Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 10, Issue 2, 2015

Interrelationships among Facets of Self, Motivation, and

Conspicuous and Sustainable Consumption Behaviour

Thuy Nguyen

Midwestern State University, Department of Marketing and Management

Dillard College of Business Administration, Wichita Falls, Texas 76308, U.S.A.

Phone: +1 940-397-6207

Email: thuy.nguyen@mwsu.edu

Waros Ngamsiriudom

University of North Georgia

Mike Cottrell College of Business, Newton Oakes Building, Dahlonega, GA 30533, U.S.A.

Phone: +1 706-864-1609

Email: waros.ngamsiriudom@ung.edu

Lou Pelton

University of North Texas

College of Business and Administration, 1155 Union Circle #311277, Denton, Texas 76203, U.S.A.

Phone: +1 940.565.3124

Email: lou.pelton@unt.edu

Alan Dubinsky

Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, TX, U.S.A.

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, U.S.A.

Phone: +1 940-397-4290

Email: dubinsky@purdue.edu

Abstract

The current study focuses on a process the current researchers label intra-negotiation—which deals with

resolution of an individual’s potential conflict across facets of oneself—and its influence on two distinctly

different kinds of consumption (one favouring consumption, the other reducing the import of it). Specifically,

we explore the discrepancy between actual-, ideal-, and ought-self and investigate the effect of these gaps on

consumption behaviour. Moreover, attention is given to the association between three dominant human motives

and consumption behaviour. The findings reveal that (1) ideal-actual self-discrepancy is inversely associated

with achievement motivation, and (2) affiliation motivation is negatively related to conspicuous consumption.

Affiliation motivation is ascertained to be positively related to sustainable consumption, whereas power

motivation is discerned to be positively associated with conspicuous consumption. Neither conspicuous nor

sustainable consumption is associated with the ideal-actual self or ought-actual self discrepancy. Possible

rationales for the findings of the study, as well as study implications, are proffered.

Keywords: facets of self, self discrepancy, intra-negotiation of self discrepancy, consumption behaviour, human

motives

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1 INTRODUCTION

Consumer culture theory has observed a relationship between the self and consumption behaviour (Belk,

1988; Sirgy, 1982). In fact, regardless of one’s ethnicities, culture, principles, self-views, or income, people are

motivated to express their “self” through their consumption. Although researchers have viewed the “self” from

various facets, (Ahuvia, 2005; Belk, 1988; Damasio, 2003; Fournier, 1998; Gallagher, 2000; James, 1890;

Lambie & Marcel, 2002; Legrand & Ruby, 2009), in the extended view of the self, individuals’ possessions are

contributors to and reflections of their identities (Belk, 1988; James, 1890).

Self-discrepancy theory posits that there are three domains of the self: ideal, ought, and actual (Higgins,

1987). A dominant view of the self is the inevitable discrepancy across those three alternative selves (Higgins,

1987). Ideally, individuals likely prefer psychologically integration of the self—in other words, consistency

across the self’s three facets (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). If not integrated, self-discrepancy can

engender discomfort in individuals, which might motivate them to undertake efforts (e.g., make purchases) to

expurgate the inimical feelings (Higgins, 1987, 1989). Indeed, through consumption of possessions one strives

to confirm, complete, verify, enhance, and attain his/her actual, ideal, and ought self—thus fostering integration

across the three (Belk, 1984; Brown, Collins, & Schmidt, 1988; Swann Jr, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992).

This investigation examines one other psychological state—motivation. Achievement, affiliation, and

power are key learned psychological motives (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Murray, 1938) that can influence an

individual’s behaviour (e.g., consumption demeanour). In the Murray (1938) tradition, the study of motivation

seeks to explain, understand, and predict the reasons people engage or discontinue any set of behaviours to

satisfy the foregoing three needs. When not satisfied, people search for other forms of compensation, such as

wealth and possessions. Whether motivated by hedonic, utilitarian, experiential, or functional reasons,

consumers engage in various consumption behaviours. Some make consumption decisions to identify with

selected groups (e.g., affiliation) (Mead, Baumeister, Stillman, Rawn, & Vohs, 2011); others make purchases to

display status and prestige (e.g., achievement and power) (O'Cass & McEwen, 2004; Rucker & Galinsky, 2009).

Despite the importance of and inherent self-discrepancy in each person, the issue has received minimal

empirical attention in marketing. Extant work has been in the context of cosmetic surgery (Pentina, Taylor, &

Voelker, 2009) and compulsive buying (Dittmar, 2005)—both in situations reflective of a culture of

consumption. Indeed, research focusing on the self in marketing essentially has examined issues related to self-

congruity (Sirgy, Lee, Johar, & Tidwell, 2008), self-regulation (Chan & Wan, 2012), and self-concept (Sirgy,

1982). The current study introduces a process the current researchers label intra-negotiation (which deals with

resolution of an individual’s potential conflicts across three facets of oneself) and its impact on consumption

behaviour. In addition, the big three motives have been found to be the influencer behind one’s language usage

(Pennebaker, Mehl & Niederhoffer, 2003) to subjective well-being (Kehr, 2004). Yet, research exploring the

relationship between consumption behaviours and the big three motives has been sparse.

We propose that intra-negotiation is employed to resolve conflicts between the foregoing three perceptions

of the self—(1) actual- and ideal-self and (2) actual- and ought-self. The intra-negotiation process is

contextually dependent, internally focused, conscious or automatic, and effortless or purposeful (Swann, 2005;

Swann, 1987). During intra-negotiation, individuals use various strategies to reconcile conflicts between the

actual- and ideal- or the actual- and ought-self. Specifically, the actual-self negotiates with the ideal- or ought-

self to derive a coherent self, or the ideal- or ought-self negotiates with the actual-self.

The current investigation seeks to advance the literature on the relationship between the self and

consumption by identifying the underlying negotiation process of the self that promotes consumers’ behaviours.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the role of individuals’ self-discrepancies on two antipodal kinds of

consumption—conspicuous versus sustainable consumption (Horney, 1964; Munson, 1973). Conspicuous

consumption could be regarded as profligate, social status buying; sustainable consumption, buying that is

salutary for overall society and oneself. Given that the ideal-self embodies extrinsic values and the ought-self

intrinsic values (Higgins, 1987) and the nature of the preceding three motives, these two kinds of buyer

behaviour seemed especially germane for the present study.

The main contributions of this study are to (1) introduce the intra-negotiation process of self-discrepancy,

(2) explain how the role of self-discrepancy can conduce to two alternative consumption behaviours, and (3)

expatiate on the underlying role of human motives on consumers’ behaviour.

2 BACKGROUND LITERATURE

As noted earlier, there are three domains of the self: ideal, ought, and actual (Higgins, 1987). The ideal-self

is the representation of wishes, hopes, and aspirations that an individual and/or significant others would like

him/her to achieve or realize (e.g., be a movie star, high-paid executive, beauty pageant contestant). Essentially,

it represents a desired self. The ought-self is the representation of duties, responsibilities, and obligations that an

individual and/or significant others feel he/she should embrace (e.g., caring friend, student, loving child). In a

sense, it is redolent of a normative self. The actual-self is the representation of one’s current state (as perceived

Thuy Nguyen, Waros Ngamsiriudom, Lou Pelton and Alan Dubinsky

by the individual and/or others). Thus, it is suggestive of a descriptive (i.e., extant) self. The ideal-self embodies

extrinsic values; the ought-self, intrinsic values (Higgins, 1987).

The concept of the self is bounded by contextual influences. One can exert simultaneously or discretely

actual self-image and actual social self-image and ideal self-image and ideal social self-image (Sirgy, 1982).

