Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 160 – 168

Purpose and object of anti-consumption ☆

Rajesh Iyer a,⁎, James A. Muncy b,1
a
Foster College of Business Administration, Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61625, United States
b
Harley Langdale, Jr. College of Business Administration, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA 31698, United States

Received 1 June 2007; received in revised form 1 November 2007; accepted 1 January 2008

Abstract

A counter movement of anti-consumption runs from the very beginning of mass-consumption societies. Four distinct types of anti-consumers,
simplifiers, global impact consumers, market activists, and anti-loyal consumers, have emerged in recent years. The primary focus of anti-
consumption research has been on market activists and anti-loyal consumers. This article focuses on the other two groups (i.e., the simplifiers and
global impact consumers). The authors address the need for scale development to measure the general anti-consumption attitudes of these two
groups. The goal is to improve the ability to identify anti-consumption attitudes and to gain a better understanding of how anti-consumption relates
to other key constructs such as self-consciousness, self-actualization, and assertiveness.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Anti-consumption; Self-actualization; Assertiveness; Self-consciousness; Global impact consumers; Simplifiers

1. Introduction mension of this matrix is the difference between those who want
to generally reduce their overall level of consumption versus those
A counter movement of anti-consumption exists in a mass- who are interested in reducing the consumption of specific brands
consumption society. For example, Corrigan (1997) argues that or products. Though anti-consumption is often associated with the
the society of mass-consumption did not develop until the former, as Craig-Lees (2006) suggests, anti-consumption need not
twentieth century and yet Craig-Lees (2006) traces the anti- only reflect a general reduction in consumer activities but instead
consumption movement back to the eighteenth century. Craig- can be targeted towards specific products or brands. The hori-
Lees is careful to point out that anti-consumers have never zontal dimension of Fig. 1 is the difference between those who are
formed a monolithic anti-consumption movement. Rather, focused on societal issues such as environmentalism versus those
many different approaches to anti-consumption and alternate- who are focused on personal issues such as life-simplification.
consumption and the motivations for anti-consumption vary The two dimensions create a two-by-two matrix that illus-
among political, personal, and environmental concerns. trates four types of anti-consumers. It is important to note that
these are not mutually exclusive categories in that a person could
2. Four types of anti-consumers reduce consumption for more than one (or even all) of the
reasons associated with each category. However, for the greater
Four distinct areas of anti-consumption research have emerged clarity that is needed to adequately study anti-consumption, it
in recent years. Fig. 1 presents a two-by-two matrix depicting is important to distinguish between these four forms of anti-
these four forms of anti-consumption research. The vertical di- consumption.

☆
2.1. General–societal: global impact consumers
Both authors contributed equally and they are listed alphabetically.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 309 677 2266.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Iyer), [email protected]
Global impact consumers are interested in reducing the
(J.A. Muncy). general level of consumption for the benefit of society or the
1
Tel.: +1 229 245 3808. planet. They do not believe that the current level of consumption
0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.023
 R. Iyer, J.A. Muncy / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 160–168 161

Fig. 1. Four types of anti-consumers.

