belongingness (Lee & Shrum 2012), and having fewer job offers than one’s peers can make one feel less competent than expected in one’s career (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1981, 1982). In our framework, we refer to such events as sources of self-discrepancy. Many previous researchers on this topic have not interpreted their findings explicitly in terms of self-discrepancy; in doing so, we synthesize and unify previously distinct findings (MacInnis 2011). Self-discrepancies have several important features. First, they can arise in a variety of domains (i.e., a skill set or area of competence), such as intelligence, sense of power, or affiliation. Second, self-discrepancies are typically psychologically aversive (Higgins, 1987; Tesser et al., 2000). Third, due to the aversive nature of self-discrepancies, people are motivated to engage in self-regulation efforts to restore their desired state. These self-regulation efforts can manifest in different forms of consumer behavior. If compensatory consumer behavior is successful in addressing a self-discrepancy, it reduces the psychological discomfort created by the discrepancy. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 6 Figure 1 depicts this sequential process. Once a self-discrepancy is activated, it can produce affective, cognitive, or physiological consequences that motivate people to resolve the discrepancy. The motivation to resolve the discrepancy can affect consumer behavior through at least five distinct strategies. Finally, consumer behavior, particularly in the form of consumption, has the potential to reduce the self-discrepancy. Next, we provide a brief overview of the evidence supportive of the general phenomenon of compensatory consumer behavior. Subsequently, we review each stage of the process. _______________________________________________________________ Insert Figure 1 here _______________________________________________________________ 2. Sources of Self-Discrepancy and Evidence for its Effects on Consumer Behavior Previous literature has identified several domains in which self-discrepancies can arise and produce downstream consequences in the form of compensatory consumer behavior. Table 1 provides a sample of the wide variety of self-discrepancies linked to compensatory consumer behaviors in past research. In this section, we review evidence of compensatory consumer behavior resulting from self-discrepancies related to one’s self-concept (e.g., one’s own skills, competence, or values), one’s perceived standing relative to others, or important groups tied to the self. _______________________________________________________________ Insert Table 1 here _______________________________________________________________ 2.1 Self-discrepancies Related to One’s Self Concept Compensatory Consumer Behavior 7 Receiving negative feedback on a dimension related to one’s self-concept or perceiving oneself as inadequate with respect to an internal standard is one source of self-discrepancy. Early findings on the effects of self-discrepancies on behavior originated from an effort to understand how self-discrepancies related to the self-concept guide people’s consumption habits. Braun and Wicklund (1989) found that first-year students at a university – who by virtue of their freshman status tend to be insecure about their identity vis a vis the university – listed owning more university-branded clothing articles than did (presumably more secure) fourth-year students. The authors replicated these correlational findings in two subsequent experiments, in which students who received negative feedback regarding their competence on an important aspect of their identities were more likely to express a desire to visit “prestigious and fashionable” vacation destinations compared to control participants. More recently, Gao, Wheeler, and Shiv (2009) found that participants who felt insecure (vs. secure) about their intelligence were more likely to choose a product related to intelligence (e.g., a fountain pen) over a product unrelated to intelligence (e.g., a candy bar). Elsewhere, researchers have shown that self-discrepancies affect consumption with respect to one’s masculinity (Willer, Rogalin, Conlon, & Wojnowicz, 2013) and one’s sense of personal space (Levav and Zhu 2009). 2.2 Self-discrepancies Related to One’s Standing Compared to Others Self-discrepancies can also arise from social comparison, in which an individual compares his or her own standing on skills or dimensions relative to another, particularly when making an upward comparison (to someone with superior skills; Mussweiler, 2003). For example, viewing images of thin models in advertisements can lower the ad viewer’s self-esteem (Richins, 1991). Such unflattering social comparisons may in turn produce compensatory consumer behavior. For example, feeling less powerful than others can lead consumers to report Compensatory Consumer Behavior 10 (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Custers & Aarts, 2007; Sela & Shiv, 2009; see Figure 1). First, self- discrepancies can produce negative emotions such as disappointment, dissatisfaction, anxiety, or dejection (see Higgins, 1987; Packard & Wooten, 2013). According to Heine, Proulx, and Vohs (2006), the experience of a self-discrepancy is psychologically painful, resulting in distress and negative arousal. Similarly, self-discrepancies might produce specific emotional reactions such as shame, guilt, or embarrassment (Tangney, Dalgleish, & Power, 1999), which in turn might lead to compensatory coping strategies. The experience of social exclusion results in feelings of social pain, such as discontentment and nervousness (Mead et al., 2011); this social pain then produces similar neural activity as physical pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, Williams, 2003). Relatedly, Randles et al. (2013) argued that self-discrepancies increase activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), a brain region that is activated when people experience both physical and social pain. Thus, in addition to affective consequences, self-discrepancies may even produce negative physiological consequences. This research offers