These self-images can be congruent or contradict each other; if contradictory, a self-discrepancy arises. As

Higgins (1989, p. 97) avers: “[A] self-discrepancy is a cognitive structure interrelating distinct self-beliefs.” In

addition to the three types of self domains (actual, ought, ideal), the self also adopts two standpoints or

perspectives (Higgins, 1989, p. 321): “[one’s] own personal standpoint and the standpoint of some significant

other” (someone important to the individual). Self-discrepancy arises when the two stances (i.e., actual- versus

ideal-self or actual- versus ought-self) are discordant, regardless of the standpoints (Higgins, 1989). Such

contrariety necessitates resolution of it to foster one’s well-being.

2.1 Strategies of the Self

In self-awareness theory, Duval and Wicklund (1972) posit that, when attention is directed toward the self,

an evaluation of the actual-self is compared with the ideal- or ought-self. Values and interests of the three selves

sometimes are in harmony and interdependent; at other times, contradicting and independent of each other. The

resulting valences of the evaluations can be either positive or negative (Higgins, 2000; Higgins, Roney, Crowe,

& Hymes, 1994). However, the comparison typically yields affect that favours the ideal or ought self. The

greater the difference between the actual- and ideal- or actual- and ought-self, the larger the discrepancy

between the two facets and increased possibility of self conflicts and feelings of discomfort (Higgins, 1987). A

negative affect favouring the ideal- or ought-self (over the actual-self) motivates behaviours to narrow the

discrepancy, either through changing perceptions of the actual-self to closely match the perceptions of the ideal-

or ought-self or turning away from attention to the self (Hoyle, 2006).

Germane literature infers that individuals use several strategies to manage the self to maintain a predictive

and controllable self: bringing other people to view one’s un/desired self, or being relatively more internal

focused, deliberate, intentional, and intra-psychic (Higgins et al., 1994; Swann, 2005; Swann, 1987). In a self-

verification strategy, individuals choose to be with objects (e.g., possessions, dinner at a haute cuisine

restaurant) and people who support their self-concept no matter how harsh their revealed self-concepts might be

for them (Gómez, Seyle, Huici, & Swann, 2009). In a self-enhancement strategy individuals choose to associate

with positive identities and outcomes (Brown et al., 1988).

In a self-completion strategy, people acquire and display material possessions to compensate for certain

inadequacies of their self (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982). As such, individuals rely on consumption and

possessions to reconstruct their self-identity and social identity (Kleine Iii & Kleine, 2000). Consumption (or

possibly even non-consumption), then, is used to narrow the gap between the ideal- or ought-self and actual-self

(Dittmar, Beattie, & Friese, 1996; Eisend & Möller, 2007). The magnitude of self-discrepancy affects symbolic,

functional, and emotional values of products and impulse buying frequency (Dittmar et al., 1996). In addition,

discrepancy between the actual- and ought-self motivates consumers to rely on meanings inherent in products to

construct their social roles, especially novel ones (Solomon, 1983). Consumption (or possibly even non-

consumption) can be used to create, preserve, and cultivate a stable and harmonious self-concept (Karanika &

Hogg, 2010; Schouten, 1991).

2.2 Intra-Negotiation of Self-Discrepancy

The discrepancy between the actual- and ideal- or actual- and ought-self arises owing to individuals’

continuously comparing themselves with others so as to judge how well they are doing (Festinger, 1954). In this

process, well-being, values, and interests of others are reflected in their ideal- or ought-self. In other words,

from a consumption perspective, self-perception of the ideal- or ought-self is anchored in what others possess

(Kleine Iii & Kleine, 2000).

Once the foregoing self-evaluation process has occurred (Collins, 1996), individuals engage in various

methods—such as self-verification, self-enhancement, self-completion, identity negotiations, consumption, and

use of possessions—to reconcile the discrepancy (Brown, 1986; Swann, 1987; Swann & Read, 1981). Of these,

identity negotiation is utilized to resolve conflicts between others’ perceptions of an individual and that

person’s self-view (Swann, 1987).

Regardless of the view of the self, contemporary consumers possess fragmented and multiple senses of self

(Firat & Venkatesh, 1995). In these fragmented and multiple senses, Ahuvia (2005, p. 181) argues that not many

consumers abandon their desired self for a coherent identity. Rather, “throughout their lives, people strive to

resolve identity conflicts, although the on-going nature of life renders each resolution inherently tentative and

imperfect” (italics added). In other words, self-discrepancy, identity conflict, and identity negotiation are

omnipresent (Ahuvia, 2005; Duval & Wicklund, 1972).

Building on identity negotiation theory, we propose that intra-negotiation is employed to resolve conflicts

between multiple perceptions of the self—(1) actual- and ideal-self and (2) actual- and ought-self. During intra-

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

negotiation, individuals essay to reconcile conflicts between the actual- and ideal- or the actual- and ought-self.

Specifically, the actual-self negotiates with the ideal- or ought-self to derive a coherent self, or the ideal- or

ought-self negotiates with the actual-self.

Ahuvia (2005) proposes three distinct strategies for creating a coherent self-narrative: demarcating,

compromising, and synthesizing. Demarcating strategy strongly endorses the ideal- or ought-self and rejects the

actual-self. The outcome of this negotiation yields in favour of the ideal- or ought-self. As a result, individuals

behave in such a way that solidifies and enhances the ideal- or ought-self. Compromising strategy attempts to

resolve conflicts by being in between these two identities. The outcome of this negotiation yields behaviours

that satisfy both actual-self and ideal- or ought-self. A synthesizing strategy combines the favourable elements

of both identities and establishes a new self that satisfies both identities (Ahuvia, 2005). A review of the

literature suggests that individuals use three strategies to resolve conflicts between the self. Similarly, we

propose that individuals specifically negotiate between the actual-, ideal-, and ought-selves using demarcating,

compromising, and synthesizing strategies.

Karanika and Hogg (2010) find that consumption assumes a mediating role in the identity conflict

resolution process. Interestingly, they discern that individuals’ consumption strategies are mostly consistent with

identity negotiation strategies proposed by Ahuvia (2005). So, as individuals encounter identity conflict, they

use intra-negotiation to derive a coherent self. The overarching theme of the foregoing strategies is the selection

of a dominant identity versus the other two facets of the self, or the compromising or rejection of both identities.

The outcomes of intra-negotiation are manifested in the types of consumption thereafter. Taken together,

depending on the strategies used and the resulting outcomes during the intra-negotiation process, individuals are

motivated to consume products that are consistent with the values and interests of the resulting self (and thus

attenuating the self conflicts).

2.3 Conspicuous versus Sustainable Consumption vis-à-vis the Self

The purpose of marketing traditionally has focused on satisfying consumer needs; after all, economic

growth builds on unsatisfied needs (Hamilton, 2004). In a culture of consumption—“I shop, therefore I am”

(Holbrook, 2001)—inherent and inevitable self-discrepancy motivates individuals to shop in order to “extend”

the self (Belk, 1988). Marketing scholars, however, have issued a call for a transformation of marketing thought

and practice that will contribute to the commonweal (Brown et al., 2005; Mick, 2007; Varey, 2010; Wilkie &

Moore, 2006). These advocates admonish marketers for the tendency to neglect moral responsibility by

encouraging consumers to “spend, spend, spend.” The foregoing disquisition infers that marketers proverbially

have induced consumers to buy irrespective of whether the nature of the purchase is salutary for the consumer

and society at large. As such, this is redolent of conspicuous consumption. Alternatively, some marketing

scholars embrace the idea that marketers should provide offerings that are salubrious for both the consumer and

society. Purchasing such products is reflective of sustainable consumption.

As noted earlier, when individuals embark on a demarcating strategy, the outcome of the intra-

negotiation process favours the ideal- or ought-self and totally rejects the actual-self (Ahuvia, 2005). We

postulate that individuals using a demarcating strategy engage in two kinds of antipodal consumption. More

specifically, Munson (1973) and Horney (1964) promulgate that the self has an impact on whether the individual

engages in two kinds of antipodal consumption—“conspicuous” versus “sustainable”—which embody a

consumption spectrum. Conspicuous consumption differs from sustainable consumption in terms of using scarce

resources versus minimal resources.

