Social Class Influence On Purchasing

Journal of Consumer Marketing
Emerald Article: Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria Terrell G. Williams
Article information:
To cite this document: Terrell G. Williams, (2002),"Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 Iss: 3 pp. 249 - 276 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760210426067 Downloaded on: 17-10-2012 References: This document contains references to 61 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 17 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Paul Henry, (2002),"Systematic variation in purchase orientations across social classes", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 Iss: 5 pp. 424 - 438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760210437641 Sandy Ng, Meredith E. David, Tracey S. Dagger, (2011),"Generating positive word-of-mouth in the service experience", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21 Iss: 2 pp. 133 - 151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604521111113438 Kelly Weeks, Matthew Weeks, Lauren Frost, (2007),"The role of race and social class in compensation decisions", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 Iss: 7 pp. 701 - 718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710820118
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY MAURITIUS For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article
Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria

Terrell G. Williams
Professor of Marketing and Strategic Management, Department of Finance and Marketing, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, USA Keywords Social class, Consumer behaviour Abstract This article investigates social class, income and gender effects on the importance of utilitarian and subjective evaluative decision criteria over a variety of products considered more and less socially significant. Variations in attitude, motivation and value orientations associated with differences in occupational opportunities and demands, childhood socialization patterns and educational influences may lead consumers to vary in many of their purchase behaviors across social classes. It was found here that social class is a significant predictor of evaluative criterion importance for a number of products. The influence was moderated by the objectivity of the criterion and the social sensitivity of the product. Because of its link to choice limitation in decision making, income was expected to be an influence on evaluative criteria. A greater number of utilitarian criterion importance ratings for socially non-significant products were related to income, and utilitarian criteria importance, in general, was negatively associated with income for low social value products. Application of relative class income levels led to a substantially greater number of significant relationships compared with income or social class alone. The gender of respondents was found to relate to the observed associations, with women generally attaching more importance to virtually all evaluative criteria and exhibiting different relative importance levels for criteria across class and income levels.
Purchase alternative selection
Following the need recognition stage of the buyer decision process, consumers often seek information to guide their purchase alternative selection process. In many cases, consumers simply follow their past practices for products of a particular type or in a given category (e.g. brand loyalty or habitual buying) in making purchase decisions. In other instances, such as first-time or infrequent purchases and high-involvement purchases, consumers often follow a piecemeal process, involving the construction of criteria sets to be used in alternative evaluation (Blackwell et al., 2001). Formally or informally, they develop a set of evaluative criteria that are applied in processing information and judging purchase alternatives. These criteria may be related to any of a variety of attributes or benefits associated with a purchase alternative, and they logically provide a focus for benefit segmentation underlying a firm's branding, product design, positioning and promotion efforts. Although the relative importance of these criteria may be expected to vary considerably across consumers, it may be predictable, given certain consumer and purchase characteristics. For whatever reason or reasons political correctness, postmodern sensibilities or just plain lack of interest consumer research in social class has been minimal since the early 1980s, when Coleman (1983) assured us that social class was still a significant basis for market segmentation. Perhaps it could be argued that post-structuralist life style research like VALS has taken us beyond the simple hierarchical classification systems posited by
The research register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002, pp. 249-276, # MCB UP LIMITED, 0736-3761, DOI 10.1108/07363760210426067
249
Warner, Hollingshead, Coleman, Rainwater and others, that underlay much of the class-related consumer research of past decades. From a practical standpoint, one could posit that, for many firms and products, simple market segmentation structures are both economical and effective. There is even some suggestion that we might want to back off the analytical tools that have allowed us to market to ever smaller segments (Freeman, 2001). But, whatever the arguments, social inequality is a fact of life in virtually all cultures, and this inequality is likely to give rise to an array of differentiated attitudes, values and behaviors in buying and consumption. Recently, there seems to have been some resurgent interest in social class research in consumer behavior, particularly for studies that would take us away from looking at product and brand selection and ownership toward investigating decision processes and consumption variations across social classes (Holt, 1997, 1998a, b; Mommas and Schor, 1998; Wallendorf et al., 1998). Characteristically differentiated patterns Extensive research indicates that people across social strata tend to exhibit characteristically differentiated psychological and behavioral patterns. Variations in education, attitudes, values, communication style, etc. across social class levels could be expected to lead to variations in consumer information processing and decision-making styles within and across social strata (Fisher, 1987; Komarovsky, 1961). This suggests that persons in different social classes are likely to attach predictably different degrees of importance to various evaluative criteria. Consumer behavior writers generally acknowledge that evaluative criteria vary across social classes, but little research has addressed the nature of specific relationships (Engel et al., 1993). One article did report finding that higher social class differ from lower social class consumers in brand loyalty and perceived purchase risk, suggesting that they would likely attach different importance to such evaluative criteria as brand name, durability and reliability (Kanwar and Pagiavlas, 1992). With a few exceptions, social class research in consumer behavior has focused on differences in brand and product purchases or retail store patronage across classes with relatively little research directed toward understanding how the purchase decision process and its components vary across class levels. However, it has been suggested that we need to focus on buying and consumption processes as opposed to consumption objects, i.e. products and services (Holt, 1998b). This study focuses on variations in the importance of purchase evaluative criteria for a variety of products across social class and income strata. Evaluative criteria Consumers may apply a variety of criteria in evaluating purchase alternatives, which will vary in importance or influence in shaping alternative evaluation and selection (Blackwell et al., 2001). These criteria may be treated in terms of their degree of objectivity and significance. Decision criteria relate to benefits that may be considered either utilitarian (concrete) or hedonic (abstract) (Ahtola, 1985; Blackwell et al., 2001; Havelena and Holbrook, 1986; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Kivetz, 1999). Utilitarian evaluative criteria relate to objective, economic, rational, concrete and functional purchase dimensions, while hedonic evaluative criteria relate to benefits arising from experiential, abstract, subjective, emotional, symbolic, sensory, non-rational and aesthetic purchase attributes and benefits (Ahtola, 1985; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). The terms utilitarian and objective are used interchangeably
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002
Objectivity and significance
250
throughout this paper. Likewise hedonistic and subjective are considered synonymous. Following the selection of criteria, consumers must attach a weight or relative importance to relevant criteria and somehow evaluate purchase alternatives considered in light of the value of each criterion in making the final purchase decision (Blackwell et al., 2001). Vary by purchase situation Research on the structure of these criteria has suggested that the relative importance of evaluative criteria may vary by purchase situation (Dickson, 1982; Miller and Ginter, 1979), nature of alternatives evaluated (Corfman, 1991; Johnson, 1988), involvement level (Gensch and Javalgi, 1987; Rothschild and Houston, 1977), and amount of purchase experience (Bettman and Sujan, 1987; Wright and Rip, 1980). In order to investigate influences on the perceived importance of criteria across products, we need to consider more or less generic product attributes and benefits. Numerous evaluative criteria could conceivably be applied in different purchase situations, but a relatively few factors may apply across a wide range of consumers and products. Price and brand name are attributes that may attach to a wide variety of purchase situations. Additional general criteria are suggested by dimensions of product quality, image or utility, including reliability, appearance, performance, durability, serviceability and prestige (Blackwell et al., 2001; Bonner and Nelson, 1985; Brucks and Zeithaml, 1987). These criteria form the basis for the attributes investigated in this study. Social class effects Social class and psychological response Social class has been treated as an important force driving buyer behavior in textbooks and consumer research for decades, but the study of social class effects has been minimal in recent years. Part of this lack of attention may arise from postmodern opinions that social class is no longer relevant in today's society (Holt, 1997, 1998a, b). Market researchers and managers often rely on the more easily measured income dimension when investigating consumer market segments. It has been argued that social class effects on buyer information acquisition and processing should be investigated, but little work has been done in understanding variations in cognitive and affective aspects of the purchase decision process across social classes (Shimp and Yokum, 1981). Previous research does indicate that social class membership is a determinant of the nature and extent of consumer information search (Hugstad et al., 1987; Prasad, 1975), so there is reason to expect that the perceived relative importance of evaluative criteria will vary across classes as well. Research indicates that members of different social classes vary in numerous psychological characteristics and responses (Kohn and Schoenbach, 1983; Kohn et al., 1990; Martineau, 1958). The expected relationship between social class and the psychological processes associated with decision-making and information-processing behavior centers on the underlying factors associated with social status level. The social class construct is fundamentally a summary surrogate for all dimensions of social prestige and power, and social status is a function of what society values. Historically, status in the USA has arisen largely from personal achievement. Variations in behavior and values across social classes are, in part, a function of values, attitudes and behaviors grounded in differential socialization patterns associated with occupation, education and parental values. Occupation appears to be the best single predictor of social class and is often sufficient to estimate a family's class (Kahl and Davis, 1955). Occupation is