preliminary support for the idea that compensatory consumer behavior might be partially motivated by a desire to reduce negative physiological consequences of self-discrepancies. Specifically, Randles and colleagues demonstrated that giving participants a dose of acetaminophen—known to reduce both physical and social pain—reduced prior effects of meaning-based self-discrepancies on subsequent behavior. Based on this finding, it appears that circumventing the experience of physiological pain reduced the need for compensation, which suggests a role of physiological pain in compensatory consumer behavior. The fact that self-discrepancies foster negative affect and neural activity provides one reason why individuals are motivated to reduce self-discrepancies. However, cognitive Compensatory Consumer Behavior 11 inconsistencies or dissonance might be sufficient to motivate a desire to resolve a self- discrepancy and evoke compensatory consumer behavior. Indeed, compensatory consumer behavior can occur independent of any measured change in one’s physiological or emotional state. For example, manipulations of self-uncertainty (Gao et al, 2009), powerlessness (Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2009), and social comparison (Sobol & Darke, 2014) typically do not influence participants’ affective states. Self-discrepancies can also lead to rumination about the discrepancy, which is cognitively taxing and cumbersome (Brunstein & Gollwitzer, 1996; Lisjak, Bonezzi, Kim, & Rucker, 2015). Given the importance of healthy cognitive functioning, individuals may be motivated to resolve self-discrepancies for primarily—or purely—cognitive reasons. Although research has found that affective, physiological, and cognitive processes may play a role in the relationship between self-discrepancies and compensatory consumer behavior, research has not established when each of these factors is the driving force. For example, the role of affect as a motivating factor is unclear. On the one hand, a large body of research has demonstrated that incidental negative affect can trigger strategies intended for mood repair (Atalay & Meloy, 2011; Cryder et al., 2008, Gardner et al., 2014; Garg & Lerner, 2013; Garg et al., 2007, Lerner et al., 2004). On the other hand, as noted above, compensatory consumer behavior can occur independent of changes in mood (e.g., Gao et al. 2009; Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2009; Sobol & Darke, 2014). These mixed findings suggest both a need and an opportunity to investigate when and how negative affective, cognitive, and physiological consequences of self-discrepancies instill differential motivations to resolve them. 4. Compensatory Consumer Behavior Coping Strategies Compensatory Consumer Behavior 12 Once a motivation to resolve a self-discrepancy is active, multiple strategies exist to reduce or resolve that self-discrepancy (Heine et al. 2006; Tesser et al. 2000). In this review we focus on examining strategies related to consumer behavior. Based on a review of the literature and the compensatory processes discussed or alluded to in published work, we introduce the argument that people use consumer behavior to respond to self-discrepancies in at least five distinct and separable ways: direct resolution, symbolic self-completion, dissociation, escapism, and fluid compensation. Table 2 provides a definition and example of each strategy. _______________________________________________________________ Insert Table 2 here _______________________________________________________________ 4.1 Direct resolution In direct resolution, consumers engage in behaviors that directly address the source of the self-discrepancy. This strategy represents a form of goal-directed behavior, where consumers purchase or use products that can directly resolve a self-discrepancy. For example, if consumers experience self-discrepancies with regard to their actual versus desired weight or appearance (e.g., Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999), they might join a gym or undertake plastic surgery to improve their appearance (Schouten, 1991). Here, consumer behavior facilitates the reduction of the self- discrepancy by aiding the consumer to achieve his or her desired self-view. As another example, Park and Maner (2009) demonstrated that when an individual’s appearance was threatened, he or she indicated an interest in shopping for appearance-enhancing clothes. Kim and Gal (2014) also offer findings consistent with the idea of direct resolution. The authors demonstrate that self-discrepancies related to power and intelligence can lead consumers to seek products that allow them to reduce the self-discrepancy. For example, in one experiment, when participants experienced a power deficit, they were willing to pay more for a book Compensatory Consumer Behavior 15 self-discrepancy did not increase the raw amount of consumption, but directed it in a manner related to the self-discrepancy. According to Levav and Zhu’s argument, choosing variety represents a means for reasserting freedom, whereas increasing the sheer amount of consumption does not. 4.3 Dissociation A third manner in which people may use consumer behavior in response to self- discrepancy is dissociation (White and Dahl 2006). Whereas the prior two strategies discussed above tend to affect consumer behavior by increasing consumption within a domain related to the discrepancy (i.e., consumers seek to acquire products to address the issue literally or symbolically), dissociation entails avoiding purchases in the domain of the self-discrepancy. The idea of dissociation is captured in Steele’s (1998) influential writings on stereotype threat. Steele suggests that encountering negative stereotypes about a social group can lead individuals to “dis- identify” or dissociate with that group. For example, when women confront the gender stereotype “Women perform poorly in math,” one means to respond to this self-discrepancy is to dis-identify from either the female gender or the domain of math. Murphy, Steele and Gross (2007) provide evidence for this phenomenon in an experiment where women who watched a conference video showing an unbalanced ratio of men to women