2.4 Conspicuous Consumption.

Conspicuous consumption is “the purchase of goods or services for the specific purpose of displaying one's

wealth” (Investopia, 2015). Conspicuous, extravagant, or status consumption refers to the same phenomenon.

Many scholars have explored this behaviour, starting with Veblen’s (1925) conception of the urban nouveau

riche to the newly-entitled “me” generation (Twenge, 2006). Such individuals exercise “a deliberate engagement

in symbolic and visible purchase, possession, and usage of products and services imbued with scarce economic

and cultural capital with the motivation to communicate a distinctive self-image to others” (Roy Chaudhuri,

Mazumdar, & Ghoshal, 2011).

Conspicuous consumption encompasses two dimensions: social visibility and uniqueness of products,

services, and experiences (Roy Chaudhuri et al. 2011). Social visibility refers to a person’s proclivity to be

conspicuous (observable) to others in ways that might enhance his/her status through possessions. Uniqueness

pertains to being distinct from others by purchasing items that few people own. Conspicuous consumption

consumers are willing to pay a premium price for an equivalently functional product or service in order to

achieve perceived status and prestige (Bagwell & Bernheim, 1996). They use visible status symbols to

categorize themselves in society and to facilitate the self’s achieving self-congruency (Belk, 1988; Chaudhuri &

Majumdar, 2010).

Thuy Nguyen, Waros Ngamsiriudom, Lou Pelton and Alan Dubinsky

As individuals compare themselves with others, the upward/unfavourable comparisons (i.e., comparing

oneself with someone he/she perceives as truly superior to the individual, thus leading to an unfavourable

perception of oneself vis-à-vis the referent other) occur faster than the downward/favourable comparisons

(comparing oneself with someone he/she perceives as truly inferior to the individual, thus leading to a

favourable perception of oneself vis-à-vis the referent other) (Wood, 1989). Feelings of inadequacy and

inferiority motivate individuals to increase their consumption (Christen & Morgan, 2005; Drèze & Nunes,

2009). Specifically, relative to high income persons, low-income individuals spend more on conspicuous

consumption in order to “keep up with the Joneses” (Christen & Morgan, 2005; Drèze & Nunes, 2009).

Interestingly, individuals with higher self-discrepancy are found to have a stronger need for products that

will make them feel worse about themselves (Daza, 2011). (Essentially, these persons make purchases to close

the ideal-actual discrepancy, but doing so does not make them happy.) This need is especially prevalent among

individuals whose ideals are anchored in extrinsic (e.g., money, wealth, beauty), rather than in intrinsic (e.g.,

personal growth, inner freedom, self-actualization), values (Daza, 2011). Indeed, a relatively recent study found

that people who care about social position and status are motivated to spend more on conspicuous consumption

when their material possession comparisons with others do not yield unfavourable impressions (Ordabayeva &

Chandon, 2011). Those authors also ascertained that material possession equality motivates individuals with

extrinsic values—such as social position and status—to increase their conspicuous consumption, thus enhancing

a perception that one is favourably different from the referent other.

Munson (1973) and Horney (1964) declaim that conspicuous consumption products are preferred by the

ideal-self. Conceivably, conspicuous consumption is the manifestation of the ideal-self, resulting from the intra-

negotiation process between the actual- and the ideal-self. A preference for conspicuous consumption results in

the ideal-self overcoming the actual-self.

Alternatively, Ordabayeva and Chandon (2011) find that material possession equality reduces conspicuous

consumption for people who do not care about their social position. Indeed, a predilection for sustainable

consumption may well lead to the ought-self supplanting the actual-self with the denouement being an aversion

to conspicuous consumption kinds of products. After all, the ought-self embodies normative beliefs and intrinsic

(i.e., non-material) values, thus seemingly conducing to a consumer’s decreased attention or interest in status-

oriented items.

The foregoing implies that the ideal-self will be favourably disposed toward conspicuous consumption. In

contrast, though, the ought-self contains some sense of intrinsic values; thus, it is likely to have the opposite

impact on conspicuous consumption from the ideal-self. Based on the preceding dialectic, then, the following

hypotheses are offered:

: Ideal-actual self-discrepancy is positively related to conspicuous consumption.

: Ought-actual self-discrepancy is negatively related to conspicuous consumption.

2.5 Sustainable Consumption.

Sustainable consumption has been defined as “the use of goods and services that respond to basic needs

and bring a better quality of life, while minimizing the use of natural resources, toxic materials and emissions of

waste and pollutants over the life cycle, so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations” (Oslo

Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption, 1994). A desire for a simple lifestyle or concern for

societal welfare is a touchstone of sustainable consumption, which is in sharp contrast to a desire for social

visibility and uniqueness (conspicuous consumption). Individuals opting for sustainable consumption, to some

extent, may exhibit anti-consumption behaviours through focusing on sustainable living (Iyer & Muncy, 2009;

Lee, Roux, Cherrier, & Cova, 2011).

Originally mentioned as responsible living (Fisk, 1973), sustainable living transcends anti-consumption.

Specific behaviours include rejection of or reduction in consumption, as well as reusing and recycling products.

Sustainable consumption closely relates to thriftiness, frugality, and environmental consciousness (Black &

Cherrier, 2010; Fisk, 1973). Sustainable consumers attempt to live a so called “sustainable” life by not

purchasing conspicuous products, in general (Black & Cherrier, 2010; Iyer & Muncy, 2009).

Scholars have identified two types of sustainable consumers: simplifiers and global impact consumers.

Simplifiers eschew a culture of consumption and do not derive happiness through ownership of possessions

(Cherrier, 2009). They believe in sustainable, simplified, and reduced consumption-based lifestyles (e.g., green

living) but are not ”frugal materialists” who reduce consumption in one area to increase consumption in another

(Lastovicka, Bettencourt, Shaw Hughner, & Kuntze, 1999). They possess negative attitudes toward hyper-

consumption and eschew hyper-consumption as a means for enhancing personal well-being.

Global impact consumers focus on benefiting humanity at large. They are concerned about environmental

waste, material inequality across nations, and societal issues (Iyer & Muncy, 2009). Global impact consumers

oppose a hyper-consumption culture (Albinsson, Wolf, & Kopf, 2010). They also reject conspicuous products as

a means of achieving personal fulfilment and the desired self (Cherrier, 2009; Cherrier, Black, & Lee, 2011; Iyer

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

& Muncy, 2009). Moreover, they are resistant toward a culture of consumption and project consumer-resistant

identities (Cherrier, 2009; Cherrier et al., 2011).

Conceivably, sustainable consumption lifestyles are a contradistinction to conspicuous consumption

lifestyles. Individuals attempt to derive a desired-self through means of a consumption spectrum, with the

endpoints referring to sustainable versus conspicuous behaviours (Horney, 1964; Munson, 1973). Empirical

research relating to sustainable consumption is sparse. Inferring from the preceding discussion related to

conspicuous consumption, though, discrepancies between the ideal-actual self and ought-actual self conceivably

have contrasting relationships with sustainable consumption. With the putative negative effects of a

consumption culture and a materialistic society anchored in extrinsic values of the ideal-self, sustainable

consumption is likely to appeal to the ought-self. Thus, the following hypotheses are proffered:

: Ideal-actual self-discrepancy is negatively related to sustainable consumption.

: Ought-actual self-discrepancy is positively related to sustainable consumption.

2.6 Consumption and Motivation

The achievement motive is one’s desire to excel and outperform established sets of standards relative to

oneself or others (McClelland 1985). Those possessing this motive have a motive and desire to excel. The

motivation centres on competence and functions as directive influences on affect, cognition, and behaviour

(Elliot, 1999). The affiliation motive refers to one’s desire to form friendships and associations with others

(Murray, 1938). Its focal point is on establishing a sense of belonging. Per Maslow’s (1954) need hierarchy, it

pertains to a desire to achieve “belongingness and love.” The power motive entails yearning to affect, control,

and influence other people (Winter, 1973). Power-driven individuals prefer to be visible, influential, and

dominant in either personal or professional positions. These individuals tend to draw attention to themselves and

impress others by displaying prominent status (Ng, Winter, & Cardona, 2011) and by consuming ostentatious

products (Winter, 1973).