is good for society as a whole. The two most common reasons whether to reduce levels of consumption to a more sustainable
global impact consumers give for this form of anti-consumption level through voluntary simplicity.
are environmental concerns and material inequity. They hold the Research indicates that a substantial portion of the population
belief that the modern consumption of current times is causing believes that over-consumption can create feelings of stress,
irreparable damage to the earth's ecosystem or that over-con- fatigue, unhappiness, or disillusionment (Zavestoski 2002b).
sumption by the wealthier nations or classes is contributing to Zavestoski concludes that consumers may no longer be asso-
poverty problems in lesser developed nations or the poorer ciating consumption with the creation of a healthy self. The
classes of society. Dobscha (1998) performed a two-year study Harwood Group (1995) found that 72% of participants agreed or
of anti-consumers who felt consumption promoted “waste and strongly agreed with the statement that “many of us buy and
environmental degradation” (1998, p. 91). She found that anti- consume things as a substitute for what's missing in our lives.”
consumers did not adopt the prevalent view that consumption Rather than improving society, simplifiers are attempting to
was a major indicator of a nation's prosperity (Borgmann, 2000). obtain a happier lifestyle through buying only what is needed.
Instead, they argued that it was over-consumption that created Jenkins (2006) conducted a study of simplifiers in which he
many of society's problems. Many of the participants even observed that those who reduce their consumption habits seemed
refused to be called consumers because of the negative con- happier after doing so than they did prior to the change.
notations the term held for the term. Goldman (2002, p. 16)
refers to these anti-consumers that so passionately oppose 2.3. Brand–societal: market activists
marketing as “enemies of global capitalism.” One special event
that many socially concerned consumers look forward to each The third group in Fig. 1 is the market activists who try to use
year is the “Buy Nothing Day” which coincides with one of the the power of consumer dollars to impact societal issues (Fried-
largest shopping days of the year in the United States, the day man, 1985; Mintel Special Report, 1994; Smith, 1990; Strong,
after Thanksgiving. The focus of “Buy Nothing Day” is to 1997). Notable instances of this in recent years have been the
encourage consumers to consider why they buy and how it production of the Wal-Mart film due to concerns over labor and
affects society and the environment (Carty, 2002). anti-competitive practices (www.walmartmovie.com; Frazier,
2005) and the Southern Baptist Convention's call on its mem-
2.2. General–personal: simplifiers bership to boycott Disney due to their “family-values” concerns
(Orwall, 1999; Brandt, 1997; Gergen, 1997). Market Activists
The second group of anti-consumers is best characterized as might avoid using a product or brand because they feel that a
simplifiers. This group wishes to drop out of the fast-paced, specific brand or product causes a specific societal problem (e.g.,
high-consumption society and move to a simpler, less consumer- a product that causes environmental degradation or a brand that
oriented lifestyle. They are not the frugal materialists identified encourages negative social behavior).
by Lastovica (2006), who are reducing consumption in one area Market activists are sometimes aided by publications that
to increase consumption in other areas. Neither are they forced keep them informed of the brands and companies to avoid. The
by changing economic circumstances to reduce consumption. Media Foundation, a very visible anti-consumption organiza-
Rather, they believe that maximizing their consumption, as is tion, circulates a number of anti-consumption “advertisements”
commonly done, has undesirable consequences, such as stress in its Adbusters magazine (Penaloza and Price, 1993). Some
and distraction from higher pursuits (Etzioni, 1998; Fischer, publications urge consumers not to buy products from certain
2001; Schor, 1998; Shaw and Newholm, 2002; Zavestoski; conglomerates, such as Phillip Morris, and others urge con-
2002a). There may also be a spiritual or ethical component to the sumers to refrain from potentially harmful activities, such as
simplifiers’ anti-consumption beliefs; they believe that it is consuming alcohol or smoking cigarettes.
morally abhorrent to focus so much energy on self-serving
consumption activities (Shaw and Newholm, 2002; Wilk, 2006). 2.4. Brand–personal: anti-loyal consumers
According to Shaw and Newholm (2002), ethical consumers are
surrounded by important decisions of whether to consume with Anti-loyalists are consumers who exhibit the opposite of
sensitivity through the selection of more ethical alternatives or brand loyalty. Whereas brand loyalty reflects a commitment to
162 R. Iyer, J.A. Muncy / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 160–168

repurchase a brand because of its real or imagined superiority and Granneman (1988) have shown that private self-con-
(Jacoby et al., 1978), anti-loyalty reflects a personal commit- sciousness also refers to self-reflection, heightened self-knowl-
ment to avoid purchasing a product because of perceived in- edge, and awareness of one's own conceptions, beliefs, emotions
feriority or because of a negative experience associated with it and drives.
(Lee et al., 2009). According to Englis and Solomon (1997), By contrast, public self-consciousness is concerned with a
products that consumers avoid are often as personally and disposition toward the self as perceived by others. It reflects a
socially important to them as products that they actively seek to concern for the publicly displayed aspects of the self that can
purchase. Consumption preferences of the self and of other easily be examined by others and is linked with overt displays
consumers are important factors in determining an individual and impression management (Cheek and Briggs, 1982). The
consumer's decision to avoid a particular product. Englis and highly public self-conscious subjects are more sensitive to
Solomon found that the avoidance of undesirable products is personal rejection (Bushman, 1993). People who exhibit a trait
equally important to individual consumers' shaping of their ideal tendency towards public self-consciousness will likely engage
selves. in the behavior of self-monitoring, since it has been shown that
individuals who are high self-monitors will monitor the self-
3. Research objectives and hypotheses presentation of others in order to find cues for their own self-
presentation (Gould, 1993; Snyder, 1974). In fact, one way to
Because brand-level anti-consumption has the potential to identify people who have the trait of public self-consciousness
impact negatively on companies’ bottom-lines, several studies is to identify those who have the tendency to engage in sub-
have already investigated this specific form of anti-consump- stantial self-monitoring.
tion (Carty, 2002; Ethical Consumer 2005; Lee et al., 2009; Applied to consumer behavior, the theory of psychological
Klein et al., 2004; Mikkelson and Mikkelson, 2005; Sen et al., reactance (Brehm, 1966) suggests that when consumers'
2001; Penaloza and Price, 1993). In contrast, development behavioral freedom is reduced or threatened, they will become
of tools for studying general anti-consumption attitudes and motivationally aroused (Marquis and Filiatrault, 2002a). Their
behavior has been inadequate. One of the main barriers to arousal will be directed against any further attempts to curtail
further developing these areas of anti-consumption is the ab- their freedom. Therefore, consumers who are more self-
sence of appropriate scales. Specifically, there are no existing conscious would have a higher tendency to react negatively to
scales that differentiate between the various types of anti- the pressures of the marketplace and to be more aware of their
consumers. To help in the development of such scales, the ability to react against them through anti-consumption activity.
authors conducted an exploratory study that was specifically The first hypothesis tests this possibility.
targeted to identify the differences between the two types of H1a: Self-consciousness has a positive impact on the anti-
general anti-consumers (i.e., global impact consumers versus consumption patterns of simplifiers.
simplifiers). The authors explored these two types of anti- H1b: Self-consciousness has a positive impact on the anti-
consumers in the context of certain key variables hypothesized consumption patterns of global impact consumers.
to be related to anti-consumption. The authors were also
interested in exploring whether the variables related to anti- 3.2. Self-actualization and anti-consumption
consumption in general and, if so, whether they related dif-
ferently to simplifiers and global impact consumers. The var- Maslow's (1970) hierarchy of needs offers further insights
iables studied in the current research were as follows. into anti-consumption. According to Zavestoski (2002b), the
lower-level needs (psychological, safety, and belongingness/
3.1. Self-consciousness and anti-consumption love needs) can be met through consumption, but it is much
more difficult to buy products directly meeting the higher level
Self-consciousness refers to the habit, tendency, or disposi- needs. Even when all four needs are satisfied, individuals still
tion to focus on oneself. The concept is derived from Buss' experience deficiencies in their human fulfillment: feelings of
(1980) theory of self-consciousness, according to which a alienation, notions that life has no meaning and boredom (Lea
subject's attention can be seen as dichotomous, either directed et al., 1987). For Schiffman and Kanuk (2000, p.81), “this need
toward the environment or focused internally on the self. Self- refers to an individual's desire to fulfill his or her potential
consciousness is defined as a person's view of himself or to become everything he or she is capable of becoming.”
herself as a social object, with an acute awareness of other This potential may be creative, artistic, or extremely altruistic,
people's perspectives about him or her (Fenigstein et al., 1975; contributing to public service. Zavestoski surveyed 179 par-
Mead, 1934). Buss (1980) categorized the self in two com- ticipants enrolled in a voluntary simplicity course and found
ponents: the private self and the public self. The private self- that, “People are drawn to voluntary simplicity because they
consciousness disposition is concerned with attending to or experience a general dissatisfaction with their lives, a spiritual
thinking about the covert and hidden aspects of the self not emptiness, and they don't know where to go with it” (2002b,
easily known by the others, such as inner feelings, fantasies and pp. 158-9). Therefore: H2a: Self-actualization has a positive
thoughts (e.g., daydreams), focal stimuli (e.g., sore muscles), impact on the anti-consumption patterns of simplifiers. H2b:
diffuse internal states (e.g., anger) and motives (e.g., desire to Self-actualization has a positive impact on the anti-consump-
achieve) (Buss, 1980; Marquis and Filiatrault, 2002b). Kernis tion patterns of global impact consumers.
 R. Iyer, J.A. Muncy / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 160–168 163