in math and engineering reported a lower sense of belonging in math and engineering. As further evidence of gender dissociation, White and Argo (2009) demonstrated that when women faced a self-discrepancy in terms of gender identity, those who scored low on collective self-esteem were more likely to choose a gender-neutral magazine (US magazine) over a feminine, identity-confirming magazine (Cosmopolitan). In essence, individuals coped with Compensatory Consumer Behavior 16 self-discrepancies by actively avoiding products related to the self-discrepancy and gravitating to products not related to the self-discrepancy. Similarly, Lisjak, Levav, and Rucker (2016) provided initial evidence that, when faced with the choice between a product that represented a domain of an existing self-discrepancy (i.e., within-domain) versus a product in a different domain (i.e., across-domain), people sometimes chose the across-domain as opposed to the within-domain product; these individuals essentially disassociated with the part of their identity related to the self-discrepancy. Finally, Dalton and Huang (2014) found that when participants experienced a self-discrepancy related to their identity, they were more likely to forget advertisements linked to the domain of the self-discrepancy. Dissociation may also occur when a self-discrepancy represents an undesired, feared, or no-longer-desired aspect of the self. For example, men were less interested in ordering a steak when it was labeled a “ladies’ cut” than when it bore no such dissociative label, particularly when they consumed their chosen food in public (White & Dahl, 2006). In some cases, the consumer may wish to suppress an undesired former identity (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). One way to achieve this goal is to dispose of possessions that are associated with the undesired self (Lastovicka & Fernandez, 2005). For example, a consumer who is going through a divorce may choose to sell her wedding dress on eBay as a means of dissociation from her married self. 4.4 Escapism The cognitive, affective, and physiological consequences of self-discrepancies might persist because people tend to ruminate on activated self-discrepancies (Brunstein & Gollwitzer, 1996; Lisjak et al., 2015). One strategy to mitigate such negative motivational factors is to distract oneself or avoid thinking about the self-discrepancy. Escapism involves deliberately Compensatory Consumer Behavior 17 directing one’s thoughts away from a self-discrepancy by turning attention elsewhere; in the domain of consumer behavior, escapism can manifest in focusing one’s attention to eating or shopping. Indeed, this notion of escapism is so pervasive that it has even been dubbed “retail therapy” (Atalay & Meloy 2011). Heatherton and Baumeister (1991) argue that when people feel they have fallen short of societal standards, they can escape self-discrepancies by narrowing their attention to hedonic stimuli such as food and drinks. Fixating on and consuming food and drink has the potential, at least momentarily, to reduce the salience of any activated self-discrepancy. In support of this argument, Polivy, Herman, and McFarlane (1994) showed that individuals can reduce self- awareness, and thus salient self-discrepancies, by binging on chocolate or cookies. Similarly, people strategically consume comfort foods such as mashed potatoes or chicken soup to counter loneliness (Troisi & Gabriel, 2011). Cornil and Chandon (2013) found that sports fans consumed foods with more calories and saturated fat when their local team lost a match than when their local team won. In addition, people may watch escapist movies or “binge watch” a television series as a means to avoid self-focus (Moskalenko & Heine 2003). Notably, none of these behaviors necessarily resolve the problem by reducing the self-discrepancy; rather, they appear to serve as means to distract the individual, thus reducing the salience of the self- discrepancy. 4.5 Fluid Compensation Finally, in fluid compensation people address a self-discrepancy by affirming the self in a domain distinct from the domain of the self-discrepancy (Heine, Proulx, and Vohs, 2006; Lisjak et al., 2015). The idea of fluid compensation is a core tenet of self-affirmation theory. Specifically, self-affirmation theory suggests that reinforcing valued aspects of the self can Compensatory Consumer Behavior 20 escapism, consumption serves to distract an individual from thinking about the discrepancy, which likely reduces the salience of the discrepancy. Finally, fluid compensation allows actors to find meaning in another aspect of the self, which likely reduces the importance of the self- discrepancy. One limitation of the existing body of research is that it has not rigorously examined each of our five suggested strategies with respect to whether and how they reduce self-discrepancies. The proposed processes of eliminating a discrepancy, reducing its importance, and lowering its salience all remain to be tested. However, evidence does suggest that some forms of compensatory consumer behavior can alleviate the consequences of self-discrepancies, even if the precise process has not yet been specified. For example, symbolic self-completion through targeted consumer behavior appears capable of reducing a self-discrepancy sufficiently so that the subsequent need for compensatory consumer behavior is no longer necessary. In the work by Gao and colleagues (2009) noted earlier, the authors introduced a self-discrepancy in participants’ intelligence and then gave them a sequential choice task. For the first choice, half of the participants chose from a set of objects associated with intelligence (e.g., bookstore gift certificates), and half of the participants chose from a set of objects unrelated to intelligence. Subsequently, all participants completed a second task, where they chose between a product related to intelligence (i.e., a fountain pen) and a product unrelated to intelligence (i.e., candy). The authors found that participants with an intelligence self-discrepancy who had not first been given a choice of intelligence-related objects were more likely to choose the intelligence object on the second task, but this effect disappeared if participants had previously chosen from a set of intelligence-related objects. Participants’ initial choice among intelligence-related products appeared sufficient to address the self-discrepancy. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 21 Elsewhere, evidence suggests that after experiencing social exclusion, consumers felt a stronger need to belong, but this need to belong dampened when participants consumed a nostalgic product, which reaffirmed their sense of belonging with significant others from the past (Loveland et al. 2010). In addition, in an experiment reported by Rucker, Dubois, and Galinsky (2011), individuals in a low-power condition reported feeling more powerful after receiving a pen associated with status, but did not feel any more powerful after receiving a pen associated with quality. Thus, physically acquiring an object associated with status appeared sufficient to restore individuals’ lost sense of power. These findings, taken together, suggest that the act of consumption can, at least in some cases, potentially reduce a self-discrepancy. Of course, the effectiveness of compensatory consumer behavior may depend on what the act of compensation ultimately does. For example, consider recent work by Lisjak and colleagues (2015), who demonstrate that engaging in compensatory consumer behavior can be ineffective when it serves as a reminder of the self-discrepancy. Specifically, when individuals engage in a symbolic self-completion strategy (e.g., buying a literary book when a self- discrepancy in their intelligence is present), they may ruminate on the self-discrepancy (e.g., “This book reminds me I’m not as smart as I want to be because that is why I bought it”), which can keep the self-discrepancy active in people’s minds. Thus, rather than reducing a self- discrepancy, compensatory consumer behavior, at least in some cases, might actually strengthen a self-discrepancy because it evokes rumination through reminders of it. However, the authors also find that when the compensatory act is validated by others (e.g., “You must be smart to own that book”), it appears to alleviate the self-discrepancy. 6. Future Research Questions Compensatory Consumer Behavior 22 Thus far, we have presented our Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model, which outlines a causal flow from self-discrepancy to compensatory consumer behavior (Figure 1). In this section, we propose future research questions about compensatory consumer behavior, regarding what products matter and when (Research Question 1), the role of individual differences and culture in compensatory consumer behavior (Research Question 2), whether positive self-discrepancies can produce compensatory consumer behavior (Research Question 3), and when self-discrepancies increase versus decrease consumption (Research Question 4). Our goal in presenting these questions is to spur researchers to pursue a more nuanced understanding of when a potential source of a self-discrepancy will—or will not—lead to compensatory consumer behaviors and when such behavior will serve as a successful remedy for the self- discrepancy. 6.1 Research Question 1: What Factors Affect the Strategy and/or Products Individuals Choose? Our review of the literature provides consistent evidence that self-discrepancies can affect consumer behavior. However, at this point we know far less about when each of the documented compensatory consumer behavior strategies occurs. This question is critical for understanding how self-discrepancies shape the types of products consumers seek out. In this section, we propose several potential moderators that affect what strategy (and thus what products) consumers choose. First, when do consumers prefer products that are related to the domain of the self- discrepancy versus products that are unrelated to the domain of the self-discrepancy? At its core, this question pits within-domain strategies (e.g., direct resolution) against across-domain Compensatory Consumer Behavior 25 albeit through different processes. In support of this idea, when individuals were first told that they performed poorly on a test related to intelligence, they listened longer to music regardless of whether the music was portrayed as being associated with intelligence or not; the music unrelated to intelligence served as a distraction from thinking about one’s poor performance. Hoegg and colleagues (2014) report a similar result with regard to people’s opportunities to cope before or after a self-discrepancy. They examined product preferences as a function of whether individuals were engaged in an attempt to protect themselves from appearance self- discrepancies (i.e., pre-discrepancy) or to cope with appearance self-discrepancies after they had emerged (post-discrepancy). The authors demonstrated that affirming individuals’ appearance beforehand protected them from subsequent appearance-related self-discrepancies (such as not being able to fit in one’s usual pant size), but affirming them on their intelligence did not serve as an effective buffer. However, once an individual experienced an appearance-related self- discrepancy, both appearance- (e.g., scarves or jewelry) and intelligence-related (e.g., news magazines or language CDs) consumption seemed to reduce the self-discrepancy. Finally, recent research suggests that the different types of self-discrepancies might elicit distinct preferences for problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping. Specifically, Han, Duhachek, and Rucker (2015) found that self-discrepancies that elicit approach motivations-- such as intelligence--increase people’s preference for problem-focused coping, whereby people express an interest to change the source of stress. In contrast, self-discrepancies that elicit avoidance motivations, such as personal control and social rejection, increase people’s preference for emotion-focused coping, whereby people seek to regulate the emotional response to the stress. Although Han and colleagues did not directly examine product preferences, their findings bear on our theoretical framework. In particular, when consumers engage in problem- Compensatory Consumer Behavior 26 focused coping, they might be more amenable to a direct resolution strategy, as this is most consistent with addressing the source of stress. In contrast, when consumers engage in emotion- focused coping, they might be more amenable to escapism, as it would facilitate removing the negative emotional response. 