2.7 Achievement Motivation and Consumption.

Owning products with specific brand names can be redolent of a sense of achievement for many consumers

(O'cass & Frost, 2002; O'Cass & McEwen, 2004). The empirical relationship between achievement motivation

and consumption has rarely been reconnoitred. However, extant studies have attempted to connect the need to

achieve with conspicuous consumption. In a study of willingness to pay premium prices, consumers were

observed to be more inclined to pay higher prices when experiencing feelings of envy. Van de Ven et al. (2011)

reason that envy is the engine of consumers’ achievement motivation—according to Corneo and Jeanne’s (1997,

2001a, 2001b) studies. In addition, materialistic individuals tend to have achievement goals (Ku 2004). From

this perspective, the putative association between the achievement motive and conspicuous consumption can be

proffered:

: The achievement motive is positively related to conspicuous consumption.

2.8 Affiliation Motivation and Consumption.

Possibly a high need for social affiliation heightens one’s focus on monitoring social inclusion. Research

has found that social exclusions increase affiliation needs (Mead et al., 2011), augment conformance to group

norms (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), and raise the focus toward impression management (Lakin,

Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008). Recent work on social exclusion ascertains that individuals are motivated to spend

and consume in order to gain affiliation (Mead et al., 2011). This implies that the nature of the group (i.e., its

raison d'être or focus) toward which the individual aspires—à la conspicuous or sustainable products in this

study—is likely to affect the person’s consumption behaviour. In fact, extant work indicates that motivation to

conform to outside influence (e.g., “significant others”) affects consumers’ purchase behaviours (e.g., Tran et

al., 2014). Thus, a need to join and associate with a group encourages individuals to interact with the group and

conceivably engage in (conform to) consumption behaviour that is consistent with the members of the particular

group. As such, the following hypotheses are offered:

: Affiliation motive is positively related to conspicuous consumption.

: Affiliation motive is positively related to sustainable consumption.

2.9 Power Motivation and Consumption.

Power-motivated persons might have the desire to focus on their state of power and thus be motivated to

acquire more power. In addition, people generally prefer to have more power than less (Handgraaf, Van Dijk,

Vermunt, Wilke, & De Dreu, 2008). The foregoing thus suggests that high power-motivated individuals seek to

increase power (Ronay & von Hippel, 2010). Findings from germane work indicate that powerless individuals

Thuy Nguyen, Waros Ngamsiriudom, Lou Pelton and Alan Dubinsky

are motivated to consume luxurious and status goods to restore power (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008). The logic is

that status is a form of power (Chaudhuri & Majumdar, 2006; O'Cass & McEwen, 2004). Conceivably, power-

motivated individuals are inclined to purchase conspicuous products to manifest such power. Thus, the

following hypothesis is proposed:

: Power motivation is positively related to conspicuous consumption.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sample and Procedure

The survey was administered online to college students for a duration of 20 minutes. Respondents were

informed that their participation or lack thereof would not affect their class standing. Extra class credit was

given for completing the survey, but there was no penalty for not completing it. Responses remained completely

anonymous. A total of 538 surveys were returned. Thirteen surveys were deleted, due to abundant missing data,

thus yielding the final data set of 525 respondents. Respondent demographics were as follows: average age,

22.73 years; gender, 46.7% male; ethnicity, 56.8% Caucasian; parents’ income, 31.2% beyond $100,000;

respondents’ income, 41.2% under $9,999; and marital status, 92.3% single or never married. Nonresponse bias

was assessed by splitting the sample into early and late respondents and measuring differences between those

two groups vis-à-vis the demographics data (Armstrong & Overton, 1977). Results yielded no statistically

significant (p > .05) differences.

3.2 Measurement Validation

All measures were adapted from extant scales. Conspicuous (Roy Chaudhuri et al., 2011) and sustainable

(Iyer & Muncy, 2009) consumption constructs were anchored on a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 = strongly

disagree to 7 = strongly agree. As noted earlier, conspicuous consumption consists of two components, social

visibility and uniqueness. To be compatible with extant work, both components were assessed. Also, as

mentioned previously, there are two kinds of sustainable consumers, simplifiers and global impact. Again, to be

consistent with prior work, both consumer types were assessed. Accordingly, when testing hypotheses

pertaining to either kind of consumption, tests were conducted on the germane two underlying constituents.

Also, achievement, affiliation, and power motivation were adapted from the work of Jackson (1984); the

aforementioned Likert scale was utilized for these items as well.

The conventional scale measuring self-discrepancy provides a 28-item adjective checklist (Gough and

Heilbrun, 1983); an alternative is a user-generated technique, which was employed in this study. The latter

approach has been shown to be consistent with theory, be less demanding for respondents, and have fewer

measurement errors (Francis, Boldero, & Sambell, 2006). Because the self-discrepancy concept is the perception

of the differences between the actual and desired state, individuals’ ought- and ideal- self-discrepancy not only

differ in the current and future states, but the dimensions also vary. Traits, behaviours, attitudes, feelings, and

states of beings are all valid dimensions of self-concept. Thus, a nonidiographic self-concept measure is

insufficient to capture individuals’ self-discrepancy. Moretti and Higgins (1990) emphasize the import of

measuring self-discrepancy using idiographic self-nominated attributes as opposed to standard self-ratings (per

the checklist of Gough and Heilbrun [1983]).

To assess self-discrepancy, a measure was partially adapted from Francis et al. (2006). (Because the

measure was adapted, it was not pre-tested.) First, participants were asked to generate four ideal- and ought-self

attributes. Second, they were asked to list four corresponding antonyms of the attributes that they had generated,

and then place them at the opposite end of a 7-point Likert scale. Third, they were asked to select where they

saw themselves currently in relation to these attributes. The 7-point Likert scale was anchored from 1 = ideal-

and ought-self to 7 = antonym of ideal- and ought-self. Examples of the attributes/antonyms used included

healthy/unhealthy, hardworking/lazy, successful/unsuccessful, happy/depressed, and provider/taker, among

others.

Items were first examined using principal components analysis and Varimax rotation to identify and

remove substantive cross-loading items. Second, measurement validities were assessed by calculating Cronbach

alphas for each construct. All alphas were at acceptable levels (α > .7) (Nunnally, 1978). Third, the resulting sets

of items were analyzed via confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.8 to verify unidimensionality. The

goodness of fit indices indicated good fit: Chisquare = 1138.38 df = 524; IFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.87,

CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.052, RMSEA = 0.047 (Hu and Bentler 1999). The chi-square statistic was significant

(p<.05). However, the chi square statistic often rejects valid models in research with large samples (n = 525 in

this study) (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Study measurement items–and concomitant statistics—are shown in Tables

1, 2, 3,4, and 5.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Table 1: Factor structure of achievement, affiliation, and power motives

Achievement

Power

Affiliation

I am attracted by tasks, in which I can test my abilities.

.887

I am interested in situations allowing me to test my abilities.

.849

I enjoy working on difficult tasks.

.778

I like situations in which I can find out how capable I am.

.728

.453

I think I would enjoy having authority over other people.

.888

I find satisfaction in having influence over others.

.809

I strive to gain control over the events around me at school or work.

.778

If given the chance, I would make a good leader of people.

.652

There are some people that I feel very close to.

.800

Having closed personal relationship is very important to me.

.731

Whenever I believe that I have hurt someone’s feelings, I feel guilty.

.722

Percentage of variance

26.95

24.50

19.38

Table 2: Factor structure of conspicuous consumption: uniqueness and social visibility

Uniqueness

Social

visibility

By choosing a product having an exotic look and design, I show my friends that I am different.