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002 251
Psychological characteristics and responses
a good predictor of social class in industrialized societies, because varying levels of status and respect accrue to different jobs. It is not so much the status, however, that affects attitudes and behavior, as the work itself. Higher status occupations are defined in terms of ownership, control of the means of production, and control over the labor power of others (Kohn et al., 1990). People who function in higher status occupations have characteristic personalities, motives and values that set them apart from those in less prestigious positions. It appears that the relative degree of occupational selfdirection may lead to psychological differences among members of the various classes (Kohn and Schoenbach, 1983; Kohn, et al., 1990). The values, attitudes and motives that arise from greater levels of occupational self-direction underlie behavior beyond the workplace, extending to all phases of existence, including buying behavior. Thus, buyers in different social classes may approach the buying situation differently, with decision agendas leading to predictable variations in relative evaluative criteria importance across classes. Behavioral implications for education Education is related to social class, because it is closely correlated with occupation, but there are behavioral implications for education that go beyond this relationship. Education affects consumer information processing and decision making. This is true, in part, because more educated consumers tend to be more knowledgeable of market forces and opportunities (Granger and Billson, 1972; Russo et al., 1975). College-educated consumers tend to read more, read different magazines, spend less time watching television, rely less on well-known brands, and put more time and effort into purchase decisions than high school-educated consumers (Duncan and Olshavsky, 1982). Knowledge is related to consumer comprehension and, to the extent that consumers have varying levels of knowledge and comprehension, they are likely to behave differently in their decision processes (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Bettman and Sujan, 1987). In addition, we may expect that consumers who have received higher levels of education will process information and apply evaluative criteria differently from less educated persons. A third important factor in the relationship between social class and buying behavior arises from the fact that children are socialized differently across social class levels and emerge with different social values. In general, child rearing in the lower social classes is characterized by demands for authority, orderliness, obedience, respect, conformity, rigidity, suppressed aggression, physical toughness and physical punishment. At the same time, children in the higher classes face higher expectations for intellectual and career achievement with an emphasis on reasoning, self-direction, self-control, selfexpression, independence, initiative and curiosity (Bronfenbrenner, 1959; Duberman, 1976; Kohn, 1969). Research indicates that socialization patterns across social classes affect buying behavior in numerous ways. Consumers socialized in middle-class families tend to be less independent in their buying behavior (Moschis et al., 1977; Psathas, 1957). Children in upper status families receive much more direct training in consumption skills than those in lower status families. Lower class children rely more on brands, and middle class youngsters rely more heavily on other aspects of products in their purchase decisions (Moschis and Moore, 1979), again suggesting that evaluative criteria importance will vary across classes. Income and buyer decision making Income obviously affects buying behavior in terms of the amount, types and prices of products purchased. There is evidence to indicate that the amount
252 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002
Children socialized differently
of pre-purchase information-seeking activity may be related to income with higher income consumers putting more effort into information search (John et al., 1986; Newman and Staelin, 1972; Urbany, 1986). However, there is little research to guide thinking as to how income may be related to the relative importance of various evaluative criteria. One could presume, however, that utilitarian evaluative criteria, such as low price, durability and reliability, would be negatively related to income. Income is likely to be more important than social class in understanding purchases of low social value products like kitchen appliances that require significant expenditure but are not status symbols (Schaninger, 1981). Income level Income level does not correlate highly with social class, so it is logical to consider it in a relative sense for each class (Coleman, 1983). Referring to what he called the under-privileged and over-privileged segments of each social class, Coleman contended that individuals in the high- and lowincome components of each class would behave differently from each other (Coleman, 1960). Relative class income, then, is defined in terms of the median income within a social class. Research supports the assertion that relative class income is an important determinant of buying behavior for automobile purchases (Peters, 1970), coffee (Klippel and Monoky, 1974), and retail store selection (Dawson et al., 1990). The study Based on the contention that attitudes, values, information search patterns and motives vary across classes, it is proposed here that the relative importance of purchase evaluative criteria for a variety of products varies across social classes and relative class income levels. Social class and income influences on buying perceptions, attitudes and behavior vary by product (Grnhaug and Trapp, 1989; Schaninger, 1981). This study, therefore, considers a set of generic purchase evaluative criteria for a variety of consumer products: dress clothing, garden tools, automobiles, wedding gifts, living-room furniture, children's play clothing, kitchen appliances, casual clothing and stereos. The products were selected to reflect a wide range of items differing in durability, expressiveness, necessity, gender orientation, etc. These products can be classified as being more or less sensitive to social class influence, but there will be wide variations among individuals. Sensitive to social influence For purposes of this study, dress clothing, casual clothing, automobiles, stereos and living-room furniture are considered more sensitive to social influence. Garden tools, kitchen appliances, wedding gifts and children's play clothing are viewed as less sensitive. This a priori split is based on previous research relating to the relationship of social class to product purchases (Laumann and House, 1970; Levy, 1973; Schaninger, 1981) and on judgment relative to the external visibility, potential prestige value and the relative expressive nature of each product. The same evaluative criteria were measured for each product. Although there may be many other criteria that could be applied to the individual products treated, these criteria were based on the purchase attributes and benefits described earlier on the assumption that they provide a broad base for study of the interactions considered here. These attributes and benefits are generic, applying in much the same way across all the products. The criteria are categorized as being more or less utilitarian or objective (well-known brand, warranty, low price, performance, reliability and durability) and hedonistic or subjective (prestigious brand, style/appearance, value, referent quality and
uniqueness). Performance is defined as expected functionality based on purchase experience. Referent quality is a measure of whether reference persons use and recommend a product and is operationalized as ``friends' recommendation.'' Subjective criteria It is expected that the relative importance of evaluative criteria across social classes will be moderated by both the objectivity of the criterion and the social value of the product involved. More socially visible products are likely to be judged on subjective criteria. While higher social class individuals will likely attach more significance to evaluative criteria in general, they are likely to emphasize subjective criteria depending on the type of product evaluated. This anticipated tendency to emphasize hedonic or subjective factors is suggested by research that indicates that higher social class consumers are more likely to enjoy shopping and to be less risk-averse than those in lower classes (Rich and Jain, 1968). In this study, social class is measured with income included as both a continuous and a relative component. Income is treated separately as well. Based on research indicating that lower income consumers tend to be less active in purchase deliberation (John et al., 1986; Newman and Staelin, 1972; Urbany, 1986), it is posited that income will be negatively correlated with evaluative criteria importance over all criteria and products. The relationship between income and evaluative criteria importance is expected to be stronger for utilitarian criteria and for non-socially oriented products. Lower income consumers would likely favor utilitarian criteria, while higher income consumers would be more apt to have the luxury of emphasizing subjective criteria in decision making. Gender differences Differences across gender are also studied here. Men and women tend to view many products and services differently (Fontenelle and Zinkhan, 1993). As noted previously, men and women may be expected to exhibit different patterns of response relative to evaluative criteria importance. Since women tend to be generally more involved with and interested in buying, higher importance ratings might be anticipated for them across a variety of products. Because husbands and wives were interviewed at the same time for the study, social class and income effects on their agreement on evaluative criteria importance across products and social classes can be investigated. Method This study utilizes a random sample of adult married couples with both spouses responding independently to the questionnaire. Measurement of social class is based on the status measurement scale advanced by Coleman (1983). This instrument, referred to as the computerized status index (CSI), includes education for husband and wife, occupational prestige of the husband (weighted double), quality of residence neighborhood, and income as status indicators. Data for social class determination were collected through a combination of interviewer observations and answers from respondents. Respondents were randomly selected from the telephone book in a mediumsized western community and personally interviewed for the study. Each interviewer was trained and given a list of names to contact. Appointments were made with respondents to assure that there were two spouses in the household and that both could be interviewed at the same time. Where persons were unavailable for any reason, the interviewer went on to the next name on the list until a quota of names was filled. Questionnaires were handcarried and personally explained to respondents by interviewers, who made
Computerized status index
observations regarding the quality of the neighborhood and gave instructions for completing the questionnaire. Interviewers waited while the husband and wife independently responded to identical questionnaires, supplying information on occupation, education and other pertinent information for social class estimation. Respondents were instructed not to consult with each other, while recording their evaluative criteria ratings. The interviewer's
Percentage Family income levels $0-14,999 $15,000-19,999 $20,000-29,999 $30,000-39,999 $40,000-59,999 $60,000-84,999 $85,000 + Social class of families Lower American Working class Middle class Upper American Average income for all respondents Notes: n = 306;
a
Average incomea
4.8 10.1 21.8 25.8 19.0 15.3 3.2 13.7 36.7 35.1 14.5 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $65,000 $45,000
Estimated from income categories
Table I. Characteristics of respondents