Table 1 sample of consumers (Churchill, 1979). The anti-consumption

Results of the exploratory factor analysis on the anti-consumption statements scale was validated using several psychometric tests, and con-
Items Factors tent validity was established for the scale. In the first phase of
Simplifiers Global impact the research, the ideas and opinions that consumers hold about
consumers anti-consumption practices were explored. Based on the liter-
Given the choice, I would rather buy organic food. 0.61 0.17 ature on anti-consumption in trade and academic journals, the
I make specific efforts to buy products made out of 0.81 0.07 authors then generated fourteen statements, which reflected
recycled material. general anti-consumption attitudes. These statements were pre-
“Waste not, Want not” is a philosophy I follow. 0.68 0.22
tested in an undergraduate marketing research class. Based on
I try to recycle as much as I can. 0.79 0.07
If the world continues to use up its resources, it 0.02 0.66 the responses from the pretest, some changes were made to the
will not survive. statements to reflect better readability.
We must all do our part to conserve. 0.25 0.63 These statements were then administered to 504 respondents.
If we all consume less, the world would be a better 0.20 0.72 The study was conducted in a southeastern U.S. city. Therefore,
place.
the sample is a regional convenience sample. The respondents
Most people buy way too many things that they 0.08 0.65
really don't need. consisted of people who had been contacted by trained survey
Eigenvalue 2.21 1.86 interviewers to complete the questionnaire. To ensure accurate
Percent of variance 27.59 23.19 responses, the respondents were promised complete confidenti-
Coefficient alpha 0.70 0.61 ality and were asked to return the questionnaire where the study
was being conducted. Sixty percent of the sample were female.
3.3. Consumer assertiveness and anti-consumption The median age of the respondents was between 31 and 39 years.
The median household income of the respondents was between
Alberti and Emmons (1974, p. 2) define consumer assertive- $30,000 and $50,000. Approximately 77% of the sample was
ness as behavior which enables a person to act in his or her own White (Caucasian) (18% were African-American). At least 76%
best interests, to stand up for himself or herself without undue of the sample had completed an undergraduate degree and 52%
anxiety, to express his or her honest feelings comfortably, or to of the respondents either worked for a company or business.
exercise his or her rights without denying the rights of others. Each respondent then rated these items on a 7 point scale
Galassi and Galassi (1978), in their extensive review of the (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), which were factor
assertiveness literature, delineated seven behavioral dimensions analyzed using principal components analysis and a varimax
of assertiveness: (i) standing up for one's rights; (ii) initiat-
ing and refusing requests; (iii) giving and receiving compli- Table 2
ments; (iv) initiating, maintaining and terminating conversations; Reliability estimates of the variables used in the study
(v) expressing love and affection; (vi) expressing personal opin- Items Reliability
ions, including disagreement; and (vii) expressing justified anger Simplifiers 0.70
and annoyance. Given the choice, I would rather buy organic food. (SIM1)
Fornell and Westbrook (1979) found only weak correlations I make specific efforts to buy products made out of
between a general assertiveness measure and consumer com- recycled material. (SIM2)
“Waste not, Want not” is a philosophy I follow. (SIM3)
plaining behavior. According to Richins (1983), the nonassertive
I try to recycle as much as I can. (SIM4)
individual has difficulty standing up for his rights in the consumer Global impact consumers 0.61
environment and may experience moderate to high levels of If the world continues to use up its resources, it will not
anxiety when it is necessary to do so. Assertive individuals are survive. (GI1)
more able to stand up for their rights as consumers. They have We must all do our part to conserve. (GI2)
If we all consume less, the world would be a better place. (GI3)
positive perceptions of business and business responsiveness, but
Most people buy way too many things that they really
complain more frequently and are more resistant to compliance- don't need. (GI4)
gaining attempts than nonassertive individuals. Thus, an assertive Self-consciousness 0.80
consumer would be more likely to use general anti-consumption I'm concerned about the way I present myself (SC1)
as a way to influence society or their own life satisfaction. I'm self-conscious about the way I look. (SC2)
I usually worry about making a good impression. (SC3)
H3a: Assertiveness has a positive impact on the anti-con-
Self-actualization 0.62
sumption patterns of simplifiers. I feel I must do what others expect me to do (r). (SA1)
H3b: Assertiveness has a positive impact on the anti-con- I fear failure (r). (SA2)
sumption patterns of global impact consumers. I am bothered by fears of being inadequate (r). (SA3)
Assertiveness 0.69
I will hesitate to make phone calls to business
4. Methodology
establishments and institutions (r) (ASS1)
I would rather apply for a job or admission to a college
4.1. Scale development, data collection, and sample by writing letters than by going through with personal
interviews (r). (ASS2)
The anti-consumption scale was developed by first generat- I find it embarrassing to return merchandise (r). (ASS3).
ing a set of items which was then tested on an independent r = reverse scored.
164 R. Iyer, J.A. Muncy / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 160–168