.863

I choose products or brands to create my own style that everybody admires.

.844

Others wish they could match my eyes for beauty and taste.

.783

I would buy an interesting and uncommon version of a product otherwise available with a plain

design, to show others that I have an original taste.

.753

I buy some products because I want to show others that I am wealthy.

.825

It says something to people around me when I buy a high priced brand.

.805

I would be a member in a businessmen’s posh club.

.802

Given a chance, I would hang a Hussain painting in drawing my room.

.639

Percentage of variance

36.73

34.24

Table 3: Factor structure of sustainable consumption: global impact consumers and simplifiers

Global impact consumers

Simplifiers

We must do our part to conserve world’s resources.

.850

If the world continues to use up its resources, it will not survive.

.784

If we all consume less, the world would be a better place.

.782

Most people buy way too many things that they really don’t need.

.690

Brand name is not important to me.

.770

“Waste no, want not” is a philosophy I follow.

.739

Given a choice, I would like to buy ‘do-it-yourself’ products.

.720

Living a simple life makes me happier.

.563

Percentage of variance

32.46

26.12

Thuy Nguyen, Waros Ngamsiriudom, Lou Pelton and Alan Dubinsky

Table 4: Structural Equation Model Results

Construct and Scale Items

Std.

est.

stats

AVE

Achievement Motivation

I am attracted by tasks, in which I can test my abilities.

I am appealed by situations allowing me to test my abilities.

I enjoy working on difficult tasks.

I like situations in which I can find out how capable I am.

.88

1.0

.90

27.33

28.49

20.32

.904

.707

Affiliation Motivation

There are some people that I feel very close to.

Having closed personal relationship is very important to me.

Whenever I believe that I have hurt someone’s feelings, I feel guilty.

.77

1.0

.99

10.59

15.34

.734

.485

Power Motivation

I think I would enjoy having authority over other people.

I find satisfaction in having influence over others.

I strive to gain control over the events around me at school or work.

If given the chance, I would make a good leader of people.

.73

.93

1.0

.90

15.34

19.13

16.48

.839

.568

Ideal vs. Actual Self

Please indicate where you see yourself actually are in relation to your ideal 1

Please indicate where you see yourself actually are in relation to your ideal 2

Please indicate where you see yourself actually are in relation to your ideal 3

Please indicate where you see yourself actually are in relation to your ideal 4

1.0

.98

.99

.92

12.65

12.71

12.09

.758

.441

Ought vs. Actual Self

Please indicate where you see yourself actually are in relation to your ought 1

Please indicate where you see yourself actually are in relation to your ought 2

Please indicate where you see yourself actually are in relation to your ought 3

Please indicate where you see yourself actually are in relation to your ought 4

.90

1.0

.98

.95

14.13

14.78

14.25

.807

.512

Conspicuous Consumption: Social Visibility

I buy some products because I want to show others that I am wealthy.

It says something to people around me when I buy a high priced brand.

I would be a member in a businessmen’s posh club.

Given a chance, I would hang a Hussain painting in drawing my room.

1.0

.96

.94

.68

20.19

19.52

13.47

.837

.566

Conspicuous Consumption: Uniqueness

By choosing a product having an exotic look and design, I show my friends that I am

different.

I choose products or brands to create my own style that everybody admires.

Others wish they could match my eyes for beauty and taste.

I would buy an interesting and uncommon version of a product otherwise available with a

plain design, to show others that I have an original taste.

.88

.90

1.0

.95

21.34

21.33

23.42

.888

.666

Sustainable Consumption: Global Impact Consumers

We must do our part to conserve world’s resources.

If the world continues to use up its resources, it will not survive.

If we all consume less, the world would be a better place.

Most people buy way too many things that they really don’t need.

.94

1.0

.93

.84

14.72

15.62

14.95

.808

.519

Sustainable Consumption: Simplifiers

Brand name is not important to me.

“Waste no, want not” is a philosophy I follow.

Given a choice, I would like to buy “do-it-yourself” products.

Living a simple life makes me happier.

.85

1.0

.85

.92

9.69

9.67

9.72

.694

.363

Note. “na” = “not applicable.”

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, Alphas, Correlations, and Shared Variances

Means

s.d.

Achievement Motivation

5.55

1.09

.89

.30

.22

.01

.00

.02

.09

.05

Affiliation Motivation

5.79

1.01

.70

.55

.11

.00

.01

.13

.01

Power Motivation

5.09

1.13

.83

.46

.34

.00

.03

.10

.03

.00

Ideal-Actual Discrepancy

3.40

1.16

.76

-.13

-.03

-.09

.29

.00

Ought-Actual Discrepancy

3.53

1.46

.81

.00

.05

-.04

.54

.00

Social Visibility

3.22

1.51

.83

-.07

-.11

.19

-.02

-.04

.40

.01

.02

Uniqueness

3.86

1.51

.88

.14

.11

.32

-.03

-.04

.64

.00

Global Impact

5.37

1.08

.80

.30

.36

.18

-.04

.03

-.14

.06

.15

Simplifiers

4.46

1.15

.69

.22

.12

.09

.00

.02

-.15

.04

Note. Correlations are reported in the lower half of the matrix.

Note. Shared variances are reported in the upper half of the matrix.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Fourth, convergent validity was assessed by examining the completely standardized factor loadings. All

loadings were statistically significant (t-values ranged from 9.67 to 28.49) and exceeded the recommended .50

level (Hair et al. 2006). Convergent validity was also assessed by calculating composite reliabilities, as

recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). All constructs, ranging from .75 to .90, exceeded the

recommended level (>.7). Another assessment of convergent validity was examined using the average variance

extracted (AVE). With the exceptions of ideal-actual, affiliation, and sustainability consumption, all AVEs

exceeded the recommended level (>.5). However, the Cronbach’s alphas of ideal-actual, affiliation, and

sustainability consumption were at acceptable levels for exploratory research. Fifth, discriminant validities were

assessed by comparing the square of the correlation between each construct with the corresponding average

variance extracted. In each case, the square of the correlation between each pair of constructs was significantly -

lower than the AVEs. These results demonstrated good discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

3.3 Hypothesized Structural Model Results

The structural model also provided good fit to the study: The goodness of fit indices indicated good fit:

Chisquare = 1433.07 df = 538; IFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.86, CFI = 0.96, SRMR= 0.061, RMSEA=

0.056 (Hu and Bentler 1999). Again, the chi-square statistic was significant (p<.05) due to large samples

research (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Shown in Table 6 are the standardized path coefficients and associated

significant levels of the proposed relationships.

3.4 Results of Hypothesis Tests.

1a,b

predicted that the ideal-actual (ought-actual) discrepancy is positively (negatively) related to

conspicuous consumption. H

2a,b

posited that the ideal-actual (ought-actual) discrepancy is negatively (positively)

related to sustainable consumption. Owing to insignificant results (p > .05—Table 6), however, none of these

hypotheses receives empirical support.

predicted that achievement motivation would be positively associated with conspicuous consumption.

Such motivation, however, evinces no significant relationship (p > .05) with either of the two components of

conspicuous consumption—social visibility and uniqueness; so, the hypothesis is rejected. H

proposed that

affiliation motivation would be positively related to conspicuous consumption. Results are significant for social

visibility (-.46, t = 3.4, p < .05)—but in the obverse direction—yet not for uniqueness (-.02, t = .19, p < .05).

Thus, H

is not supported. H

posited that affiliation motivation would be positively related to sustainable

consumption. Results are significant for one of the two types of sustainable customers: global impact

consumers (.58, t = 6.01, p < .05); simplifiers (.15, t = 1.38, p > .05). Thus, H

is partially supported. H

promulgated that power motivation would be positively associated with conspicuous consumption. Results are

significant for both social visibility and uniqueness (.54, t = 6.85, p < .05; .47, t = 6.14, p < .05); thus, H

supported.