Husbands (%) Age Under 25 26-35 36-45 46-65 66 + Education 8 years or less 9-11 years High school graduate 1 year college 2-3 years college College graduate Master's degree Doctorate Occupational category Chronically unemployed, unskilled Marginal, semi-skilled jobs Average skill, e.g. assembly, carpentry Skilled craftspersons, office workers Owners of small firms, salespeople, technicians Middle managers, public school teachers Lesser corporate officials/professionals Top executives, MDs, lawyers Top corporate executives, large business owners Student Homemaker 24.3 32.8 14.8 20.7 7.4 1.8 1.4 13.7 14.4 23.6 26.1 11.3 7.7 1.0 3.9 15.0 19.3 14.7 18.0 12.1 3.3 0.3 9.1 3.3 Wives (%) 32.4 28.5 14.6 19.5 5.0 0.4 3.4 21.6 18.9 28.0 18.9 7.8 1.0 1.3 9.5 7.5 17.7 10.1 14.1 2.6 0.7 0.0 4.9 31.7
Table II. Age, education and occupational categories of husbands/wives

presence during the administration of the questionnaire allowed for control in assuring that both respondents completed the questionnaire and that they did not contaminate each other's responses. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of the evaluative criteria for the various products on a five-point scale ranging from totally unimportant to very important. Past research indicates that men and women often relate to the buying process and to specific products differently (Fontenelle and Zinkhan, 1993; Williams and Rogers, 1989; Rogers et al., 1992). For purposes of analysis, all results are reported separately for male and female respondents. Analysis of variance In order to test for the relationship between measures of social class and evaluative criteria importance, a one-way MANOVA was applied for each product studied over the 11 evaluative criteria. Analysis of variance was used to investigate non-linear relationships between social class and purchase evaluative criteria importance. The SPSS program for MANOVA generates an overall measure of significance (Hotelling's T2) for the multivariate relationship across all dependent variables along with F-tests and significance levels for each of the dependent variables. Correlation analysis was applied where linear relationships were posited. More detailed analyses of the
Women Lower social value products Major kitchen appliance Wedding gift Children's play clothing Garden tools Mean rating Higher social value products Automobile Stereo Living-room furniture Dress clothing Casual clothing Mean rating More objective evaluative criteria Durability Reliability Performance Warranty Low price Well-known brand name Mean rating More subjective evaluative criteria Value Style/appearance Referent quality Uniqueness Prestigious brand Mean rating 3.84 3.66 3.58 3.26 3.65 4.01 3.87 3.86 3.59 3.46 3.89 4.44 4.23 4.23 4.06 3.97 3.56 4.11 4.30 3.98 3.48 3.14 3.11 3.64 Men 3.60 3.41 3.27 3.35a 3.45 3.87 3.79 3.70 3.36 3.27 3.63 4.30 4.01 4.00 3.86 4.07 3.49 3.95 4.12 3.68 3.32 2.99 3.05 3.47
Notes: aDifference not significant at 0.05 or better; n = 306
Table III. Mean evaluative criteria importance ratings for men and women across products and criteria
Significancea Quadrant 1 b
Garden tools n = 238 0.10
Lower social value products Kitchen Children's play appliance clothing n = 258 n = 226 0.03 0.04 Wedding gift n = 240 0.24 Auto n = 226 0.14
Higher social value products Living-room Dress clothing furniture Casual clothing n = 245 n = 231 n = 258 0.07 0.01 0.02 Quadrant 3
Stereo n = 232 0.74
Objective criteria
Durability Low price Warranty Well-known brand Performance Reliability
Subjective criteria Quadrant 2
Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality
Quadrant 4
Notes: aSignificance of Hotelling's T2 for MANOVA; bs indicate a significant relationship between income and individual evaluative criterion importance for the product cited
Table IV. Relationships between income and evaluative criteria importance: female respondents
257
relationships were accomplished through interpretation of one-way ANOVAs and paired T-Tests across products and evaluative criteria. Results A total of 306 adult couples (612 respondents) were interviewed for the study. In various analyses, a portion of the questionnaires was unusable because of missing data for social class determination or other variables. This will account for variations in reported sample size for different analyses. Tables I and II provide a description of the characteristics of the sample, including a breakdown of the family incomes of respondents. Occupations were categorized according to the ratings used in the CSI. The breakdown of social class classification based on the CSI, along with approximate average income for each class, is also given. Family income rises with social class, as expected. Criteria importance A comparison of male and female respondents on their criteria importance ratings is shown in Table III. Differences between the ratings across gender were analyzed with paired T-Tests. For all products except garden tools, women's mean importance scores for the evaluative criteria were significantly higher than men's. This could be expected, since women tend to exhibit higher enjoyment and interest in shopping and attach more importance to it (Slama and Tashchian, 1985; Rogers et al., 1985). The order for criteria importance mean ratings was the same for men and women except that men's ratings ranked evaluative criteria importance associated with children's play clothing last, while women rated criteria for garden tools lowest. Women attached greater importance than men to all the evaluative criteria except low price. Men rated low price as a more important criterion than women, and it had the third highest rating for men, while it ranked eighth among women. Both men and women generally rated objective criteria as more important than subjective factors across all products studied. As noted in Table III, mean ratings were calculated for more and less socially significant products and for utilitarian versus subjective evaluative criteria. Overall, objective criteria were rated as more important on average than subjective criteria (p 0.00) by both male and female respondents. The mean evaluative criteria scores associated with more socially valued
Meansa Quadrant 1: Lower social value products/objective criteria Quadrant 2: Lower social value products/subjective criteria Quadrants 1 and 2: Lower social value products/all criteria Quadrant 3: Higher social value products/objective criteria Quadrant 4: Higher social value products/subjective criteria Quadrants 3 and 4: Higher social value products/all criteria Quadrants 1 and 3: Objective criteria/all products Quadrants 2 and 4: Subjective criteria/all products Quadrants 1-4: All criteria/all products p p p p p p p p p = = = = = = = = = 0.18 0.47 0.19 0.30 0.31 0.50 0.10 0.09 0.12 Correlationsb r r r r r r r r r = = = = = = = = = 0.16* 0.09 0.14* 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.14* 0.10 0.14
Notes: aSignificance of F for one-way ANOVA on income influence within quadrants and combinations of quadrants; bCorrelation coefficients for relationship between income and the mean of all evaluative criteria importance ratings in the quadrant or quadrant grouping as indicated *significant at 0.05; **significant at 0.01
Table V. Aggregate relationships between social class and evaluative criteria importance
Significancea Quadrant 1
Stereo n = 239 0.80
Objective criteria b
Quadrant 4
Table VI. Relationships between income and evaluative criteria importance: male respondents
259
products were higher than those for less socially significant products (p 0.00) for both men and women in the study. In Tables IV and V the MANOVAs for the products show that income is significantly related to the importance of evaluative criteria for female respondents on kitchen appliances, children's play clothing, and casual clothing. As expected, significant relationships for individual evaluative criteria were concentrated in the more utilitarian criteria for low socialsignificance products. Correlation analysis indicated a significant negative relationship between income and the importance of all utilitarian evaluative criteria (r = 0.14), but not for all criteria in general. However, correlation analysis did reveal a significant negative correlation between income and utilitarian evaluative criteria importance for non-socially relevant products (r = 0.16). The correlation between income and evaluative criterion importance for all criteria across lower social value products was significant (r = 0.14). Thus, lower income women in the study placed more importance on utilitarian evaluative criteria, and they placed more emphasis on all types of evaluative criteria when evaluating less socially significant products. There was no indication, however, that higher income female consumers placed more emphasis on subjective criteria