Table 3 dropped. Another factor analysis was performed with the re-
Factor loadings and t-values of the items in the measurement model maining eight items and this time two factors with eigenvalues
Parameter Construct Factor t-values of Coefficient greater than 1 were extracted.
reliability loadings factor loadings alpha The rotated component matrix showing the items and their
Simplifiers 0.72 0.70 loadings appears in Table 1. The two items were defined by the
SIM1 0.44 9.03 item with the biggest factor loading or based on some
SIM2 0.74 16.03
meaningful definition based on the items that loaded on that
SIM3 0.57 11.91
SIM4 0.72 15.60 factor. As can be seen, one of these components corresponds to
Global impact consumers 0.61 0.61 the “global impact consumers” and the other to the “simpli-
GI1 0.46 8.61 fiers.” Internal consistency was evaluated by computing
GI2 0.58 11.07 coefficient alpha. These values were 0.70 and 0.61 for the
GI3 0.62 11.66
two factors, respectively. These are consistent with recom-
GI4 0.45 8.44
Self-consciousness 0.78 0.80 mended values proposed by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994)
SC1 0.67 15.21 when developing new scales.
SC2 0.82 19.04
SC3 0.78 17.98 4.2. Construct operationalization
Self-actualization 0.63 0.62
SA1 0.66 12.86
SA2 0.71 13.68 The authors used three scales to measure the three additional
SA3 0.40 7.80 constructs of interest. All three scales have been used in earlier
Assertiveness 0.70 0.69 research. Self-consciousness was measured by using a three-
ASS1 0.62 12.36 item scale developed by Bearden and Rose (1990) and also used
ASS2 0.64 12.78
by Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002). Self-actualization was
ASS3 0.68 13.47
measured using a three-item scale that had been used by
Jones and Crandall (1986) and later by Mick (1996). Finally, the
rotation. The principal component analysis led to a three factor shortened version of the assertiveness scale proposed by Rathus
solution. These three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (1973) was used for the study. All the above items were
were extracted, but the last factor consisted of a few items which measured on a seven point Likert scale from “1 = strongly
cross-loaded on other factors that were poorly defined, therefore disagree” to “7 = strongly agree,” where the rating 4 was for
those items were dropped. Spector (1992) advised that a customers who “feel neutral.” Table 2 presents the items used in
minimum value of around 0.30 to 0.35 indicates that an item the current research.
loads onto a factor. Items that exhibited low loadings (below
0.40) onto the factors were scrutinized and those that appeared 4.3. Measures and purification
redundant or relatively unimportant were dropped. The remain-
ing ten items were again factor analyzed. This time the program The authors followed a process recommended by Anderson
extracted two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Two and Gerbing (1988) to evaluate the measurement quality of
items cross-loaded on both the factors and hence they were the indicators. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) recommend that

Fig. 2. Proposed model of relationships.

