Brand Preferences

The Impact of Relative Deprivation on Consumer

Brand Preferences

Table of contents

Introduction

Theoretical

Framework

Hypotheses

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Introduction

Personal Relative Deprivation → Aversive condition

→ Social comparison with relevant others

→ Unfairly disadvantaged

→ Dissatisfaction, anger, frustration → Financially deprived →Direct

association with income and pay level

Adverse Behavioral Outcomes → Negative effect on health → Anxiety, depression, stress → Risky behavior

→ Lower well-being

Impact on Consumer Behavior → Materialistic tendencies → Conspicuous consumption → Brand preferences (Topdog

Theoretical Framework

• More attention to status • Value items with a public

meaning • Substantial brand

connections

Topdog Brands (vs. underdog brands) • Market leader brands

• Strong, successful brands • Convey status

• Plethora of resources

→ Higher preference due to materialism → Provide a restoration mechanism

→ Allay adverse condition of individuals

Personal Relative Deprivation with Income and Pay Level

Theoretical Framework

Personal Relative Deprivation & Social Comparison

• PRD by definition requires comparison with others • Individuals engage in upward social

comparison

• Happens faster & more frequently than downward

• Someone more privileged than you → All the unfavorable feelings will be even more

escalated

→ Their preference for topdog brands will be higher

Hypotheses

H1: Consumers experiencing high levels of Personal Relative Deprivation (vs. low levels) will show a higher preference for topdog brands (vs. underdog brands)

H2: Consumers experiencing high levels of Personal Relative Deprivation (vs. low levels) will indicate a higher preference for topdog brands (vs. underdog brands), which is mediated by the social comparison experience.

Methodology

Characteristics

• Online Survey

• Amazon Mechanical Turk • Sample

• 250 participants (131M;119 F;Mage = 37,33)

• Reward 0,70$

• Attention checks → 52 participants failed & excluded

• 2 (PRD: high vs low) x 2 (topdog vs underdog) between subjects design

• Social comparison → mediator

Manipulation of PRD

By Moeini-Jazani et al. (forthcoming)

• Ask participants to fill in their income to investigate trends in their area

• 2 monthly income scales (high vs low)

• Waiting time → an algorithm calculates their positions compare to relevant others

• 2 feedbacks

• One for each condition (PRD: high vs low)

• Each feedback accompanied with an essay box

Methodology

• (How likely are you to recommend this brand) Social Comparison

• INCOM scale by Gibbons & Buunk (1999) • Comparison towards abilities and opinions

Manipulation of brand type

By Paharia et al. (2010), adopted from study 4 • Brand biographies

• Draw on the appeals of each brand type

• Topdog → external advantage; superiority • Underdog → passion; determination

• Modification

• Exclusion of phrases of brand positioning • Fictitious brand (Delight)

Results

Dependent variable of Brand Attitude • Main effect of PRD not significant

• Main effect of Brand Type not significant • Interaction effect not significant

Dependent variable of Behavior Intentions • Main effect of PRD not significant

• Main effect of Brand Type not significant • Interaction effect not significant

H1 → Rejected

Results

Moderated Mediation

• Hayes’ PROCESS model 15

• Dependent variable of Brand

Attitude

• Insignificant Results • Main effect of PRD

• Main effect of Brand Type

• Main effect of Social Comparison • PRD x Brand type

• Social Comparison X Brand type

• Hayes’ PROCESS model 15

• Dependent variable of Behavior

Intention

• Insignificant Results • Main effect of PRD

• Main effect of Brand Type • PRD x Brand type

• Social Comparison X Brand type • Significant Result

Discussion

• Manipulation of brand type

➢ Did the participants understand the relevant type?

➢ Was it interesting?

➢ Was it able to influence the participants in a desired way? →Pretest to be conducted

→An image could be more interesting →Real brand choices

Limitations and Future Research

• Manipulation of PRD ➢ Damaged self-esteem ➢ To protect themselves respondents engage in psychological disengagement

➢ Discounting & reject the feedback

➢ Effectiveness of

manipulation reduced

• Social Comparison

➢ Tendency of people to reflect their ideal-and not their actual image ➢ Social comparison → a

very sensitive topic ➢ Conflict → ideal vs.

actual image

References

Callan, M. J., Shead, N. W., & Olson, J. M. (2011). Personal relative deprivation, delay discounting, and gambling. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 101(5), 955–973.

Chipp, K., Kleyn, N., & Manzi, T. (2011). Catch Up and Keep Up: Relative Deprivation and Conspicuous Consumption in an Emerging Market.

Journal of International Consumer Marketing,23(2), 117-134.

Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology,76(1), 129-142

Kamineni, R. (2005). Influence of materialism, gender and nationality on consumer brand perceptions. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis

for Marketing,14(1), 25-32.

Kim, H., Callan, M. J., Gheorghiu, A. I., & Matthews, W. J. (2017). Social comparison, personal relative deprivation, and materialism. British Journal

of Social Psychology, 56(2), 373-392.

Mishra, S. and Novakowski, D. (2016). Personal relative deprivation and risk: An examination of individual differences in personality, attitudes, and behavioral outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, pp.22-26

Moeini-Jazani, M., Albalooshi, S., & Muller Seljeseth, I. Self-Affirmation Reduces Delay Discounting of the Financially Deprived. Frontiers in

Psychology (Forthcoming).

Ordabayeva, N., & Chandon, P. (2010). Getting ahead of the Joneses: When equality increases conspicuous consumption among bottom-tier consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 27-41.

Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2010). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775-790.

Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2008). The safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of

Consumer Research, 36(1), 1-16.

Sweeney, P. D., Mcfarlin, D. B., & Inderrieden, E. J. (1990). Research Notes: Using Relative Deprivation Theory to Explain Satisfaction With Income and Pay Level: A Multistudy Examination. Academy of Management Journal,33(2), 423-436.

Tougas, F., & Beaton, A. M. (2008). Personal relative deprivation: A look at the grievous consequences of grievance. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 2(4), 1753-1766.