or on evaluative criteria, in general. Income and criterion importance Tables VI and VII detail the relationship between income and criterion importance for male respondents. Again, the preponderance of significant relationships is found for utilitarian criteria on less socially significant products. For lower social value products, the MANOVAs for children's play clothing and wedding gifts were significant, while none of the MANOVAs was significant for higher social value products. Virtually all of the relationships involving income with individual evaluative criteria were with low price. The results reported in the Tables as aggregate mean relationships were based on one-way ANOVAs for the mean importance ratings across all products and criteria in each category indicated. The relationship between mean criterion importance and income was significant at the 0.01 level for lower social value products and utilitarian criteria. In addition, income was significantly related to mean importance for all evaluative criteria on all lower social value products (p 0.03) and mean utilitarian criteria importance (p 0.02) across all products as well. Correlation analysis further supported these results as a significant negative relationship (r = 0.20) was observed between income and utilitarian criteria for nonMeansa Quadrant 1: Lower social value products/objective criteria Quadrant 2: Lower social value products/subjective criteria Quadrants 1 and 2: Lower social value products/all criteria Quadrant 3: Higher social value products/objective criteria Quadrant 4: Higher social value products/subjective criteria Quadrants 3 and 4: Higher social value products/all criteria Quadrants 1 and 3: Objective criteria/all products Quadrants 2 and 4: Subjective criteria/all products Quadrants 1-4: All criteria/all products p p p p p p p p p = = = = = = = = = 0.01 0.19 0.03 0.48 0.81 0.70 0.02 0.36 0.07 Correlationsb r r r r r r r r r = = = = = = = = = 0.20* 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.18 0.02 0.13
Table VII. Aggregate relationships between social class and evaluative criteria importance
Higher social value products Living-room Dress clothing furniture Casual clothing n = 235 n = 220 n = 241 0.38 0.12 0.28 Quadrant 3 b
Stereo n = 219 0.19
Objective criteria
Quadrant 4
Table VIII. Relationships between social class (CSI) and evaluative criteria importance: female respondents
261
Meansa Quadrant 1: Lower social value products/objective criteria Quadrant 2: Lower social value products/subjective criteria Quadrants 1 and 2: Lower social value products/all criteria Quadrant 3: Higher social value products/objective criteria Quadrant 4: Higher social value products/subjective criteria Quadrants 3 and 4: Higher social value products/all criteria Quadrants 1 and 3: Objective criteria/all products Quadrants 2 and 4: Subjective criteria/all products Quadrants 1-4: All criteria/all products p p p p p p p p p = = = = = = = = = 0.08 0.47 0.68 0.30 0.31 0.40 0.95 0.50 0.87
Correlationsb r r r r r r r r r = = = = = = = = = 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.02
Table IX. Aggregate relationships between social class and evaluative criteria importance
socially sensitive products. Correlations also indicated that higher income male respondents tended to place less emphasis on all evaluative criteria for non-socially sensitive products (r = 0.15) and on utilitarian criteria for all products (r = 0.18). Again, there was no indication that higher income male consumers place more importance on subjective evaluative criteria or on evaluative criteria, in general. Tables VIII to XI provide results on the relationship between social class and evaluative criteria importance using Coleman's CSI. When the CSI scale was applied with income treated as a continuous variable, 13 of the 99 possible relationships were significant for female respondents and 26 of 99 are significant for men. The MANOVA was significant for one product for women and five for men. Tables VIII and IX indicate that the CSI predicted more relationships for higher social value products, particularly for subjective evaluative criteria. This was consistent with the proposition advanced, which predicted that evaluative criteria importance for higher social value products and more subjective criteria would be associated with higher social class. However, neither ANOVA nor correlation indicated any significant relationships between social class and aggregate criterion importance, including overall criterion importance. The MANOVA was significant only for automobiles among women. A greater influence of social class on criterion importance was found for men than for women, as observed in Tables X and XI. MANOVAs were significant for all of the lower social value products and for living-room furniture among the higher social significance products. Social class predicted a greater number of utilitarian criteria than subjective criteria. None of the one-way ANOVAs indicated significant relationships across products by social sensitivity or across evaluative criteria by objectivity. However, there were significant negative correlations between social class evaluative criteria for non-socially sensitive products (r = 0.18) and for both utilitarian (r = 0.15) and subjective criteria (r = 0.17). However, when all criteria were combined, the correlation was not significant. The findings for men are quite different from the relationships observed among female respondents, and they are not consistent with the proposition advanced, which predicted that higher social value products and more subjective criteria would be more important among higher social class consumers.
Stereo n = 223 0.10
Quadrant 4
Table X. Relationships between social class (CSI) and evaluative criteria importance: male respondents
263
Correlationsb r r r r r r r r r = = = = = = = = = 0.15* 0.17* 0.18* 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.09
Table XI. Aggregate relationships between social class and evaluative criteria importance
Coleman (1983) observed that the correlation between income and social class is typically low, and the correlation coefficient between income and the CSI with income omitted was 0.36 in the present study. This further supports the idea of treating social classes using relative class income groups with higher and lower income levels established for each class level. For analytical purposes, the median income level was dropped, and the levels above and below the median level were considered high and low respectively. Thus, eight classes were identified. Tables XII to XV indicate that more significant relationships were found when relative class income levels were applied, with 45 of 99 significant for women and 41 of 99 significant for male respondents. Four of the MANOVAs were significant for women, and all were significant for male respondents. MANOVAs for all the higher social value products except living-room furniture were significant for women, as indicated in Tables XII and XIII. None of the relationships was significant for lower social value products. Nearly twice the proportion of relationships was significant for higher social value products compared with lower social value products. Analysis indicates that the mean importance levels for both objective (p 0.01) and subjective (p 0.00) evaluative criteria were significant for the higher social value products. In addition, the mean importance for all subjective criteria was significantly related to social class (p 0.00). The same was not true for utilitarian criteria. Social class was more often related to durability, wellknown brand, value and referent quality for women compared with men. Socially significant products Correlation analysis revealed a positive relationship between social class and both subjective (r = 0.21) and utilitarian criteria importance (r = 0.17) for socially significant products. Combining the two, higher social class women rated all evaluative criteria as more important across all the more socially significant products (r = 0.20). The correlation between relative class income and all evaluative criteria importance was not significant, but the ANOVA was significant. Investigation of the means indicated that higher relative class income levels in the three lower class groups attached somewhat more importance to evaluative criteria than did the lower income respondents. The relationships for male respondents followed a pattern somewhat similar to that observed for women except that all MANOVAs for the products studied were significant (Tables XIV and XV). A greater proportion of relationships was significant for higher social value products, but the
Higher social value products Living-room Dress clothing furniture Casual clothing n = 173 n = 159 n = 181 0.00 0.14 0.04
Stereo n = 160 0.01
Quadrant 3