 R. Iyer, J.A. Muncy / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 160–168 165

Table 4
Construct correlations, means and standard deviations
Construct Mean Standard deviation Global impact consumers Simplifiers Self-consciousness Self-actualization Assertiveness
Global impact consumers 3.87 1.22 1
Simplifiers 5.11 0.99 0.36⁎⁎ 1
Self-consciousness 4.40 1.52 − 0.03 0.13⁎⁎ 1
Self-actualization 3.25 1.20 − 0.03 −0.12⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎ 1
Assertiveness 2.71 1.35 0.08 −0.07 0.11⁎ 0.35⁎⁎ 1
⁎⁎Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
⁎Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

researchers first refine the measurement model before testing are presented in Table 3, the current scale has sufficient validity
the structural component of the model. This two-step proce- and reliability as to allow the testing of the hypotheses presented
dure by Anderson and Gerbing has been widely adopted in earlier.
marketing. The goal was to identify a final set of items with
acceptable discriminant and convergent validity, internal con- 4.5. Structural model estimation
sistency, reliability and parsimony.
Each factor was submitted to a confirmatory factor analysis. The authors tested the hypotheses within the framework
All factor loadings were significant at the 0.01 level and all presented in Fig. 2 using structural equation modeling through
individual reliabilities were far above the required value of 0.4 LISREL 8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993) on the measures as
(Bagozzi and Baumgartner, 1994). According to the recommen- indicated in Table 3.
dations of Bagozzi and Yi (1988) and Bagozzi and Baumgartner, Table 4 presents the construct correlations, means, and stan-
(1994), a composite reliability of at least 0.7 is desirable. This dard deviations. Table 5 presents the results of the hypotheses
requirement was met. After the authors assessed the individual tests. The fit of the data to the proposed model (see Fig. 2) was
factors, they conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using the quite good (χ2(110) = 314.20, p b 0.01; RMSEA = 0.06, GFI = 0.93;
reduced set of items, all together using the maximum likelihood AGFI = 0.90; CFI = 0.91; NNFI = 0.90).
estimation. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 3,
together with additional information on reliability and validity. 5. Results
Although the chi-square value was significant (255.50 with
109 d.f., p b 0.001), other goodness of fit measures indicate a Hypothesis 1A was not supported. Self-consciousness did
good overall fit of the five factor model to the data: GFI = 0.94, not have a significant impact on anti-consumption patterns
AGFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05 (see Baumgartner and Homburg, of simplifiers (t = 1.17). Hypothesis 1B was supported. Self-
1996), and NNFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.94 (see Bentler, 1990). consciousness had a significant impact on anti-consumption
patterns of global impact consumers (t = 3.81). Hypothesis 2A
4.4. Construct validity assessment and 2B were significant but in the opposite direction. Self-
actualization has a significant negative impact on anti-con-
In addition to the analysis presented above the authors con- sumption patterns of simplifiers (t = − 2.86) and global impact
ducted additional analyses to provide more confidence consumers (t = − 3.63). Hypothesis 3A was supported. Asser-
concerning the measurement properties of the scale by assessing tiveness had a significant impact on anti-consumption patterns
its convergent and discriminant validity. As seen in Table 3, all
factor loadings are significantly different from zero (consis-
tently large t-values), indicating satisfactory convergent valid- Table 5
Hypotheses results, standardized parameter estimates, t-values of the relationships
ity. The authors followed the procedure outlined by Bagozzi and
Yi (1988) to assess discriminant validity. All two factor pairs Hypotheses Relationship Standardized t-value Result
value
were assessed by comparing (1) the chi-square in a model
constraining the correlation parameter between two latent H1a Self-consciousness– 0.08 1.17 Not significant
Simplifiers
variables to unity, with (2) the chi-square in a model freeing
H1b Self-consciousness– 0.32 3.81 Significant
this parameter (Joreskog, 1971). For all possible pair-wise Global impact
cases, the chi-square values were significantly lower for the H2a Self-actualization– − 0.29 − 2.86 Significant
unconstrained models, and the change in chi-square between the Simplifiers
two models exceeded the critical value (Δχ2 N 3.84) for H2b Self-actualization– − 0.41 − 3.63 Significant
Global impact
statistical significance. This suggested that the variables
H3a Assertiveness– 0.27 3.02 Significant
exhibited discriminant validity. Finally, the authors calculated Simplifiers
composite reliability scores to assess the reliability of the scales. H3b Assertiveness– 0.11 1.21 Not significant
These composite reliability scores ranged from 0.66 to 0.80, Global impact
which are all above the cutoff of 0.6 suggested by Bagozzi and Structural model: χ2 = 314.20; d.f. = 110; RMSEA = 0.06; GFI = 0.93; AGFI =
Yi (1988). Based on the results of the preceding analysis, which 0.90; CFI = 0.91; NNFI = 0.90.
166 R. Iyer, J.A. Muncy / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 160–168