6.2 Research Question 2: What are the Roles of Cultural and Individual Differences in Compensatory Consumer Behavior? An important question for future research is to understand how cultural and individual differences determine whether and how consumers engage in compensatory behaviors. Previous research suggests that culture is an important determinant. For example, Heine et al. (1999) suggest that members of collectivist cultures are less concerned than members of individualist cultures with the pursuit of individual self-esteem (Heine et al., 1999) or expressing their personal traits (Morrison & Johnson, 2011). Moreover, whereas individualists tend to use general self-affirmation as a means to reduce cognitive dissonance (Steele & Liu 1983), collectivists do not demonstrate dissonance reduction, and appear to have a reduced need for strategies such as general self-affirmation (Heine & Lehman 1997). Furthermore, when facing a self-discrepancy, individualists appear to seek symbolic self-completion by expressing themselves through their possessions, whereas collectivists do not (Morrison & Johnson, 2011). These findings suggest that culture can affect both what strategy is selected as well as whether a self-discrepancy provokes a motivation to resolve it. We therefore suggest that future research aim to better understand how culture shapes the use of a particular compensatory consumer behavior strategy. For example, we are not aware of any research on the moderating roles of power distance (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 1997) or verticality (Shavitt, Lalwani, Zhang, & Compensatory Consumer Behavior 27 Torelli, 2006) on compensatory consumer behavior. Attention to these factors might have important implications for how self-discrepancies are resolved. For instance, choosing a high- status product as a defense against a perceived self-discrepancy might be more effective in a vertical culture than in a horizontal culture because of the different values placed on status. Previous research suggests that individual differences in consumers may also have implications for their choice of product or strategy. We earlier noted how one individual difference – self esteem – affects compensatory consumer behavior. Similarly, Cutright and colleagues (2011) found that individual differences in people’s level of confidence in the dominant sociocultural system bear on whether they chose products that directly defended the system or indirectly defended the system. Individual differences might also play out at other stages of our model, such as whether various consumer behaviors ultimately assuage the self- discrepancy. For example, consider research suggesting that individual differences exist in the extent to which people hold different implicit theories of abilities: incremental theorists tend to believe that ability is learned, whereas entity theorists tend to believe that ability is fixed and unchangeable (Dweck 2000). As a consequence, compensatory consumer behavior efforts, such as direct resolution or symbolic self-completion, might prove a successful means for incremental theorists to assuage self-discrepancies as incremental theorists would seem inclined to believe that such self-discrepancies are resolvable. In contrast, entity theorists would seem inclined to believe that compensatory strategies may have little effect because self-discrepancies are largely impossible to change. Thus, people’s naïve theories regarding consumption may hinge on the perceived malleability of self-discrepancies. Teasing apart when people view consumption as a path to self-restoration versus a path of perilous failure, in general, is an important direction for future research. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 30 6.4 Research Question 4: When Do Self-Discrepancies Increase Versus Decrease Consumption? A number of the findings reviewed in this article suggest that self-discrepancies produce compensatory consumer behavior that increases people’s appetite for consumption. This argument might lead to the conclusion that self-discrepancies inherently increase the amount of consumption. However, compensatory behavior might not always lead to an increase in consumption. For instance, dissociation is a strategy that produces movement away from consumption: consumers may actively avoid purchasing and consuming products (or even dispose of their existing products) in order to avoid associating with an undesired identity. It is also possible that other types of compensatory consumer behavior, such as direct resolution, may sometimes reduce consumption. For example, a desire to align one’s desired and actual weight could lead consumers to consume less food overall. In fact, whether a self- discrepancy increases or decreases consumption can depend on people’s naïve theories about consumption. To this point, Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky (2012) found that a self-discrepancy with regard to one’s power could increase or decrease the amount of consumption and the calories consumed based on whether people viewed small or large portions as more likely to be a signal of status. Specifically, given the association between low power and a desire for status (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008, 2009), the authors found that a lack of power caused consumers to choose larger portion sizes when they believed that size was positively associated with status, but to choose smaller portion sizes when consumers believed that size was negatively associated with status. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 31 Put simply, the compensatory consumption strategies reviewed here may produce either increased or reduced consumption, depending on the circumstances. Future research should explore such boundary conditions. 