2 b
Quadrant 4
Notes: Significance of Hotelling's T for MANOVA; s indicate a significant relationship between income and individual evaluative criterion importance for the product cited
Table XII. Relationships between relative class income levels and evaluative criteria importance: female respondents
265
Correlationsb r r r r r r r r r = = = = = = = = = 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.18* 0.21* 0.20* 0.05 0.11 0.06
Table XIII. Aggregate relationships between social class and evaluative criteria importance
proportion was not so pronounced as for women. For aggregate mean relationships, men exhibited the same pattern as women, except that men's subjective criteria importance levels were predicted by social class only for higher social value products. Social class was more often related to low price and uniqueness for men compared with women across all products. Correlation analysis indicated that higher status men rated evaluative criteria as more important for socially sensitive products (r = 0.19), but only utilitarian criteria were significantly related (r = 0.17) when the two types of criteria were considered individually. Again higher class/income levels did not attach more importance to criteria across all products and criteria. Evaluative criteria importance Turning to specific products studied, social class appeared to be a better predictor of evaluative criteria importance for children's play clothing, wedding gifts, living-room furniture and casual clothing among women, while criterion importance was more often predicted for garden tools and kitchen appliances for male respondents. Social class was more often significant in predicting utilitarian evaluative criteria importance for men on garden tools, while it was more often significant for women on wedding gifts. Subjective criterion importance was more often predicted among women for children's play clothing, wedding gifts, autos, living room furniture, and casual clothing. Among males, the relationship was more often significant for kitchen appliances and stereos. The differences between husbands' and wives' evaluative criterion importance ratings were calculated pair-wise, and MANOVAs on income, social class and relative class income level were then run across products using the differences as dependent variables. Congruence between husbands' and wives' criterion importance was not related to either income or social class alone but, when relative class income level was employed, MANOVAs were significant at 0.05 or better for autos, casual clothing and children's play clothing. For autos, husbands and wives differed significantly on the durability and style criteria and on reliability for children's play clothing and casual clothing. Overall, we must conclude that social class and income seem to have little effect on the agreement between husbands and wives on evaluative criteria importance. In order to study the observed relationships more closely, Tables XVI and XVII provide a summary of the mean values for evaluative criteria importance across social class/income levels that differ from the grand mean
Differences calculated pair-wise
Stereo n = 164 0.00
Quadrant 4
Table XIV. Relationships between relative class income levels and evaluative criteria importance: male respondents
267
Correlationsb r = 0.10 r = 0.07 r= 0.10 r = 0.17* r = 0.14* r = 0.19* r = 0.04 r = 0.06 r = 0.08
Table XV. Aggregate relationships between social class and evaluative criteria importance
in each case. Table XVI shows that lower criteria importance ratings for women are predominantly concentrated among the lower social class/higher income respondents. Higher ratings concentrate among higher income respondents, particularly those in the middle and upper classes. Although more relationships are found among higher social value products, there appears to be little difference in the pattern of higher or lower importance ratings between higher and lower social value products. However, both casual and dress clothing receive a large number of above average ratings. Only among women was the referent quality of a product related to social class, and this appeared to be stronger among higher status/higher income respondents. Low price was more significant among lower status/lower income women only for living-room furniture. Male respondents different from women The pattern for male respondents is different from that noted for women, as indicated in Table XVII. Although there is some concentration of lower mean ratings among the lower income/lower class respondents, lower means are also found clustered among lower income/upper class respondents, especially among the lower social value products. The greatest concentration of above average ratings occurs in the higher income working class, especially for higher social value products. Higher status/higher income males do not exhibit the preponderance of above average ratings observed among women except for dress clothing. Conclusions Since promotional and product development decisions should be grounded in the attributes and benefits that consumers seek in buying various products, it is important to understand the evaluative criteria which correspond to these attributes and benefits and underlie product and brand selection. Previous research shed little light on the behavioral correlates of evaluative criterion importance but, based on what has been learned here, we can say that evaluative criteria importance is influenced by buyer gender, income and social class. The results of the study are based on general evaluative criteria for rather broad product categories. Presumably, better results would come from the study of more product-specific criteria for more narrowly defined products. The study begins with the assumptions that evaluative criteria are either utilitarian or subjective in nature, that products can be classified as having greater or lesser social significance, and that men and women
Class Income
Number of respondents n = 14 n = 15 n = 43 n = 21 n = 50 n = 19 n = 17 n = 4 Lower Lower Working Working Middle Middle Upper Upper Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher
Lower social value products Kitchen appliance Warranty Durability + Children's play clothing Durability Warranty Value Style/appearance Referent quality Wedding gift Durability Well-known brand Performance Prestige brand Uniqueness Referent quality + + + +
+ +
+ +
Higher social value products Automobile Durability Well-known brand Performance Value Prestigious brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality Dress clothing Durability Well-known brand Performance Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness
+ +
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
+ +
Living-room furniture Durability Value Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality Casual clothing Well-known brand Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality
+ + + + + +
+ +
+ +
+ + (Continued)
Table XVI. Individual relationships between relative income classes and evaluative criteria importance by product: female respondents
Class Income Stereo Durability Warranty Well-known brand Prestige brand Style/appearance Referent quality
Number of respondents n = 14 n = 15 n = 43 n = 21 n = 50 n = 19 n = 17 n = 4 Lower Lower Working Working Middle Middle Upper Upper Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher
+ + +
Notes: Indicates that the mean evaluative criterion importance score for the class is significantly less than the mean for all female respondents (p ! 0.05); + indicates that the mean evaluative criterion importance score for the class is significantly greater than the mean for all female respondents (p ! 0.05); Purchase evaluative criteria are grouped with more objective listed first, followed by more subjective; Only significant relationships are shown
Table XVI.
approach the buying process sufficiently differently to require that they should be studied separately. The study generally validated the proposition that men and women have different evaluative criteria importance levels. Women consistently attached greater importance to virtually all criteria across all products. The only criterion rated more positively by men was low price. Both men and women tended to rate utilitarian criteria as more important than subjective criteria. This would argue for advertising messages directed at both men and women that feature brand name, price, performance, and other utilitarian appeals. Agreement on the evaluative criteria across products was not affected by income, but social class with relative class income was a factor for three of the nine products studied. Product and evaluative criterion-specific market research should be evaluated before advertising is designed for social class segments. Utilitarian benefits and attributes Based on judgment and what is known about the psychology and buying behaviors of the classes, it was predicted that income would be a predictor of utilitarian evaluative criterion importance for less socially sensitive products. This proposition was partially supported among male respondents, but not for women. It was observed that utilitarian evaluative criteria were related to social class for all products studied, not just for lower social significance items. Based on these results, it is recommended that promotion directed toward lower income male segments be built on appeals based on utilitarian benefits and attributes. Subjective themes would not appear to be more effective for higher income consumers, as previously posited. Income by itself was shown to be potentially useful for segmenting markets by evaluative criteria, but it was even more effective when appropriately combined with social class. Social class did relate to a greater number of criteria than income, but a far greater number of significant relationships was observed when relative class income was employed. It was proposed that higher social class individuals would attach greater importance to evaluative criteria in general and to subjective criteria in particular than lower social status persons. This proved to be only partially supported. Since social class with relative class income was found to predict more relationships, the analysis focused on it, and all discussion in this section is based on relative class income levels. Higher social class men and
n = 13 Class Income
Number of respondents n = 14 n = 44 n = 19 n = 47 n = 19 n = 18 n = 4 Lower Lower Working Working Middle Middle Upper Upper Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher
Lower social value products Garden tools Durability Low price Warranty Performance Uniqueness Kitchen appliance Durability Low price Warranty Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness
+ + +
+ + +
+ + + +
+ +
Children's play clothing Durability Low price + Performance Wedding gift Uniqueness
+ +
Higher social value products Automobile Durability Well-known brand Performance Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Dress clothing Durability Low price Well-known brand Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness
+ + + + +
+ +
+ + + + + + +
Living-room furniture Low price Style/appearance Uniqueness Casual clothing Style/appearance Uniqueness
+ +
+ +
+ (Continued)
Table XVII. Individual relationships between relative income classes and evaluative criteria importance by product: male respondents
n = 13 Class Income Stereo Durability Low price Warranty Reliability Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness
Number of respondents n = 14 n = 44 n = 19 n = 47 n = 19 n = 18 n = 4 Lower Lower Working Working Middle Middle Upper Upper Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher + + + + + + +
Notes: Indicates that the mean evaluative criterion importance score for the social class is significantly less than the mean for all respondents (p ! 0.05); + Indicates that the mean evaluative criterion importance score for the social class is significantly greater than the mean for all respondents (p ! 0.05); Purchase evaluative criteria are grouped with more objective listed first, followed by more subjective. Only significant relationships are shown