of simplifiers (t = 3.02). Hypothesis 3B was not supported. help to explain the relationship between assertiveness and anti-
Assertiveness did not have a significant impact on anti- consumption.
consumption patterns of global impact consumers (t = 1.21). These results clearly indicate the existence of two distinct
groups among those consumers whose anti-consumption is not
6. Discussion focused on specific products or brands. Although some overlap
between groups is likely, this article shows evidence of distinct
One possible explanation for self-consciousness having a reasons for anti-consumption. Some individuals avoid consump-
significant effect on global impact is that these self-conscious tion to combat a perceived global problem of over-consumption
consumers are concerned about how society views them and and others do so because of the stress and strain that living in a
hence they make conscious decisions to do the right things by consumer society places on their lives. Purely from looking at the
engaging in behavior that is very visible to the outside world. items and their loadings, one set of items reflects a “We” per-
They engage in behaviors which show the world that they are spective on anti-consumption whereas the other reflects an “I”
supporting causes that protect the environment. Doing this perspective. The fact that these “I” versus “We” statements loaded
perhaps makes them feel good about themselves and gives them on different factors supports the idea that global impact con-
a sense of achievement. However, on the individual (simplifier) sumers seem to engage in anti-consumption for different reasons
level, anti-consumers may not be as concerned with doing what than do simplifiers. An area for future study is to see if this split
society dictates; perhaps because there is less of a need to strive between global impact consumers and simplifiers would still
for congruence between their beliefs and those of others. emerge if scale items were developed which were not worded so
Simplifiers, in general, become less dependent on the opinions strongly in the “I” versus “We” dichotomy.
of others and more and more on their own knowledge and Zavestoski (2002a) stated that, “Perhaps one reason anti-
values; hence the divergent self-consciousness relationships consumption attitudes have not been well studied is that ac-
between simplifiers and global impact consumers. knowledging their existence requires acknowledging that there
Individuals prioritize (basic) physiological needs, moving with is a flaw in the way we currently go about marketing consumer
increasing incomes to satisfy safety and social needs, through to goods.” Traditional marketing tools may work well to change
higher needs associated with self-actualization. This progression the behaviors of specific anti-consumers. Despite the existence
is the basic premise of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory. It of literature dealing with anti-loyalists and market activists
uses a lexicographic approach where once the consumers move (Bitner et al., 1990; Blodgett et al., 1997; Hoffman and Kelley,
up the hierarchy, the importance of lexicographic ordering is 2000; Johnston and Hewa, 1997; Lee et al., 2009; Miller et al.,
downplayed, as suggested by Lavoie (1992). Trigg (2004) argues 2000; Tax et al., 1998), what is less clear is how marketers can
that this approach is flawed in that the relationship between deal with consumers who want to reduce their overall level of
hierarchy of needs and hierarchy of consumption is unexplained, consumption. Are there ways to develop products that will
especially concerning how social needs operate in the hierarchy of appeal to such consumers, or can existing products be re-
needs. A further critique of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory designed to meet these consumers' needs? Are there ways that
is that consumers watch and copy other consumers because in the markets, driven by the profit motivation of corporations, can
doing so they learn how to spend their increased purchasing respond to the societal concerns of the global impact consumers
power. Consistent with this view, Christopher and Schlenker or the personal concerns of the simplifiers? As of now, those
(2004) have shown that the fear of negative evaluation is pos- engaging in anti-consumption seem to be choosing to opt out as
itively correlated with materialism. According to Rose and much as possible of the existing system. That is the very nature
DeJesus (2007), the desire to avoid rejection and gain approval of anti-consumption. However, it would be an interesting twist
motivates people in relatively materialistic cultures to perceive if the very marketing systems that they have chosen to opt out of
buying as a means of belonging, thereby engaging in increased developed solutions to the problems that concern them.
valuation of wealth and luxury and adopting a materialistic
lifestyle. Hence, self-actualization does not mean that the con- 7. Limitations and future research
sumer becomes a recluse and gives up his/her way of living by
giving up the materialistic preferences. Consumption remains a Some of the limitations of this study need to be addressed.
part of his/her life. Therefore, this may help explain the negative First, the sample was a regional sample. Hence, the results are
relationship between self-actualization and anti-consumption. not generalizable across populations. Second, the scales used to
Many (anti)-consumption experiences are stressful. Consu- measure assertiveness and self-actualization were scales that had
mers are constantly dealing with product/service failures. Asser- been widely used in past research. However, these scales had
tive consumers have been shown to engage in more problem- poor reliability in past studies. This study also revealed poor
focused coping behavior than nonassertive consumers (Carver reliability for these constructs. Future studies need to be careful
et. al., 1993; Duhachek and Iacobucci, 2005). Assertive con- in the adoption of these scales, or the researcher must be pre-
sumers are more likely to engage in active coping strategies that pared to deal with poor reliability.
are important to them. However, at the macro level (global Another limitation of this article was the fact that a dis-
impact) they feel that it takes more than one assertive individual proportionate number of the anti-consumption scale items seemed
to change the world or the way of thinking. These assertive to focus on green marketing or environmental issues. This is
consumers are comfortable with just doing their part which may possibly reflective of the very large impact the environmental
 R. Iyer, J.A. Muncy / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 160–168 167