Table 6: Hypothesized Model Structural Coefficients

Path

Standard coefficients (t-values)

1a:

Ideal-Actual (+)  conspicuous consumption

1b:

Ought-Actual (-)  conspicuous consumption

-.02 (.26) & .04 (.54)

-.02 (.39) & -.06 (1.04)

2a:

Ideal-Actual (-)  sustainable consumption

2b:

Ought-Actual (+)  sustainable consumption

-.04 (.67) & .06 (.97)

.0 (.1) & -.01 (.22)

Achievement (+)  social visibility

Achievement (+)  uniqueness

-.15 (1.37)

-.01 (.08)

Affiliation (+)  social visibility

Affiliation (+)  uniqueness

-.46

(3.40)

-.02 (.19)

Affiliation (+)  global impact

Affiliation (+)  simplifying

.59

(6.01)

.15 (1.38)

Power (+)  social visibility

Power (+)  uniqueness

.54

(6.85)

.47

(6.14)

The coefficient and t-value on the left denotes the results for “social visibility”; on the right, for “uniqueness.”

The coefficient and t-value on the left denote the results for “global impact customers”; on the right, for “simplifiers.”

p < .05

Thuy Nguyen, Waros Ngamsiriudom, Lou Pelton and Alan Dubinsky

4 DISCUSSION

A study was conducted chiefly to examine how consumption behaviour is influenced through self-

discrepancies and motivation of individuals. In doing so, the concept of the intra-negotiation process was

introduced. Intra-negotiation is a concerted endeavour on the part of an individual to undertake efforts to

reconcile discrepancies between his/her ideal- and ought-self vis-à-vis the actual-self. This is the inaugural

investigation in the marketing discipline to reconnoiter the influence of self-discrepancies on both conspicuous

and sustainable consumption. Previous empiricism has minimally investigated the former, and no extant

published work was found that examined the latter. Findings were not supportive of most hypotheses, yet

analyses did proffer some expected and unexpected, but intriguing, outcomes.

4.1 Interpretation of the Findings.

Surprisingly, neither conspicuous nor sustainable consumption was associated with the ideal-actual self or

ought-actual self discrepancy. The ideal-actual self discrepancy was proposed to be positively related to

conspicuous consumption and negatively related to sustainable consumption. The ought-actual self discrepancy

was presupposed to be negative associated with conspicuous consumption and positively associated with

sustainable consumption. The foregoing results imply that the extent of difference between the actual and the

other two facets of self seemingly does not affect whether consumers opt for either kind of consumption

behaviour. Perhaps the “genre” of consumption (conspicuous or sustainable in this case) is impervious to issues

of self-discrepancy. Alternatively, peradventure the discrepancy in the selves will not induce consumers to

pursue either kind of consumption behaviour in efforts to reduce the discordancy among facets of the self.

All three kinds of motivation were hypothesized to be positively related to conspicuous consumption.

The supposition was that purchasing products can be reflective of one’s achievement, desire for inclusion in a

group, and expression of increased power. Achievement motivation, however, was unrelated to conspicuous

consumption. As noted earlier, the achievement motivation/conspicuous consumption association has yet to be

explored. Nonetheless, empirical work has found a tangential relationship between the two constructs (Corneo

and Jeanne 1997, 2001a, 2001b; Ku 2004; Van de Ven et al. 2011). Thus, the finding in this study is not

compatible with those obtained in the foregoing investigations. Conceivably, consumers might not regard

observable, status-oriented products as signs of achievement or accomplishment. Given the perceived

“commoditization” of many products today, consumers may consider many erstwhile high status offerings to be

mainstream—thus not conferring special cachet on them vis-à-vis referent others.

Interestingly, affiliation motivation was discerned to be negatively related to conspicuous consumption.

Based on prior research (e.g., Mead et al., 2011), a positive association was expected. Evidently, having an acute

aspiration to “belong” does not lead an individual to purchase status-oriented items; indeed, it pushes them not

to buy such offerings. Again, just as with achievement motivation, maybe the commoditization of products has

led consumers to perceive that having observable, high cachet-laden products will not afford them enter into a

particular group. Accordingly, this finding begs the question whether individuals truly are motivated to spend

and consume in order to gain affiliation, as Mead et al. (2011) found.

Power motivation was ascertained to be positively related to conspicuous consumption. This result is

consistent with germane work in the area (Chaudhuri & Majumdar, 2006; O'Cass & McEwen, 2004; Rucker &

Galinsky, 2008). Ostensibly, consumers feel that possessing the “right” products will enhance their feelings of

control and influence over others. This suggests that consumers who aspire to power will undertake efforts to

augment their power via visible, status-oriented offerings.

Affiliation motivation was promulgated as being positively associated with sustainable consumption.

Findings supported this supposition, thus comporting with tangentially-related prior research (e.g., Lakin,

Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000). The result infers that by being desirous of having

a sense of belongingness, purchasing items that are good for society in the long run and that are not redolent of

excessive consumption will be salutary for such individuals. In fact, this speculation is further supported with

the inverse association observed between the affiliation motive and conspicuous consumption.

4.2 Contributions to Theory

Three major contributions flow from the current investigation. First, the concept of intra-negotiation was

introduced. It was presented as an alternative approach individuals use in resolving their self-discrepancies and

thus reflects a new, alternative strategy for reconciling differences across the self. We thus advance the literature

on the relationship between the self and consumption by identifying the underlying negotiation process of the

self that promotes consumers’ behaviours. With its introduction, intra-negotiation may well help enhance

understanding of how or why consumers utilize consumption in their efforts to resolve people’s discordant

views of the self.

Second, this is only the third investigation to explore self-discrepancy in a marketing context. Owing to

the dramatic influence self-discrepancy can have on individuals’ behaviour, exploring the concept in a

consumption setting seemed warranted. As such, it adds to the paucity of knowledge regarding the impact of

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

self-discrepancy on consumer behaviour. Indeed, extant work pertaining to the self in marketing essentially has

primarily examined issues related to self-congruity, self-regulation, and self-concept, not self-discrepancy.

Third, this work included two distinctly different kinds of consumption, conspicuous and sustainable.

Rarely, though, has an investigation examined these contrasting kinds of consumption conterminously. The

study thus adds to knowledge regarding potential influencers of these two antipodal kinds of consumption. In

particular, the current research has advanced extant knowledge by exploring conspicuous and sustainable

consumption vis-à-vis both self-discrepancy and human motives.

4.3 Contributions to Practice

Study findings offer prospective directions for marketers. The findings that the (1) ideal-actual self-

discrepancy is inversely associated with achievement motivation and (2) affiliation motive is negatively related

to conspicuous consumption, while unexpected, can plausibly be explained. One would expect that conspicuous

products and services are manifestations of a person’s achievement and desire to conform to group “norms” of

consumption. Perhaps, however, the “American dream” puts pressure on achievement- and affiliation-oriented

individuals, thus widening their ideal-actual-self gaps. Unable to manage such social pressures effectively, they

conceivably become cynical, thus resisting consumption of socially visible offerings. This explanation is

supported by the recent work of Mikkonen et al. (2011). Foucault (1983) describes individuals who are against

social order of contemporary and normalized subjectivity. Such persons refuse to be what they are and attempt

to create a new identity via iconoclastic efforts. The implication seemingly, then, is that upscale and luxury

goods marketers may not wish to be perfervid in closely tying their products to a consumer’s sense of

achievement.

Also, affiliation motivation was ascertained to be positively related to sustainable consumption. Marketers

selling products that are ecologically friendly may wish to promote their wares as being especially apposite for

individuals who are in the vanguard of those having a concern about the environment and long-term impact on

society. Using spokespersons from such entities as nongovernment organizations (e.g., World Nature

Organization, Green Peace) and volunteer organizations (e.g., Humane Society) in promotion vehicles could

demonstrate that the sustainable shopper has a large following (à la a group).