Table XVII.
women did not rate all criteria as more important for all products, but they did consistently rate all of the evaluative criteria studied as more important for higher social value products. Social class predicted evaluative criteria importance differently across specific products for both men and women. This again suggests that, while evaluative criteria apparently are rated differently across class levels, research on specific product and criterion importance should precede product design and promotional positioning. Criteria for individual products The findings of this study offer encouragement for understanding and segmenting markets by social class. They also suggest that research on specific evaluative criteria for individual brands and products will likely be fruitful. Future research should focus on these more specific criteria for individual products and should be extended to other geographical regions as well. This research leads one to agree with Coleman (1983) that there is continuing significance for social class research on buying behavior.
References Ahtola, O.T. (1985), ``Hedonic and utilitarian aspects of consumer behavior: an attitudinal perspective'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 7-10. Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), ``Dimensions of consumer expertise'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, March, pp. 411-54. Bettman, J.R. and Sujan, M. (1987), `Èffects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, September, pp. 141-54. Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W. and Engel, J.F. (2001), Consumer Behavior, 9th ed., Harcourt College Publishers, New York, NY. Bonner, P.G. and Nelson, R. (1985), ``Product attributes and perceived quality: foods'', in Jacoby, J. and Olson, J. (Eds), Perceived Quality, D.C. Heath & Co., Lexington, MA, pp. 64-79. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1959), ``Socialization and social class through time and space'', in Maccoby, E.E., Newcomb, T.N. and Hartley, E.L. (Eds), Readings in Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, pp. 425-40. Brucks, M. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1987), ``Price as an indicator of quality dimensions'', paper presented at Association for Consumer Research Annual Meeting, Boston, MA. Coleman, R.P. (1960), ``The significance of social stratification in selling'', in Bell, M.L. (Ed.), Marketing: A Maturing Discipline, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 171-84. Coleman, R.P. (1983), ``The continuing significance of social class to marketing'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, December, pp. 265-88.
Corfman, K.P. (1991), ``Comparability and comparison levels used in choices among consumer products'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, August, pp. 368-74. Dawson, S., Stern, B. and Gilpatrick, T. (1990), `Àn empirical update and extension of patronage behaviors across the social class hierarchy'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 833-8. Dickson, P.R. (1982), ``Person-situation: segmentation's missing link'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Fall, pp. 56-64. Duberman, L. (1976), Social Inequality: Class and Caste in America, J.B. Lippincott Co., New York, NY. Duncan, C.P. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1982), `Èxternal search: the role of consumer beliefs'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, February, pp. 32-43. Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1993), Consumer Behavior, 6th ed., The Dryden Press, Chicago, IL. Fisher, J.E. (1987), ``Social class and consumer behavior: the relevance of class and status'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 492-6. Fontenelle, S. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1993), ``Gender differences in the perception of leisure: a conceptual model'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 534-40. Freeman, L. (2001), ``Small, smaller, smallest: new analytical tools can slice markets too thin'', Marketing News, September 24, pp. 1, 17-18. Gensch, D.H. and Javalgi, R.G. (1987), ``The influence of involvement on disaggregate attribute choice models'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, June, pp. 71-82. Granger, C.W.J. and Billson, A. (1972), ``Consumers' attitudes toward package size and price'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, August, pp. 239-48. Grnhaug, K. and Trapp, P.S. (1989), ``Perceived social class appeals of branded goods and services'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6, Winter, pp. 13-17. Havelena, W.J. and Holbrook, M.B. (1986), ``The varieties of consumption experience: comparing two typologies of emotion and consumer behavior'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, December, pp. 394-404. Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), ``Hedonic consumption: emerging methods and propositions'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Summer, pp. 92-101. Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), ``The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, September, pp. 132-40. Holt, D.B. (1997), ``Post-structuralist lifestyle analysis: conceptualizing the social patterning of consumption in postmodernity'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, March, pp. 326-50. Holt, D.B. (1998a), ``Social class and consumption: challenging postmodern images'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, pp. 219-20. Holt, D.B. (1998b), ``Does cultural capital structure American consumption?'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, June, pp. 1-25. Hugstad, P., Taylor, J.W. and Bruce, G.D. (1987), `Èffects of social class on consumer information search'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4, Spring, pp. 41-6. John, D.R., Scott, C.A. and Bettman, J.R. (1986), ``Sampling data for covariation assessment: the effect of prior beliefs on search patterns'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, June, pp. 38-47. Johnson, M.D. (1988), ``Comparability and hierarchical processing in multi-alternative choice'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, December, pp. 303-14. Kahl, J.A. and Davis, J.A. (1955), `À comparison of indexes of socio-economic status'', American Sociological Review, Vol. 20, June, pp. 317-25. Kanwar, R. and Pagiavlas, N. (1992), ``When are higher social class consumers more and less brand loyal than lower social class consumers? The role of mediating variables'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 589-95. Kivetz, R. (1999), ``Hedonic and utilitarian motivations in consumer choice'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 27, p. 286. Klippel, R.E. and Monoky, J.F. (1974), `À potential segmentation variable for marketers: relative occupational class income'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 351-6. Kohn, M.L. (1969), Class and Conformity, Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL. Kohn, M.L. and Schoenbach, C. (1983), ``Class, stratification, and psychological functioning'', in Kohn, M.L. and Schooler, C. (Eds), Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the Impact of Social Stratification, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 154-89.
Kohn, M.L., Naoi, A., Schoenbach, C., Schooler, C. and Slomczynski, K.M. (1990), ``Position in the class structure and psychological functioning in the United States, Japan, and Poland'', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 95, January, pp. 964-1008. Komarovsky, M. (1961), ``Class differences in family decision making'', in Foote, N.N. (Ed.), Consumer Behavior: Household Decision Making, New York University Press, New York, NY, pp. 255-65. Laumann, E.O. and House, J.S. (1970), ``Living room styles and social attributes'', Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 54, April, p. 326. Levy, S.J. (1973), ``Social classes and consumer behavior'', in Howard, J.A. and Ostland, L.E. (Eds), Buyer Behavior, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY, pp. 48-59. Martineau, P. (1958), ``Social classes and spending behavior'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23, October, pp. 121-30. Miller, K.E. and Ginter, J.L. (1979), `Àn investigation of situational variation in brand choice behavior and attitude'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 111-23. Mommas, H. and Schor, J. (1998), ``Social class and consumption: an empirical test and revised socio-economic model'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, p. 219. Moschis, G.P. and Moore, R.L. (1979), ``Mass media and personal influences on adolescent consumer learning'', Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 2. Moschis, G.P., Moore, R.L. and Stephens, L.F. (1977), ``Purchasing patterns of adolescent consumers'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53, Spring, pp. 17-26, 92. Newman, J.W. and Staelin, R. (1972), ``Prepurchase information seeking for new cars and major household appliances'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, August, pp. 249-57. Peters, W.H. (1970), ``Relative occupational class income: a significant variable in the marketing of automobiles'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, April, pp. 74-7. Prasad, V.K. (1975), ``Socioeconomic product risk and patronage preferences of retail shoppers'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, July, pp. 42-7. Psathas, G. (1957), `Èthnicity, social class and adolescent independence from parental control'', American Sociological Review, August, pp. 415-23. Rich, S.U. and Jain, S. (1968), ``Social class and life cycles as predictors of shopping behavior'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5, February, pp. 41-9. Rogers, J.C., Ross, S.C. and Williams, T.G. (1992), ``Personal values and purchase dissatisfaction response'', Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 81-92. Rogers, J.C., Slama, M.E. and Williams, T.G. (1985), ``Behavioral characteristics of the recreational shopper and implications for retail management'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 13, Summer, pp. 307-16. Rothschild, M. and Houston, M.J. (1977), ``The consumer involvement matrix: some preliminary findings'', in Greenberg, B.A. and Bellinger, D.N. (Eds), Contemporary Marketing Thought, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 95-8. Russo, J.E., Dreiser, G. and Miyashita, S. (1975), `Àn effective display of unit price information'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, April, pp. 11-19. Schaninger, C.M. (1981), ``Social class versus income revisited'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, May, pp. 192-208. Shimp, T.A. and Yokum, J.T. (1981), `Èxtensions of the basic social class model employed in consumer research'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 702-7. Slama, M.E. and Tashchian, A. (1985), ``Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with purchasing involvement'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Winter, pp. 72-82. Urbany, J.E. (1986), `Àn experimental examination of the economics of information'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, September, pp. 257-327. Wallendorf, M., Lindsey-Mullikin, J. and Pimentel, R. (1998), ``Retailing's involvement in the accumulation and transfer of cultural capital'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, p. 220. Williams, T.G. and Rogers, J.C. (1989), ``Personal values and consumer response to direct marketing'', in Bellur, V.V. and Rogers, J.C. (Eds), Proceedings: Western Decision Sciences Institute, pp. 164-6. Wright, P. and Rip, P.D. (1980), ``Product class advertising effects in first-time buyers' decision strategies'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, September, pp. 176-88.
&
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material present
Executive summary and implications for managers and executives