7. Relationship of the Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model to Existing Models Our Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model relates to other models of self-discrepancy such as the Meaning Maintenance Model (MMM; Heine et al., 2006) and self-verification theory (Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989). At the same time, the present model also has notable differences in both its intent and implications. The Meaning Maintenance Model emphasizes that people cope with threats to meaning through fluid compensation. The authors propose four primary threats to meaning: threat to the self, feelings of uncertainty, interpersonal rejection, and mortality salience. Our self-discrepancy framework most directly relates to the MMM’s threats to the self and interpersonal rejection. For example, receiving self-threatening information about one’s physical appearance can produce a perceived self-discrepancy, leading to an effort to increase social connections (Park & Maner, 2009). However, the other forms of meaning threat specified in the MMM may fit into our framework as well. For example, the feelings of uncertainty produced from watching a surrealist movie (Randles et al., 2013) may be framed as a discrepancy between one’s actual and ideal level of certainty. Mortality salience holds a more nuanced relationship with self-discrepancy, but this relationship may also fit into our compensatory consumer behavior framework. Thus far in our review, we have focused discussion on events that increase the size of a self-discrepancy. However, sometimes an event may trigger compensatory consumer behavior not because it Compensatory Consumer Behavior 32 creates a perceived self-discrepancy, but because it makes an existing self-discrepancy more salient or important. Consistent with this notion, we have proposed that the coping strategies of escapism, dissociation, and fluid compensation are effective because they reduce the salience or importance or the self-discrepancy, rather than the size of the self-discrepancy. Likewise, events that magnify the salience or importance of a self-discrepancy can trigger compensatory consumer behavior. Mortality salience is one example of such an event. Thinking about one’s inevitable mortality results in a heightened state of self-awareness (Arndt et al., 1998), in which discrepancies between one’s actual self and the ideal self-concept become more salient, resulting in efforts to reduce such self-discrepancies (Scheier, Fenigstein, and Buss 1974). As a result, reminders of mortality can lead people to consume products that reinforce their sense of value in society, thereby reducing the perceived self-discrepancy between their actual and ideal sociocultural status (Mandel & Heine, 1999). Our present Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model shares the view with the MMM that fluid compensation is an important process in how consumers respond to self-discrepancies. However, the present model differs in that it posits that fluid compensation is merely one of five distinct strategies that individuals can use to respond to self-discrepancies; in this regard our model is broader. Moreover, we suggest that fluid compensation is not always the preferred means to respond to self-discrepancies. For example, consumers may prefer direct resolution or symbolic self-completion over fluid compensation, as discussed in section 6.1. The current work also relates to a foundational observation from self-verification theory. Swann and colleagues (1989) demonstrated that people with negative self-views often seek self- verifying feedback, even when such feedback is negative. Inherent in self-verification is a desire to know the self, whereas inherent in our theory is a self-enhancement motive to reduce an Compensatory Consumer Behavior 35 Brunstein, J. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Effects of failure on subsequent performance: the importance of self-defining goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 395. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: a control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19. Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Identifiable but not identical: Combining social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal of Consumer Research. 39(3), 561- 573 Charles, K.K., Hurst, E., & Roussanov, N. (2009). Conspicuous consumption and race. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 425-467. doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.425. Coleman, N. V., & Williams, P. (2013). Feeling like my self: Emotion profiles and social identity. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 203-222. Cornil, Y., & Chandon, P. (2013). From fan to fat? Vicarious losing increases unhealthy eating, but self-affirmation is an effective remedy. Psychological science. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613481232. Crocker, J. & Major, B.M. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630. Crocker, J. & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130 (May), 392-414. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909 .130.3.392. Cryder, C. E., Lerner, J. S., Gross, J. J., & Dahl, R. E. (2008). Misery is not miserly: Sad and self-focused individuals spend more. Psychological Science, 19(6), 525-530. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 36 Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2007). In search of the nonconscious sources of goal pursuit: Accessibility and positive affective valence of the goal state. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 312-318. Cutright, K. M. (2012). The beauty of boundaries: When and why we seek structure in consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 775-790. Cutright, K., Wu, E., Banfield, J. C., Kay, A., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2011). When your world must be defended: Consuming to justify the system. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (1), 62-77. Dalton, A. N. (2008). Look on the bright side: Self-expressive consumption and consumer self- worth. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC. Dalton, A. N., & Huang, L. (2014). Motivated forgetting in response to social identity threat. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1017-1038. DeMarree, K. G., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2014). The effects of power on prosocial outcomes: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 20-30. Dommer, S. L., & Swaminathan, V. (2013). Explaining the endowment effect through ownership: The role of identity, gender, and self-threat. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1034-1050. Dovidio, J., Major, B.M., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In Heatherton, T., Kleck, R.E., Hebl, M.R., & Hull, J.G. (ed.), The Social Psychology of Stigma. New York: Guilford Press. Duclos, R., Wan, E. W., & Jiang, Y. (2013). Show me the honey! Effects of social exclusion on financial risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 122-135. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 37 Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Super size me: Product size as a signal of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 1047–1062. Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290-292. Ferraro, R., Shiv, B., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die: Effects of mortality salience and self-esteem on self-regulation in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 65-75. Galinsky A. D., Whitson, J., Huang, L., & Rucker, D. D. (2012), “Not so fluid and not so meaningful: Towards an appreciation of content-specific compensation,” Psychological Inquiry, 23, 339–345. Gao, L. S., Wheeler, S. C. & Shiv, B. (2009). The shaken self: Product choices as a means of restoring self-view confidence. Journal of Consumer Research 36 (1), 29-38. Gardner, M. P., Wansink, B., Kim, J., & Park, S. B. (2014). Better moods for better eating? How mood influences food choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, forthcoming. Garg, N., & Lerner, J. S. (2013). Sadness and consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 106-113. Garg, N., Wansink, B., & Inman, J. J. (2007). The influence of incidental affect on consumers' food intake. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 194-206. Grant, A.M. & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1), 61-76. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 40 Lastovicka, J. L. & Sirianni, N. J. (2011). Truly, madly, deeply: Consumers in the throes of material possession love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (August), 323-342. 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), 518-30. Lee, J., & Shrum, L. J. (2012). Conspicuous consumption versus charitable behavior in response to social exclusion: A differential needs explanation. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 530-544. Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychological Science, 15(5), 337-341. Levav, J., & Zhu, R. (2009). Seeking freedom through variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 600-610. doi:10.1086/599556 Lisjak, M., Bonezzi, A., Kim, S., & Rucker, D. D. (2015). Perils of Compensatory Consumption: Within-Domain Compensation Undermines Subsequent Self-Regulation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1186-1203. Lisjak, Monika, Jonathan Levav, and Derek D. Rucker (2016). Compensatory Consumption as Self- and Social-Signaling. Working Paper. Loveland, K. E., Smeesters, D., & Mandel, N. (2010). Still preoccupied with 1995: The need to belong and preference for nostalgic products. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 393-408. Mandel, N., & Heine, S. J. (1999). Terror management and marketing: He who dies with the most toys wins. In E. Arnould and L. Scott (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research 26, 527-532. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 41 Martens, A., Johns, M., Greenberg, J., & Schimel, J. (2006). Combating stereotype threat: The effect of self-affirmation on women’s intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 236-243. Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). Social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service of affiliation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 902-919. Morrison, K. R., & Johnson, C. S. (2011). When what you have is who you are: Self-uncertainty leads individualists to see themselves in their possessions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(5), 639-651. Moskalenko, S. & Heine, S. J. (2003). Watching your troubles away: Television viewing as a stimulus for subjective self-awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (January), 76-85. DOI: 10.1177 /0146167202238373. Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(3), 774. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat how situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879- 885. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110 (3), 472–89. Packard, G. M., & Wooten, D. B. (2013). Compensatory knowledge signaling in consumer word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(4), 434-450. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 42 Park, L. E., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Does self-threat promote social connection? The role of self- esteem and contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 203. Polivy, J., Herman, C. P. & McFarlane, T. (1994). Effects of anxiety on eating: Does palatability moderate distress induced overeating in dieters? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(3), 505-10. DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X .103.3.505. Proulx, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). The five “A” s of meaning maintenance: Finding meaning in the theories of sense-making. Psychological Inquiry, 23(4), 317-335. Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2011). Willing and able to fake emotions: a closer examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 377. Randles, D., Heine, S. J., & Santos, N. (2013). The common pain of surrealism and death: acetaminophen reduces compensatory affirmation following meaning threats. Psychological science, 24(6):966-73. doi: 10.1177/0956797612464786 Reis, H.T. (1990). The role of intimacy in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 15-30. Richins, M. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 71–83. Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 1-16. doi:10.1086/595718 Compensatory Consumer Behavior 45 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W.G. & Worchel, S., The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks- Cole. pp. 94–109. Tangney, J. P. (1999). The self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride. Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 541-568). New York, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons Ltd Tesser, A., Crepaz, N., Collins, J. C., Cornell, D. & Beach, S.R.H. (2000). Confluence of self defense mechanisms: On integrating the self zoo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1476-1489. doi:10.1177/01461672002612003 Townsend, C., & Sood, S. (2012). Self-affirmation through the choice of highly aesthetic products. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 415-428. Troisi, J. D., & Gabriel, S. (2011). Chicken soup really is good for the soul: “Comfort food” fulfills the need to belong. Psychological Science, 22(6), 747-753. Veblen, Thorstein (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study in the Evolution of Institutions, New York: Macmillan. Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Golledge, J., & Scabini, E. (2006). Beyond self-esteem: influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 308. Wan, E. W., Xu, J., & Ding, Y. (2014). To Be or Not to Be Unique? The Effect of Social Exclusion on Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1109-1122. Wang, J., Zhu, R. J., & Shiv, B. (2012). The Lonely Consumer: Loner or Conformer?. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1116-1128. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 46 White, K., & Argo, J. J. (2009). Social identity threat and consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 313-325. 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. Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115-117. Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1981). Symbolic self-completion, attempted influence, and self-deprecation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2(2), 89-114. Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic Self-completion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Willer, R., Rogalin, C. L., Conlon, B., & Wojnowicz, M. T. (2013). Overdoing gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation thesis1. American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 980- 1022. Woodruffe, H.R. (1997). Compensatory consumption: Why women go shopping when they’re fed up and other stories. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15(7), 325-334. Compensatory Consumer Behavior 47 Table 1. Self-discrepancies linked to compensatory consumer behaviors in past research. Domain of Self-Discrepancy Coping Strategy DV Citation Intelligence/Power Direct resolution Purchase of products to decrease discrepancy Kim & Gal, 2014 Physical appearance Direct resolution Appearance-boosting activities Schouten, 1991; Park & Maner, 2009 Academic ability Symbolic self-completion Trading up Dalton, 2008 Business success Symbolic self-completion Ownership of symbolic success indicators Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982 Control Symbolic self-completion Choice of products containing boundaries Cutright 2012 Financial resources Symbolic self-completion Consumption of scarce goods Sharma & Alter, 2012 First-year status (insecurity) Symbolic self-completion Ownership of university-branded clothing Braun & Wicklund, 1989 Masculinity Symbolic self-completion Preference for masculine products Willer et al. 2012 Personal freedom Symbolic self-completion Variety-seeking Levav & Zhu, 2009 Physical appearance Symbolic self-completion Choice of appearance-enhancing accessories Hoegg et al., 2014 Power Symbolic self-completion Preference for larger items in a hierarchy Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky 2012 Power Symbolic self-completion WTP for status products Rucker & Galinsky, 2008, 2009 Self-concept certainty Symbolic self-completion Product choice Gao, Wheeler, & Shiv, 2009 Self-concept certainty Symbolic self-completion Symbolic value of possessions Morrison & Johnson, 2011 Social belongingness Symbolic self-completion Horizontal and vertical brand differentiation Dommer, Swaminathan, & Ahluwalia, 2013 Social belongingness Symbolic self-completion Financial risk-taking Duclos, Wan, & Jiang, 2013 Social belongingness Symbolic self-completion Conspicuous consumption or charitable contrib. Lee & Shrum, 2012 Social belongingness Symbolic self-completion Nostalgic brand choice Loveland et al., 2010 Social belongingness Symbolic self-completion Choice of products that signal affiliation Mead et al., 2011; Wan et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2012 Social status Symbolic self-completion Professional titles listed in email signatures Harmon-Jones et al., 2009 Sociocultural system Symbolic self-completion Choice of system-defending products Cutright et al., 2011 Socioeconomic status Symbolic self-completion Conspicuous consumption Charles, Hurst, & Roussanov, 2009 Gender identity Dissociation Sense of belonging in math Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007 Gender identity Dissociation Avoidance of identity-associated products White & Argo, 2009 Social identity Dissociation Motivated forgetting of ads Dalton & Huang, 2014 Body thinness Escapism Food overconsumption Heatherton & Baumeister, 1991 Mortality salience Escapism Food overconsumption Mandel & Smeesters, 2008 Social belongingness Escapism Consumption of comfort foods Troisi & Gabriel, 2011 Vicarious performance (of a sports team) Escapism Unhealthy eating Cornil & Chandon, 2013 Intelligence Escapism & Symbolic S.C. Listening to music (amount of time) Kim & Rucker, 2012 Counterattitudinal arguments Fluid Compensation Choice of high design Townsend & Sood, 2012 Gender identity Fluid Compensation Writing about most valued characteristic Martins et al., 2006 Physical appearance Fluid Compensation Rational decision-making Sobol & Darke, 2014