The positive association between power motivation and conspicuous consumption also is redolent of what

upscale and luxury marketers might pursue. Showing well-known, successful personalities who tend to be

influencers using their products could lead power-motivated consumers to purchase such items. Also, presenting

vignettes of mainstream individuals consuming such products and the seeming salutary impact doing so has on

the protagonists’ sense of power could be employed.

5. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The present investigation possesses certain key limitations. Some might argue that explicit goals are

manifestations of implicit motives (Murray 1938). Others, however, believe that the two systems are unrelated

(McClelland 1989; Michalak et al. 2006). The relationship between implicit and explicit goals and motives

poses a limitation for this study, as only explicit motives were explored. Therefore, future work should examine

the impact of both explicit and implicit motives, as well as congruency between the two motives, on consumer

behaviours.

Also, in focusing on cognitive and conative variables—self-discrepancy and motivation, respectively—a

limited model was proposed and tested. Consequently, other variables that could affect conspicuous and

sustainable consumption were omitted. Therefore, subsequent empiricism might explore the concatenation of

variables in this study while incorporating additional variables, such as involvement, importance of the

purchase, kind of product or service, and price. Moreover, the sample was comprised chiefly of younger-aged

individuals (mean = 22 years). Self-discrepancies and their significance may well vary across age and should be

reconnoitered in future work.

REFERENCES

Ahuvia AC. Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers' Identity Narratives. J Cons Res 2005; 32

(1): 171-184.

Albinsson PA, Wolf M, Kopf DA. Anti-consumption in East Germany: consumer resistance to

hyperconsumption. J Cons Beh 2010; 9 (6): 412-425.

Atkinson JW. Motives in fantasy, action, and society: A method of assessment and study. 1958.

Bagwell LS, Bernheim BD. Veblen Effects in a Theory of Conspicuous Consumption. Amer Econ Rev 1996; 86

(3): 349-373.

Belk RW. Three Scales to Measure Constructs Related to Materialism: Reliability, Validity, and Relationships

to Measures of Happiness Advances Cons Res 1984; 11 (1): 291-297.

Thuy Nguyen, Waros Ngamsiriudom, Lou Pelton and Alan Dubinsky

Belk RW. Possessions and the Extended Self. J Cons Res 1988; 15 (2): 139-168.

Black IR, Cherrier H. Anti-consumption as part of living a sustainable lifestyle: daily practices, contextual

motivations and subjective values. J Cons Beh 2010; 9 (6): 437-453.

Brewer MB. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 1991; 17 (5): 475-482.

Brewer MB, Gardner W. Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. J Personality

& Soc Psy 1996; 71 (1): 83-93.

Brockner J. Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice: Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com, 1988.

Brown JD. Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition 1986;

4 (4): 353-376.

Brown JD, Collins RL, Schmidt GW. Self-esteem and direct versus indirect forms of self-enhancement. J

Personality & Soc Psy 1988; 55 (3): 445-453.

Brown SW, Webster FE, Steenkamp J-BE, Wilkie WL, Sheth JN, Sisodia RS, Kerin RA, MacInnis DJ,

McAlister L, Raju JS. Marketing renaissance: Opportunities and imperatives for improving marketing

thought, practice, and infrastructure. J Marketing 2005: 1-25.

Brownfain JJ. Stability of the self-concept as a dimension of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology 1952; 47 (3): 597-606.

Chan KW, Wan EW. How Can Stressed Employees Deliver Better Customer Service?? The Underlying Self-

Regulation Depletion Mechanism. J Marketing 2012; 76 (1): 119-137.

Chaudhuri HR, Majumdar S. Of diamonds and desires: understanding conspicuous consumption from a

contemporary marketing perspective. Aca Mktg Sci Rev 2006; 11 (2/3): 2-18.

Chaudhuri HR, Majumdar S. Conspicuous Consumption: Is That All Bad? Investigating the Alternative

Paradigm. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers 2010; 35 (4): 53-59.

Cherrier H. Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities. J Bus Res 2009; 62 (2): 181-190.

Cherrier H, Black IR, Lee M. Intentional non-consumption for sustainability: Consumer resistance and/or anti-

consumption? European Journal of Marketing 2011; 45 (11/12): 1757-1767.

Christen M, Morgan RM. Keeping up with the Joneses: Analyzing the effect of income inequality on consumer

borrowing. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 2005; 3 (2): 145-173.

Collins RL. For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psy Bulletin

1996; 119 (1): 51.

Damasio A. Feelings of emotion and the self. Annals Of The New York Academy Of Sciences 2003; 1001 (1):

253-261.

Daza L-AS. Do the Clothes Make the Man? How Gaps Between Current and Ideal Self Goals Shape

Deci EL, Ryan RM. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of

behavior. Psy Inquiry 2000; 11 (4): 227-268.

Dittmar H. A NEW LOOK AT "COMPULSIVE BUYING": SELF-DISCREPANCIES AND

MATERIALISTIC VALUES AS PREDICTORS OF COMPULSIVE BUYING TENDENCY. Journal of

Social & Clinical Psychology 2005; 24 (6): 832-859.

Dittmar H, Beattie J, Friese S. Objects, decision considerations and self-image in men's and women's impulse

purchases. Acta Psychologica 1996; 93 (1-3): 187-206.

Drèze X, Nunes JC. Feeling superior: the impact of loyalty program structure on consumers’ perceptions of

status. J Cons Res 2009; 35 (6): 890-905.

Duval S, Wicklund RA. A theory of objective self awareness. 1972.

Eisend M, Möller J. The influence of TV viewing on consumers' body images and related consumption

behavior. Mktg Let 2007; 18 (1/2): 101-116.

Elliot AJ. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist 1999; 34 (3):

169.

Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 1954; 7 (2): 117-140.

Firat AF, Venkatesh A. Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption. J Cons Res 1995;

22 (3): 239-267.

Fisk G. Criteria for a theory of responsible consumption. The Journal of Marketing 1973: 24-31.

Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra

and statistics. J Mktg Res 1981; 18 (3): 382-388.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Foucault M. The Political Technology of Individuals. In: Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, Patrick H. Hutton

editors. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1988.

pp. 145-162.

Fournier S. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. J Cons Res

1998; 24 (4): 343-373.

Francis JJ, Boldero JM, Sambell NL. Self-Lines: A New, Psychometrically Sound, ‘User-Friendly’ Idiographic

Technique for Assessing Self-Discrepancies. Cognitive Therapy & Research 2006; 30 (1): 69-84.

Gallagher S. Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive

Sciences 2000; 4 (1): 14-21.

Gómez Á, Seyle DC, Huici C, Swann WB, Jr. Can self-verification strivings fully transcend the self–other

barrier? Seeking verification of ingroup identities. J Personality & Soc Psy 2009; 97 (6): 1021-1044.

Hamilton C. Growth fetish, Vol. 206: Pluto Press London, 2004.

Handgraaf MJJ, Van Dijk E, Vermunt RC, Wilke HAM, De Dreu CKW. Less power or powerless? Egocentric

empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making. J Personality & Soc

Psy 2008; 95 (5): 1136-1149.

Hanley AW, Garland EL. Dispositional mindfulness co-varies with self-reported positive reappraisal.

Personality and Individual Differences 2014; 66: 146-152.

Higgins ET. Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psy Rev 1987; 94 (3): 319-340.

Higgins ET. Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist 2000; 55 (11): 1217-1230.

Higgins ET, Roney CJR, Crowe E, Hymes C. Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance

distinct self-regulatory systems. J Personality & Soc Psy 1994; 66 (2): 276-286.

Holbrook MB. I shop, therefore I am: Compulsive buying and the search for self (Oniomania, ergo sum: The

complete guide to compulsive buying disorders)

Horney K. The neurotic personality of our time. New York, NY US: W W Norton & Co, 1964.

Hoyle RH. Personality and Self-Regulation: Trait and Information-Processing Perspectives. J Personality 2006;

74 (6): 1507-1526.

Investopia (2015). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conspicuous-consumption.asp.