Class-based segmentation is useful but not on its own Segmentation on the basis of social class used to be something of a blunt instrument. Not only did we simplify class distinctions (upper, middle, lower) but also these definitions were, in some ways, rather nebulous. We all know what social class is but, when asked to define it, we resort to generalizations and sweeping statements. Social class is a complex construct and Williams, in endeavouring to bring it up-to-date as a segmentation tool, provides a singular service for marketers and researchers. The question for marketers is, in practical terms, when and how to use social class measures in segmentation. Given the complicated nature of the construct, we should shy away from simplified applications, since they will act to obfuscate more than elucidate. Moreover, social class does not impact equally on all purchase decision making nor does it act as a singular influence. Opera-going may be a ``middle class'' activity but this doesn't mean that being ``middle class'' is necessarily a good indicator of the propensity to buy Pavarotti CDs! Money can't buy you class or can it? Williams describes four factors that could help define social class occupation, education, socialization, and income. In the case of income there isn't a direct relationship with class it is true that incomes rise as we move up through the classes but there remain huge overlaps between the incomes of different classes. A private-school master earning 30,000 would be middle class, while a bricklayer earning 70,000 would remain working class despite the higher earnings. Williams describes how income disparity affects purchase decision making within the context of social class. The effects of class are modified by income, thereby reflecting the variation within each class income affects decision making but does so differently according to social class. Table AI illustrates how this might happen (in very simplified terms). There are people from each ``class'' with average incomes but the way this average income affects their purchasing will differ, as influenced by the prevailing attitudes of their particular class. If it's not money, what does define class? A classic question about class arises when we look to categorise a football star earning millions. This person can afford all the same things as the Duke of Westminster but nobody would consider them `ùpper class''. Other factors define the footballer's class chiefly education and occupation. Thus class is defined by what school the person attended, whether they went to college and their job. Modified by income, we are able to use easily gathered information (``what's your job?'' and ``did you go to college?'') to
Lower class Highest income Income II Average income Income IV Lowest income Middle class Upper class
Table AI.
develop a segmentation method that uses social class. The information concerned is not especially intrusive (a significant issue in this age of privacy concern) and a wide body of research and practical application supports its analysis. The result is another tool to apply in targeting marketing communications and advertising. Williams provides some caveats of which account needs to be taken the nature of what we are selling, the degree of financial commitment involved and the ``status'' attached to the purchase by the individual buyer. But social class can be applied effectively to market segmentation and should not be dismissed as a blunt instrument from the distant past. The middle class is very big Class-based analysis has long been a favourite of sociologists (often with an axe to grind about the so-called middle class) and in this context the application of class measures has been abused to make political points. However, class is a fact of life, like the differences between urban and rural, north and south, black and white. It should, nevertheless, be seen as just one source of social division not as the primary divider. Marketers and marketing researchers working as they are within a capitalist business milieu should avoid the application of Marxist class analysis. Social classes are not (even in the UK supposedly hierarchical) rigid divisions and the edges between the various ``classes'' are blurred to the point where demarcation becomes almost impossible. The old divisions upper classes owning, middle classes manning the professions, and working classes toiling at manual labour have no practical application in today's economy (and it is moot whether they ever had any application). This is not to say that the upper classes aren't owners and that blue-collar workers aren't working class but we should also recognise the vastly larger salaried ``class'' who do not own or direct, are not professionals in the traditional sense and don't work at a manual task. This ``lower middle class'' (as we were called) now represents the majority of US workers and their attitude and outlook differ as much from the professional e lite as from the traditional working classes. The result for many marketers is that social class divisions fail to make sufficient distinction between segments of this dominant middle class our brand promotions inevitably target the majority middle class outlook, missing nuances within that majority and failing to reach upper and lower class segments. (A pre cis of the article ``Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria''. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
276