movement has on people's anti-consumption disposition. How- Bushman BJ. What's in a name? The moderating role of public self-
ever, the authors recommend that future scale development consciousness on the relation between brand label and brand preference.
J Appl Psychol 1993;78:857–61.
studies should aim to capture a wider breadth of the anti-con- Buss AH. Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freeman; 1980.
sumption movement. As the results of the current research show, a Carty V. Technology and counter-hegemonic movements: the case of Nike
substantial environmental component to the anti-consumption corporation. Soc Mov Stud 2002;1:129–46 [October].
movement exists but other factors which encourage anti-con- Carver CS, Pozo C, Harris SD, Noriega V, Scheier MF, Robinson DS. How
coping mediates the effect of optimism on breast cancer. J Pers Soc Psychol
sumption also need to be explored.
1993;65:375–90.
Cheek JM, Briggs SR. Self-consciousness and aspects of identity. J Res Pers
8. Conclusion 1982;16:401–8.
Christopher AN, Schlenker BR. Materialism and affect: the role of self-
The article describes four types of anti-consumption. This presentational concerns. J Soc Clin Psychol 2004;23:260–72.
research presents an initial attempt to develop scales that Churchill Jr GA. A paradigm for developing better measures for marketing
constructs. J Mark Res 1979;16:64–73 [February].
differentiate between people who engage in general anti- Corrigan P. The sociology of consumption. London: Sage; 1997.
consumption for societal concerns and those who do so for Craig-Lees M. Anti-consumption: concept clarification and changing consump-
more personal reasons. The results were promising, as a set tion behavior. Paper presented at the anti-consumption seminar, Interna-
of “We” anti-consumption statements and a set of “I” anti- tional Centre for Anti-Consumption Research 2006; June 20–21, Auckland,
consumption statements emerged from the factor analysis. If New Zealand.
Dabholkar PA, Bagozzi RP. An attitudinal model of technology-based self-
further studies are able to take and expand the scales initially service: moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. J Acad
explored in this article, eventually a fuller understanding of Mark Sci 2002;30, 3:184–201.
anti-consumption may emerge—one that differentiates anti- Dobscha S. The lived experience of consumer rebellion against marketing. Ad
consumers based on the purpose of their anti-consumption Consum Res 1998;25(Issue 1):91–7.
(social versus personal concerns) as well as the object of their Duhachek A, Iacobucci D. Consumer personality and coping: testing rival
theories of process. J Consum Psychol 2005;15(1):52–63.
anti-consumption (all consumption versus specific brands or Englis BG, Solomon MR. I am not…therefore, i am: the role of avoidance
products). products in shaping consumer behavior. Adv Consum Res 1997;24(Issue
1):61–3.
Acknowledgements Ethical Consumer. Boycotts list. 2005. (accessed February 16, 2006). [available
at www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/boycotts_list.htm].
Etzioni A. Voluntary simplicity characterization, select psychological implica-
The authors thank the three special guest editors and the two tions, and social consequences. J Econ Psychol 1998;19:619–43.
reviewers for their very helpful comments on the earlier drafts Fenigstein A, Scheier MF, Buss AH. Public and private self-consciousness:
of this manuscript. The authors thank Tim Reisenwitz and Ed assessment and theory. J Consult Clin Psychol 1975;43, 4:522–7.
Bond for their comments on the manuscript. Fischer E. Rhetorics of resistance, discourses of discontent. Adv Cons Res
2001;28(Issue 1):123–4.
Frazier M. Wal-Mart film gets grass-roots launch. Advert Age 2005;76(Issue
References 47):10.
Fornell C, Westbrook R. An exploratory study of assertiveness, aggressiveness,
Alberti RE, Emmons ML. Your perfect right: a guide to assertive behavior. San and complaining behavior. In: Wilkie WilliamL, Ann Arbor MI, editors.
Luis Obispo, CA: Impact; 1974. Advances in consumer research, vol.6. Assoc Consum Res; 1979. p. 105–10.
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling practice: a review and Friedman M. Consumer boycotts in the United States, 1970–1980: contemporary
recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988;103:411–23. events in historical perspective. J Consum Aff 1985;19:96–117 [Summer].
Bagozzi RP, Baumgartner H. The evaluation of structural equation models and Galassi MD, Galassi JP. Assertion: a critical review. Psychother: Theory, Res
hypothesis testing. In: Bagozzi RP, editor. Principles of marketing research. Pract 1978;15(Spring):16–29.
Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers; 1994. p. 386–422. Gergen D. Where the mild things are. U.S. News and World Report, vol. 122
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Issue 25. ; 1997. p. 72.
Sci 1988;16(3):74–94. Goldman D. Consumer republic. Adweek 2002;43:16 [October 28].
Baumgartner H, Homburg C. Applications of structural equation modeling Gould JS. Assessing self-concept discrepancy in consumer behavior: the joint
in marketing and consumer research: a review. Int J Res Mark 1996;13 effect of private self-consciousness and self monitoring. Adv Consumer
(2):139–61. Research 1993;20:419–24.
Bearden WO, Rose RL. Attention to social comparison information: an Harwood Group. Yearning for balance: views of Americans on consumption,
individual difference factor affecting consumer conformity. J Consum Res materialism, and the environment. Merk Family Fund; 1995. January.
1990;16:461–71 [March]. Hoffman KD, Kelley SW. Perceived justice needs and recovery evaluation: a
Bentler PM. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychol Bull contingency approach. Eur J Mark 2000;34:418–32.
1990;107:238–46. Jacoby J, Chestnut RW, Fisher A. A behavioral process approach to information
Bitner MJ, Booms BH, Tetreault MS. The service encounter: diagnosing acquisition in nondurable purchasing. J Mark Res 1978;15:532–44 [November].
favorable and unfavorable incidents. J Mark 1990;54:71–84. Jenkins M. On a spending diet: anti-consumption movement aims at happier
Blodgett JG, Hill DJ, Tax SS. The effects of distributive, procedural, and living by buying just what's needed. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.; 2006. p. 62.
interactional justice on postcomplaint behavior. J Retail 1997;73, January.
2:185–210. Johnston TC, Hewa MA. Fixing service failures. Ind Mark Manage
Borgmann A. Reflections and reviews: the moral complexion of consumption. 1997;26:467–73.
J Consum Res 2000;26:418–22 [March]. Jones A, Crandall R. Validation of a short index of self-actualization. Pers Soc
Brandt J. Magic kingdom under attack. Ind Week 1997;246(17):6. Psychol 1986;12:63–73 [March].
Brehm JW. A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press; Joreskog KG. Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika
1966. 1971;36(2):443–82.
168 R. Iyer, J.A. Muncy / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 160–168

Joreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL 8: a guide to the program and applications. Rathus SA. A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behav Ther
Chicago: Scientific Software International; 1993. 1973;4:398–406 [May].
Kernis MH, Granneman BD. Private self-consciousness and perceptions of self- Richins ML. An analysis of consumer interaction styles in the marketplace.
consistency. Pers Individ Differ 1988;9:897–902. J Consum Res 1983;10:73–82 [June].
Klein JG, Smith NC, John A. Why we boycott: consumer motivations for Rose P, DeJesus SP. A model of motivated cognition to account for the link
boycott participation. J Mark 2004;68:92–109 [July]. between self-monitoring and materialism. Psychol Mark 2007;24:93–115
Lastovica J. Frugal materialists. Paper presented at the anti-consumption [February].
seminar, International Centre for Anti-Consumption Research; 2006. June Schiffman LG, Kanuk LL. Consumer behavior. 7th edition. New Jersey:
20–21, Auckland, New Zealand. Prentice Hall; 2000.
Lavoie M. Foundations of post-Keynesian economic analysis. London: Edward Schor J. The overspent American. New York: Basic Books; 1998.
Elgar; 1992. Sen S, Gurhan-Canli Z, Morwitz V. Withholding consumption: a social dilem-
Lee MSW, Motion J, Conroy D. Anti-consumption and brand avoidance. J Bus ma perspective on consumer boycotts. J Consum Res 2001;28:399–417
Res 2009;62:169–80 [Special Issue on Anti-consumption]. [December].
Lea SEG, Tarpy RM, Webley P. The individual in the economy: a textbook of Shaw D, Newholm T. Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption.
economic psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987. Psychol Mark 2002;19:167–85 [February].
Marquis M, Filiatrault P. Understanding complaining responses through con- Smith NC. Morality and the market. London: Routledge; 1990.
sumers’ self-consciousness disposition. Psychol Mark 2002a;19(3):267–92 Snyder M. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol
[March]. 1974;30:526–37 [October].
Marquis M, Filiatrault P. Public self-consciousness disposition effect on Spector PE. Summated rating scale construction: an introduction. Newbury
reactions to waiting in line. J Consum Behav 2002b;2, 3:212–31. Park, CA: Sage; 1992.
Maslow A. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row; 1970. Strong C. The problems of translating fair trade principles into consumer
Mead GH. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1934. purchase behavior. Mark Intell Plann 1997;15:32–7.
Mick DG. Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable Tax SS, Brown SW, Chandrashekaran M. Customer evaluations of service
responding? The case of materialism. J Consum Res 1996;23:106–19 complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. J Mark
[September]. 1998;62:60–76.
Mikkelson B, Mikkelson D P. Merry christmas target. 2005. (accessed February Trigg AB. Deriving the Engel curve: Pierre Bourdieu and the social critique of
17, 2006), [available at www.snopes.com/politics/business/targetxmas.asp]. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Rev Soc Econ 2004;LXII(3):393–406.
Miller JL, Craighead CWM, Karwan KR. Service recovery: a framework and Wilk R. Consumption Jiu-Jitsu: Using their own tools against them. Paper
empirical investigation. J Oper Manage 2000;18:387–400. presented at the anti-consumption seminar, International Centre for Anti-
Mintel Special Report. The green consumer. Mintel Marketing Intelligence; Consumption Research 2006; June 20–21, Auckland, New Zealand.
1994. www.walmartmovie.com.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Zavestoski S. Guest editorial: anti-consumption attitudes. Psychol Mark
Hill; 1994. 2002a;19:121–6 [February].
Orwall B. Disney recalls ‘the rescuers’ video containing image of a topless Zavestoski S. The social-psychological bases of anti-consumption attitudes.
woman. Wall St J.,East Ed 1999;233(Issue 6):A27. Psychol Mark 2002b;19:149–65 [February].
Penaloza L, Price LL. Consumer resistance: a conceptual overview. Adv
Consum Res 1993;20(Issue 1):123–8.