Iyer R, Muncy JA. Purpose and object of anti-consumption. J Bus Res 2009; 62 (2): 160-168.

James W. 1950. The principles of psychology

Karanika K, Hogg MK. The interrelationship between desired and undesired selves and consumption: The case

of Greek female consumers' experiences. J Mktg Mgmt 2010; 26 (11/12): 1091-1111.

Kehr, Hugo M. "Implicit/explicit motive discrepancies and volitional depletion among managers." Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin 30.3 (2004): 315-327.

Kleine Iii RE, Kleine SS. Consumption and Self-Schema Changes Throughout the Identity Project Life Cycle.

Advances Cons Res 2000; 27 (1): 279-285.

Koestner R, McClelland DC. The affiliation motive. In: Charles P. Smith, John W. Atkinson, David C.

McClelland, Joseph Veroff editors. Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis.

New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press, 1992. pp. 205-210.

Lakin JL, Chartrand TL, Arkin RM. I Am Too Just Like You: Nonconscious Mimicry as an Automatic

Behavioral Response to Social Exclusion. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell) 2008; 19 (8): 816-822.

Lambie JA, Marcel AJ. Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psy

Rev 2002; 109 (2): 219.

Lastovicka JL, Bettencourt LA, Shaw Hughner R, Kuntze RJ. Lifestyle of the Tight and Frugal: Theory and

Measurement. J Cons Res 1999; 26 (1): 85-98.

Lee M, Roux D, Cherrier H, Cova B. Anti-consumption and consumer resistance: concepts, concerns, conflicts

and convergence. European Journal of Marketing 2011; 45 (11/12).

Legrand D, Ruby P. What is self-specific? Theoretical investigation and critical review of neuroimaging results.

Psy Rev 2009; 116 (1): 252.

Maslow AH. Motivation and personality, 1954.

McClelland DC. How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist 1985; 40

(7): 812-825.

Mead NL, Baumeister RF, Stillman TF, Rawn CD, Vohs KD. Social Exclusion Causes People to Spend and

Consume Strategically in the Service of Affiliation. J Cons Res 2011; 37 (5): 902-919.

Thuy Nguyen, Waros Ngamsiriudom, Lou Pelton and Alan Dubinsky

Mick DG. The end (s) of marketing and the neglect of moral responsibility by the American Marketing

Association. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 2007; 26 (2): 289-292.

Mittal B. I, me, and mine--how products become consumers' extended selves. J Cons Beh 2006; 5 (6): 550-562.

Mor N, Winquist J. Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psy Bulletin 2002; 128 (4): 638-

662.

Munson JM. A Typological Investigation of Self-Concept Congruity and Brand Preferences: Toward a

Predictive Model

Murray HA. Explorations in personality. Oxford England: Oxford Univ. Press, 1938.

Ng I, Winter D, Cardona P. Resource control and status as stimuli for arousing power motivation: An American-

Chinese comparison. Motivation & Emotion 2011; 35 (3): 328-337.

Northoff G, Heinzel A, de Greck M, Bermpohl F, Dobrowolny H, Panksepp J. Self-referential processing in our

brain—A meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self. NeuroImage 2006; 31 (1): 440-457.

O'cass A, Frost H. Status brands: examining the effects of non-product-related brand associations on status and

conspicuous consumption. J Product & Brand Mgmt 2002; 11 (2): 67-88.

O'Cass A, McEwen H. Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. J Cons Beh 2004; 4 (1): 25-

39.

Ordabayeva N, Chandon P. Getting ahead of the Joneses: When equality increases conspicuous consumption

among bottom-tier consumers. J Cons Res 2011; 38 (1): 27-41.

Oslo roundtable on sustainable production and consumption (1994). http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo004.html.

Pennebaker, James W., Matthias R. Mehl, and Kate G. Niederhoffer. "Psychological aspects of natural language

use: Our words, our selves." Annual review of psychology 54.1 (2003): 547-577.

Pentina I, Taylor DG, Voelker TA. The roles of self-discrepancy and social support in young females' decisions

to undergo cosmetic procedures. J Cons Beh 2009; 8 (4): 149-165.

Powers WT. Behavior: The control of perception. Oxford England: Aldine, 1973.

Pyszczynski T, Greenberg J, Solomon S. Why Do We Need What We Need? A Terror Management Perspective

on the Roots of Human Social Motivation. Psy Inquiry 1997; 8 (1): 1.

Ronay R, von Hippel W. Power, testosterone, and risk-taking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2010; 23

(5): 473-482.

Rosenblatt A, Greenberg J, Solomon S, Pyszczynski T, Lyon D. Evidence for terror management theory: I. The

effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. J Personality &

Soc Psy 1989; 57 (4): 681-690.

Roy Chaudhuri H, Mazumdar S, Ghoshal A. Conspicuous consumption orientation: Conceptualisation, scale

development and validation. J Cons Beh 2011; 10 (4): 216-224.

Rucker DD, Galinsky AD. Desire to Acquire: Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption. J Cons Res

2008; 35 (2): 257-267.

Rucker DD, Galinsky AD. Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levels of power

shape consumer behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2009; 45 (3): 549-555.

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,

and well-being. American Psychologist 2000; 55 (1): 68-78.

Schouten JW. Selves in Transition: Symbolic Consumption in Personal Rites of Passage and Identity

Reconstruction. J Cons Res 1991; 17 (4): 412-425.

Schüler J, Job V, Fröhlich S, Brandstätter V. A high implicit affiliation motive does not always make you

happy: A corresponding explicit motive and corresponding behavior are further needed. Motivation &

Emotion 2008; 32 (3): 231-242.

Sirgy MJ. Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. J Cons Res 1982; 9 (3): 287-300.

Sirgy MJ, Lee D-J, Johar J, Tidwell J. Effect of self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty. J Bus Res

2008; 61 (10): 1091-1097.

Sleeth, B. D. The Self and the Integral Interface: Toward a New Understanding of the Whole Person.

Humanistic Psychologist 2006; 34 (3): 243-261.

Solomon MR. The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective. J Cons Res

1983; 10 (3): 319-329.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Solomon S, Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T. Terror management theory of self-esteem. In: C. R. Snyder, Donelson

R. Forsyth editors. Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective. Elmsford, NY US:

Pergamon Press, 1991. pp. 21-40.

Swann Jr WB, Stein-Seroussi A, Giesler RB. Why People Self-Verify. J Personality & Soc Psy 1992; 62 (3):

392-401.

Swann JWB. The self and identity negotiation. Interaction Studies 2005; 6 (1): 69-83.

Swann WB, Jr. Identity negotiation: where two roads meet. J Personality & Soc Psy 1987; 53 (6): 1038-1051.

Swann WB, Read SJ. Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology 1981; 17 (4): 351-372.

Treadway DC, Hochwarter WA, Kacmar CJ, Ferris GR. Political will, political skill, and political behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior 2005; 26 (3): 229-245.

Twenge JM. Generation Me: Why today's young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled--and more

miserable than ever before. New York, NY US: Free Press, 2006.

Varey RJ. Marketing Means and Ends for a Sustainable Society: A Welfare Agenda for Transformative Change.

J Macromarketing 2010; 30 (2): 112-126.

Weise DR, Arciszewski T, Verlhiac J-F, Pyszczynski T, Greenberg J. Terror management and attitudes toward

immigrants: Differential effects of mortality salience for low and high right-wing authoritarians. European

Psychologist 2012; 17 (1): 63-72.

Wicklund RA, Gollwitzer PM. Symbolic Self Completion

Wilkie WL, Moore ES. Macromarketing as a pillar of marketing thought. J Macromarketing 2006; 26 (2): 224-

232.

Williams KD, Cheung CKT, Choi W. Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. J Personality

& Soc Psy 2000; 79 (5): 748-762.

Winter DG. The power motive. New York, NY US: Free Press, 1973.

Wood JV. Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psy Bulletin 1989; 106 (2):

231.