Social Class Influence On Purchasing

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Social Class Influence On Purchasing

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria

Purchase alternative selection

Objectivity and significance

Psychological characteristics and responses

Children socialized differently

Computerized status index

Estimated from income categories

Table I. Characteristics of respondents

Table II. Age, education and occupational categories of husbands/wives

Notes: aDifference not significant at 0.05 or better; n = 306

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002

Garden tools n = 238 0.10

Stereo n = 232 0.74

Durability Low price Warranty Well-known brand Performance Reliability

Subjective criteria Quadrant 2

Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002

Garden tools n = 237 0.06

Stereo n = 239 0.80

Durability Low price Warranty Well-known brand Performance Reliability

Subjective criteria Quadrant 2

Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002

Garden tools n = 224 0.35

Stereo n = 219 0.19

Durability Low price Warranty Well-known brand Performance Reliability

Subjective criteria Quadrant 2

Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002

Garden tools n = 224 0.01

Stereo n = 223 0.10

Durability Low price Warranty Well-known brand Performance Reliability

Subjective criteria Quadrant 2

Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002

Garden tools n = 166 0.65

Stereo n = 160 0.01

Durability Low price Warranty Well-known brand Performance Reliability

Subjective criteria Quadrant 2

Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality

Differences calculated pair-wise

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002

Garden tools n = 163 0.05

Stereo n = 164 0.00

Durability Low price Warranty Well-known brand Performance Reliability

Subjective criteria Quadrant 2

Value Prestige brand Style/appearance Uniqueness Referent quality

Executive summary and implications for managers and executives

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOL. 19 NO. 3 2002

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen