Stigma by Association in Coupon Redemption

Stigma by Association in Coupon Redemption: Looking Cheap because of OthersJENNIFER J. ARGO KELLEY J. MAIN* The present research establishes that the innocuous behavior of coupon redemption is capable of eliciting stigma by association. The general finding across four studies shows that the coupon redemption behavior of one consumer results in a second non-coupon-redeeming shopper being stigmatized by association as cheap when a low as compared to a high value coupon is redeemed. More important, the research identifies a number of factors that protect a non-coupon-redeeming shopper from the undesirable experience of stigma by association, even during another shopper’s redemption of a low value coupon. I n today’s society a large emphasis is placed on wealth and status. To illustrate, consumers are willing to splurge upwards of $4 for coffee at Starbucks and $20–$30 more for groceries at Whole Foods Market, despite the availability of other establishments charging a lower price (Cramer 2005). Empirical research demonstrates that this appeal of brand name and luxury products may be partly related to their potential to help consumers satisfy status needs (Amaldoss and Jain 2005; O’Cass and McEwen 2004) and avoid appearing cheap (Argo, Dahl, and Manchanda 2005). One implication that arises from society’s fascination with wealth and status is that, when consumers engage in behaviors that deviate from this view, they risk being sanctioned. One form of social sanction that may arise is the stigmatization of the deviating behavior. Stigmatization occurs when an individual possesses an actual or believed trait, characteristic, or behavior that is devalued or perceived negatively in a given social context (Crocker, Major, and Steele 1998). Research has demonstrated that being stigmatized has significant negative consequences for a person (e.g., Crocker 1999; Crocker and Quinn 2003; Sargent and Blanchflower *Jennifer J. Argo is Roger S. Smith Associate Professor of Marketing at the Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R6, Canada ( [email protected]). Kelley J. Main is assistant professor of marketing at the Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, 181 Freedman Crescent, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V4, Canada ([email protected]). The authors would like to thank Darren Dahl, Monica Popa, and Katherine White for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. The authors would like to acknowledge their generous funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Humanities, Fine Arts, and Social Sciences Research Council. John Deighton served as editor and Laura Peracchio served as associate editor for this article. Electronically published July 16, 2008 1994), as can be seen in a variety of consumer settings such as the treatment of smokers by nonsmokers (Gibson 1998) or the negative impressions generated about coupon redeemers (Ashworth, Darke, and Schaller 2005). In fact, researchers have suggested that impression management and stigma-related concerns (Ashworth et al. 2005; see also Donthu and Cherian 1992; Green 1997; Hernandez 1988; Tepper 1994) may be one driver of the low coupon redemption rates that exist in the marketplace (i.e., less than 2%; Ives 2005). Despite consumers’ attempts to avoid stigmatization by choosing not to redeem coupons, we suggest that there is at least one factor in the retail environment that may thwart such efforts—the behavior of other shoppers. Specifically, we propose that non-coupon-redeeming shoppers may experience stigma by association (SBA). SBA, also referred to as a courtesy stigma, occurs when a stigma that arises from one individual’s behavior/trait/ characteristic extends to negatively affect another person located nearby (Goffman 1963; Hebl and Mannix 2003). Using a retail context, we conduct four experiments to demonstrate that the presence of one consumer redeeming a coupon results in a second non-coupon-redeeming shopper being stigmatized by association (i.e., perceived as cheap). In general, we find that SBA is more likely to occur when a low as compared to a high value coupon is redeemed (studies 1–4). More important, we propose and test factors specific to the consumption setting that may protect a noncoupon-redeeming consumer from SBA, even when another shopper redeems a low value coupon. To achieve this, we empirically manipulate three variables that influence the degree of similarity (i.e., commonality) that exists between the coupon redeemer and the non-coupon-redeeming shopper: personal relationship (studies 2–4), physical location (study 2), and attractiveness (study 3). Across the studies, we find that protection arises when similarity between the two shop559 ᭧ 2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 35 ● December 2008 All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2008/3504-0001$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/591102 but they also have been shown to apply to physical disabilities (Balter 1999). research has shown that increases in perceived similarity have a positive impact on the accessibility of information (e. One possible explanation for how SBA arises is spontaneous trait transference (Winter and Uleman 1984). SBA) to taint a “normal” other (i. While the physical marking from ancient times no longer occurs today. or stigma. and smoking (Swanson. we identify a condition under which a contrast effect occurs. resulting in SBA. This research makes a number of contributions to both the marketing and the psychology literatures. even when these behaviors are casually observed (Winter and Uleman 1984).g.e. spontaneous trait transference will be more likely to occur. our research is the first to demonstrate that the innocuous behavior of coupon redemption elicits SBA—a phenomenon typically thought to occur for traits/characteristics/behaviors such as physical disabilities and alcoholism. was an inescapable signal to others that these individuals should be avoided. In the next section we review the literature on social stigmas and SBA and delineate the direction of the current research. under which the elicitation of a stigma related to coupon redemption does not ultimately produce SBA. obesity (Allon 1982). absence of a personal relationship. 1984). Evans. Mussweiler 2003). Finally. 1994) and that the presence of an obese individual negatively influenced participants’ assessments of a normal weight individual as a potential job candidate (Hebl and Mannix 2003). and SBA effects are reversed. gender (Eagly and Steffen 1984).g. stigmas are no longer restricted to only those who have engaged in societal misconduct.. Third. While the purpose of the present research is not to empirically test for spontaneous trait transference in SBA per se. we use this theoretical framework as a basis for our predictions. We propose that because coupon redemption leads to the activation of cheap traits associated with the redeemer (Ashworth et al. The inferential process through which traits are transferred has three steps: trait activation (perceivers activate trait concepts during the interpretation of another’s behavior).. Karylowski 1990). SOCIAL STIGMAS In the days of the ancient Greeks. when the similarity between the two individuals is minimized through a variety of factors (i. the psychological marking of stigmas and their negative implications are still prevalent (Goffman 1963. Sechrist and Stangor 2001).. ex-convict) believed that the normal student would have more difficulty in college as compared to if the father did not have this trait. specific to the environment investigated.e. Indeed. and Greenwald 2001). we demonstrate conditions under which a stigma does not transfer to a non-coupon-redeeming shopper (i. we identify a condition. the normal shopper is protected from SBA.e.. Fourth.. conducted in both the field and the laboratory. SBA does not necessarily follow.e. In particular.560 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH pers is minimized. We find that. Jones et al. SBA does not arise). This mark. spontaneous trait transference will be more (less) likely to arise and result in (offer protection from) SBA effects. We find that coupon redemption on the part of one consumer has negative implications for another non-coupon-redeeming shopper located nearby. someone who does not objectively possess the stigmatized behavior/trait/characteristic). 2005).. Rud- Stigma by Association. and trait influence (associated traits transfer to influence the other person). trait association (activated trait concepts become associated with another person in the social environment).. the greater the similarity between the redeemer and the normal shopper.. when judgments about a subsequent consumer (i. when similarity is increased (decreased) between two consumers. Foremost. different physical locations. in turn. and high levels of attractiveness). Second. the transference of a stigma to the latter shopper is mitigated. In sum. the presence of this trait counteracts the stigma and not only protects this shopper but also extends to protect the coupon redeemer. thus. people rely on automatically elicited inferences when making social judgments to interpret the behaviors of others. normal shopper) are made.e.. we believe that accessibility of the trait and.. Since Goffman’s (1963) initial discussion of SBA. another important contribution of this research is that. In the subsequent sections. although a stigma may arise. Karylowski 1990. The identification of conditions under which SBA does not arise despite the presence of the negative behavior is an important extension of the stigma literature as to date no research has empirically identified conditions under which SBA can be prevented. Subsequent research has also found that SBA arose for a heterosexual male when in the presence of a homosexual male (Neuberg et al. Goffman (1963) also suggests that stigmas can extend from a marked person through a courtesy stigma (i. Stated differently. we suggest that. unlike previous work that has only produced assimilation effects for SBA. man. . limited research has focused on the topic.g. when a non-coupon-redeeming shopper possesses a highly positive trait. discredited. stigmatized individuals such as criminals and traitors were typically marked using knives and branding irons (Maio 2004). and Tyler 1986). One of the first empirical investigations to establish the existence of SBA was by Mehta and Farina (1988). mental illness (Hayward and Bright 1997).g. Further. and facilitates assimilation (rather than contrasts) in social comparisons (e. race (Dovidio. we present the results of four experiments.g. This demonstrates that. when the stigmatized shopper and the non-coupon-redeeming shopper are located in different checkout lines. or scorned. Further. the accessibility of this trait will lead to the inference that the normal nonredeeming shopper is also cheap. we demonstrate that SBA is most likely to occur when the degree of similarity between the coupon-redeeming consumer and the normal shopper is high. decreases latency times in responding to selfother information (e. In their research. participants who read a description of a college student whose father had a stigmatized trait (e. According to this literature. Sechrist and Stangor 2001) such that it increases the likelihood that stereotypes are activated and transferred (e. depressed. Bawa and Shoemaker 1987. Coupon Value.e.” In the high value condition. no coupon). were combined and averaged together to form a SBA index (a p .e.e. In particular. Krishna and Shoemaker 1992). increases in coupon value decrease negative perceptions related to coupon redemption). Previous research suggests that the presence of an external cue can increase the salience of a behavior/trait/characteristic (Coiffi 2003. Furthermore.” After the confederate with the pen.00 coupon is $3. In sum. When a regular shopper joined the line. 1996–97) and signals that they are low in status. participants completed a battery of items that assessed their perceptions of other shoppers in the retail context. in study 4 we change the perspective from which SBA is assessed to determine whether normal shoppers actually believe that they are negatively influenced by another consumer’s coupon redemption behavior. previous research has found evidence that perceptions of coupons differ depending on the coupon’s value (e. in studies 2–4 we seek to empirically demonstrate that increases in similarity due to the presence (vs.50. First. the second confederate shopper (who bought a magazine). the second shopper with the magazine). a coupon’s value has an inverse relationship with the perceptions it creates (i. an experimenter approached the actual shopper and asked whether s/he would agree to fill out a short survey. This increased salience can in turn enhance the likelihood that someone possessing that trait or engaging in that behavior will become stigmatized (Major and O’Brien 2005). we seek to demonstrate that the negative traits associated with redeeming a coupon can be transferred from the coupon redeemer to another shopper. a normal shopper) when a low as compared to a high value coupon is redeemed (studies 1–4). and financially poor.g.00. 2005). Method The purpose of study 1 is to assess whether consumers in a real shopping situation stigmatize by association a normal shopper located in close proximity to a coupon-redeeming consumer. As responses to these two items did not .9) completed the survey in exchange for $2. We then explore the impact of similarity between the two individuals on the tendency for SBA to arise.e. one cue that may increase the salience of the behavior/trait/characteristic is the face value of the coupon. To achieve this.” Finally. Thirty-two (12 males and 20 females) shoppers (average age p 30.. Taking this information together with the earlier discussion of spontaneous trait transference.e. In particular. they were asked to indicate on 7-point scales (not at all/extremely) the extent to which they perceived the shopper directly in front of them in line to have a number of different characteristics.. through the use of protective factors related to both the physical (i. Participants were then asked to indicate whether any shopper in line had redeemed a coupon. In the survey. we focus on the impact of minimizing similarity between the coupon redeemer and the normal shopper. Bonnici et al.. will be perceived as cheaper) when another consumer redeems a low value (as compared to a high value or no) coupon. and the actual shopper paid for their products. Crocker et al.95. First.50. we investigate the role of a factor inherent in the potentially negative behavior: coupon value. Finally. we do not anticipate a difference in the extent to which SBA will occur when a high value coupon as compared to no coupon is redeemed. Finally. we expect that a normal shopper will be stigmatized by association to a greater Procedure. the cashier did not mention a coupon and only said that “the price of the pen is $3. the cashier indicated that “the price of the pen after the $2. A field study investigated the influence of coupon value on SBA. cheap.e. Embedded within the list and other general questions about the retail environment were three items designed to assess whether shoppers stigmatized by association the normal shopper (i. we confirm that the coupon redemption behavior of one consumer produces SBA for a non-coupon-redeeming consumer (i. These items. STUDY 1 The goal of study 1 is to extend previous stigma research by demonstrating in a naturally occurring retail environment that the relatively innocuous behavior of coupon redemption is capable of eliciting SBA.e. In a coupon-redeeming context. on the extent to which SBA occurs.STIGMA BY ASSOCIATION IN COUPON REDEMPTION 561 that examine SBA in coupon redemption. No differences in SBA are expected between the high value coupon and no coupon conditions. attractiveness: study 3) environments. a pen). In contrast. high value vs.. participants indicated their gender and age. in the no coupon condition. two confederates situated themselves in the line at a checkout counter at a store.e. which included cheap. given that high value coupons are positively perceived in the marketplace (Schindler 1998) and are therefore unlikely to elicit SBA.g. absence) of a personal relationship between the redeemer and normal shopper result in SBA.. consumers report that using a low value coupon is humiliating (i. checkout counter: study 2) and social (i. Indeed. For example.. makes them feel like they are begging for money. Study 1 manipulated coupon value (low vs. no coupon) in a between-subjects experimental design. In the study. high vs. and if so who.. Second. see table 1 for interitem correlations). degree (i. consumers view high value coupons as attractive and desirable and perceive themselves as smart shoppers for redeeming them (e.. 1998).. penny-pincher. We achieve this in two ways. Schindler 1998). H1: A normal shopper will be stigmatized by association to a greater extent when another consumer redeems a low value coupon (vs. or not wealthy (Ashworth et al. In the low value condition the cashier then stated that “the price of the pen after the 50 cent coupon is $3.50. the cashier rang through the first confederate’s product (i.. 2001). This study provides initial.62 1.80. 29) p 21. Discussion. consumers appear to infer that one shopper in the retail environment is cheap. Monge and Kirste 1980).00. it follows that SBA will be more likely to occur when two individuals share (vs. H2: SBA effects will be greater when a personal relationship exists between a coupon redeemer and a normal shopper. we find that SBA is most likely to occur when a low value coupon is redeemed.44.69 . p ! .e. In particular. we highlight a condition under which a stigma occurs in isolation. based on the behavior of another. A secondary objective of study 2 is to identify a condition under which the elicitation of a stigma does not produce SBA.85 . The effect of personal relationship on SBA is expected to be moderated by the physical location of the two shoppers. Next we present our discussion on the impact of personal relationship and physical location on SBA. and values (e.00 1.75 . Indeed. This prediction is consistent with Goffman’s (1963) suggestion that people who are highly susceptible to SBA include those working with (e.. No differences arose in SBA between the high value and no coupon conditions (t ! 1).. Griffitt and Veitch (1974) showed that simply knowing the opinions of participants on various issues facilitated an accurate prediction as to which previously unacquainted individuals would ultimately associate with one another. Ninety percent of participants correctly indicated whether a coupon was redeemed..69 1. Overall.00 . functional distance (i.001). Thus. For example. this study provides a powerful demonstration of SBA in an unexpected context. p ! .63 1. and of that percentage all correctly identified the person with the pen as the coupon redeemer. where our interest in coupon redemption is not salient. Specifically. study 2 seeks to identify conditions under which a normal shopper can be protected from SBA effects (i.00 1.33) versus a high value coupon (M p 2.001) was redeemed. Buss 1985. and create personal relationships with those with whom they share similar attitudes.00 . Thus. Berscheid and Walster 1978. a good predictor that two people are high in similarity and share a relationship is their physical proximity to one another. t (29) p 5. SBA no longer arises during coupon redemption).53 1. evidence that the stigmatized behavior of one consumer redeeming a coupon has negative implications for another normal shopper located in close proximity. in a naturally occurring environment. In general.00 ..g.g.72 1. Moderating Role of Physical Location. Therefore.76. t (29) p 5. the spouse of a disabled person) stigmatized individuals (Corrigan and Miller 2004. While previous research on SBA has only shown or suggested that the presence of a stigma automatically leads to SBA.562 TABLE 1 INTERITEM CORRELATIONS Cheap Study 1: Cheap Penny-pincher Financially poor Study 2: Cheap Penny-pincher Financially poor Study 3: Cheap Penny-pincher Financially poor Study 4: Cheap Penny-pincher Financially poor Penny-pincher Financially poor JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH STUDY 2 In study 1 we find that SBA occurs when a low value coupon is redeemed. Test of Hypothesis. Results Preliminary Results. Study 2 seeks to build on this finding in two ways. In a retail context. Given our earlier theorizing that a decrease in similarity will lower the likelihood that spontaneous trait transference will occur.001) or no coupon (M p 1.00 predict significant variance in any of the dependent measures in this study or in the subsequent studies.00 . do not share) a personal relationship.00 .12. Wetzel and Insko 1982). Taking this together with our earlier discussion on spontaneous trait transference. psychiatrists) and those connected through their personal relationship to (e.74 1.00 1. Post hoc tests indicated that SBA was greatest when a low (M p 4. A one-way ANOVA with the SBA index as the dependent variable and coupon value as the independent variable revealed that shoppers stigmatized a normal shopper who did not redeem a coupon (F(2. Struening et al.00 . the greater the likelihood that similarity will be implied. beliefs. p ! .e. in study 2 we manipulate two factors that operationalize similarity in different ways: personal relationship and physical location. people tend to like.00 . yet robust.89 1. 1.63 . they are not discussed further.00 . First. the ease and extent with which two people’s paths cross) has been shown to influence the likelihood of people becoming friends due to the similarities that arise (Insko and Wilson 1977. redemption of a low value coupon by one consumer affects the extent to which a second shopper is perceived to be cheap. Kandel 1978. Byrne 1971. while study 1 demonstrates that SBA can occur during coupon redemption. the redemption of a high value coupon protects the normal shopper from being perceived as cheap. one way to study functional distance is through the layout of the store at the point . associate with.91 1.. Personal Relationship. participants liked others who were more similar to themselves.g. the closer two people are in terms of distance. the likelihood that they would engage in a variety of behaviors if they were to encounter the normal shopper . Method This study used a 2 (coupon value: low vs. In the different line condition participants saw the two other shoppers standing at separate checkout lines located next to each other. Similarly. participants completed a questionnaire that included measures of the dependent variables. Mdif p 3. we also expect that. using 7-point scales (not at all likely/extremely likely).24 vs.38 vs. regardless of the relationship between the two. When the normal shopper is located in a different line.15. H4: When a normal shopper is located in the same line as the coupon redeemer. After seeing the photograph. SBA will be more likely to arise when a low (vs.00. p ! . H5: Coupon redeemers will be stigmatized more when a low (vs. the coupon redeemer). In addition. p ! . Finally. They read that. In contrast. At this time they noticed two other shoppers already in the checkout area (i. no) between-subjects experimental design. Mno p 3. The order in which these two questions were asked was counterbalanced to minimize the likelihood of demand effects.00 coupon (high condition). different line) # 2 (personal relationship: yes vs. First. participants completed open-ended questions that asked them to list five adjectives that described their thoughts/feelings about the consumer-related traits and shopping characteristics of the person with the office supplies (i. similarity was higher when the normal shopper and the coupon redeemer were in the same line at the checkout (Msame p 5. a penny-pincher. One hundred forty-four University of Alberta undergraduates (71 males and 73 females) completed the study in exchange for a $10 honorarium. Procedure.” Participants then responded to the same three items used in study 1 to assess their impressions of the shopper purchasing the magazine.” “a tight wad. we expect that the coupon redeemer will be stigmatized more when the coupon value is low versus high. participants continued to read in the scenario that they overheard the cashier talking to the shopper with the office supplies. regardless of the normal shopper’s location.001) and when a relationship existed between the two shoppers (Myes p 5. and financially poor.STIGMA BY ASSOCIATION IN COUPON REDEMPTION 563 of purchase. high) # 2 (location of the normal shopper: same line vs. In particular.37. t (30) p 5. when the normal shopper is in a different line from the coupon-redeeming consumer. participants were asked to indicate. these same three items were also included to measure stigma perceptions. one with office supplies and one with a magazine). and as a result the impact of SBA on the normal shopper will be mitigated. Initial agreement between the coders was 95%.e. as the location of the two shoppers relative to one another is irrelevant to the elicitation of a stigma in this context. Two independent coders. the decrease in functional distance will minimize similarity. In particular. SBA will be more likely to arise when a personal relationship exists (vs. In contrast. More specifically. they approached the checkout to pay for their product. while in the same line condition the two shoppers were standing at the same checkout line. regardless of the redeemed coupon’s value. participants were asked to indicate on 7-point scales (not at all/extremely) the extent to which they perceived the shopper with the office supplies to be cheap. The photograph was used to manipulate the location of the normal shopper. SBA is expected to arise to a greater extent when a low versus a high value coupon is redeemed. After reading the scenario. t (31) p 7. This discussion was used to achieve the coupon value manipulation. irrespective of the layout. Post hoc tests confirmed that. coded the cognitive responses for each question. Representative comments included “cheap. SBA will not arise. When a normal shopper is located in a different line from the coupon redeemer. high) value coupon is redeemed.e. according to the number of adjectives participants listed that described each of the shoppers as cheap.” and “frugal.76). regardless of the type of personal relationship that exists. To achieve the personal relationship manipulation. after browsing in the store and locating a book of interest.50 coupon (low condition) or the $2. when the normal shopper is in a different line. Participants were then presented with a photograph of the checkout area of a store.52. These three items were combined and averaged together to create a SBA index (a p . consistent with our conceptualization. The order of these two sets of questions was counterbalanced. does not exist).. SBA will arise as similarity will be high and spontaneous trait transference will be likely to occur.. These items were combined and averaged together to create a stigma index (a p . they either overheard the cashier indicating the total value of the office supplies after the savings with the $0. Another set of three items was included to further investigate the implications of SBA for the normal shopper. H3: When a normal shopper is located in the same line as the coupon redeemer. and disagreements were resolved through discussions with one of the authors. when two shoppers are in the same line at the checkout and they share a personal relationship.001). They then repeated this task describing the shopper with the magazine. high) value coupon is redeemed. regardless of the coupon value. In this study participants were asked to read and imagine a scenario that described a shopping experience that transpired at a local store where they went to purchase a book. SBA effects will be attenuated. differences in SBA effects will be mitigated. the scenario indicated that it was obvious either that the two shoppers knew one another very well (yes condition) or that the two shoppers did not know one another at all (no condition). similar to study 1. when the normal shopper and coupon redeemer are in the same line. blind to the purpose of the study.80). In particular. we predict that. VALUE # LOCATION INTERACTION Results Preliminary Analyses.53.95). p ! .05) An ANOVA using the behavioral index as the dependent variable revealed main effects for coupon value. SBA effects were highest when a personal relationship existed and the two shoppers were in the same line (M p 3. to provide a more global perspective of the implications of one consumer’s coupon redemption behavior.41. in a social setting (i. 135) p 28. 134) p 32. to assess participants’ perceptions of the relationship between the two shoppers.99. which were combined and averaged together. and unfavorable/favorable).82). coupon value index r p . In addition. 135) p 5. cared very little about/cared a lot about. Second. An ANOVA conducted using coupon value. they completed three items on 7-point scales. 92% of participants correctly identified where the normal shopper was located. the coupon was a significant discount [not at all/very much so] and how big was the discount [not very big/very big]. 135) p 17.50. Test of Hypotheses. t (139) p 4. main effects for coupon value and location ( p’s ! . location. Finally.001. Myes p 3. and were not at all important to/were very important to each other (relationship index a p . consistent with hypothesis 3. the manipulations were successful. as compared to the other three conditions (Mno/same p 2. asked them to indicate the extent to which the two shoppers were not at all central to/were very central to. p ! . These items. see fig. t (139) p 6.001). These items were combined and averaged together to create a store evaluation index (a p . regardless of the coupon value ( p’s 1 . Mhi p 4.84) versus the other conditions (Mhi/same p 2.70. An ANOVA using the relationship index as the dependent variable produced a significant main effect for personal . Thus. p ! . t (139) p 5. p ! .73). p ! .001. 1) and between coupon value and location (F(1..001.564 FIGURE 1 STUDY 2: DEGREE OF STIGMA BY ASSOCIATION. Planned contrasts of the coupon value and location interaction supported hypothesis 4 as SBA effects were greatest when the shoppers were in the same line and a low value coupon was redeemed (M p 3. see fig.40. Responses to the cognitive response questions produced similar patterns of results. terrible/outstanding.02. Finally. 135) p 17. Finally. When the two shoppers were in a different line. Mlo p 2. p ! .84. poor/excellent.96. a recall measure asking whether the two shoppers were in the same line (yes/no) indicated participants’ cognizance of the location of the shoppers relative to one another. A 2 (coupon value) # 2 (location) # 2 (personal relationship) ANOVA was conducted using the SBA index as the dependent variable. These items were combined and averaged together to create a behavioral index (a p . participants completed five items using 11-point scales to assess their evaluations of the store (i. no significant differences in SBA arose.001).001). t (139) p 6.28. with the exception that a main effect for location was not realized ( p 1 . p ! . Mno p 1.e.20). Finally.94).67). p ! ..05) and a significant interaction between coupon value and location (F(1. results of the analysis produced a significant main effect for personal relationship (F(1.71. location. Mno/dif p 2. and smile at).. Planned contrasts of the location and personal relationship interaction revealed that. questions were included as manipulation checks for our independent variables.10.001. Consistent with hypothesis 2.67. 135) p FIGURE 2 STUDY 2: DEGREE OF STIGMA BY ASSOCIATION.27. 2) were realized. p ! . Myes/dif p 2. p ! . Mhi/dif p 2.001. unpleasant/pleasant. t (139) p 7. p ! . t (139) p 4. Mlo/dif p 2.001.28. RELATIONSHIP # LOCATION INTERACTION JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH relationship (F(1.05.e.10). go for coffee with.88. Participants completed two items on 7-point scales that assessed their perceptions of the size of the discount (i.64. and personal relationship as the independent variables and the coupon value index as the dependent variable revealed a significant main effect for value (F(1. talk to.42.23). bad/good.001) and significant two-way interactions between location and personal relationship (F(1.e.23. and personal relationship ( p’s ! .001. p p . as compared to the other conditions (Mhi/same p 8. t (139) p 3.e.72. this study finds that simply because a stigma exists does not mean SBA will arise. Murstein 1986). Mhi/dif p 4.49). Taking this together with our earlier conceptualization. a contrast effect arises). similarity was low). Analysis conducted using the store evaluation index as a dependent variable produced a significant main effect for coupon value ( p ! . Moreover..e.e.. at least one alternative explanation exists for our findings. Thus. Stated differently. t (139) p 2.09). In particular. in this condition the normal shopper was situated the same distance behind the coupon redeemer as the distance that existed between the two separate lines.05). To test this alternative explanation. p p . STUDY 3 Study 3 seeks to build upon the earlier two studies by determining whether an additional operationalization of similarity (i. Stated differently. Discussion.e. p ! . However. a normal shopper should be perceived as more (less) similar to another shopper who is average (high) in attractiveness. Dahl. p ! .56. which has been unable to empirically identify such a condition. t (139) p 3. it is possible that the decrease in SBA was simply due to an increased physical distance between the two shoppers. we expect that.84.54.001).45. This follows recent work by Argo et al.001.88) versus a high (M p 2.. Given that the majority of people are average in their level of attractiveness..25. similarity is low).. Thus.05). p ! . 1971). p ! . and a significant two-way interaction between coupon value and location (F(1.g. such as models or movie stars.05. the positive trait of attractiveness will transfer from the normal shopper to protect the coupon redeemer from the consequences of his/her own negative behavior (i. Prior research findings suggest that the attractiveness of individuals may influence the extent to which SBA arises (e.e. we expect that SBA (and stigmatization) will occur to the greatest extent when a normal shopper’s level of attractiveness is average (i. Independent sample t-tests comparing the proximity and the same line conditions indicated that the two did not differ significantly for SBA (t (67) p . Thus.001)..30. average) in attractiveness. SBA and stigmatization will occur to . p 1 . For example. (2008). Consistent with hypothesis 5.001). this study seeks to identify a condition under which SBA effects can be reversed (i.05).75) value coupon was redeemed. thereby extending the SBA literature. the extent to which stigmatization occurs will decrease). Mlo/dif p 4. SBA effects were greater when a relationship existed and the coupon value was low. regardless of the personal relationship or the coupon value. Huston 1973. t (139) p 3. psychologists have found that people prefer to approach and marry someone with whom they share a similar level of attractiveness (Berscheid et al. Mhi/dif p 8. similarity between the two shoppers will be highest when the normal shopper is of average attractiveness.01. the normal shopper is perceived not only to be cheaper but also as a less desirable person with whom to interact. and Morales 2008.41. attractiveness) also protects a normal shopper from SBA. who demonstrate that the impact of highly attractive sources in a retail context is powerful enough to reverse previously identified negative effects of consumer contagion (Argo.001. Due to the location of the second line. 31 participants saw a photograph in which the normal shopper was in the same line as the coupon redeemer.06.58). Mprox p 2. p p . but we also anticipate that high levels of this positive trait can reverse SBA effects and in turn affect perceptions of the redeemer. and Morales 2006). same) line condition.20. Argo. when a normal shopper is high (vs. This contrast effect is expected to arise. p p . when one consumer redeems a low value coupon and the two shoppers are in the same line.e. Attractiveness. the coupon-redeeming consumer was perceived to be cheaper when a low (M p 3.14).e.. H6a: When the normal shopper is average in attractiveness. regardless of the coupon value or the presence of a relationship.17.12. as compared to the other conditions (Mhi/same p 4. similarity was high). In the proximity condition. Finally. not only do we expect that SBA effects will be mitigated for the normal shopper regardless of the coupon value and relationship status when the shopper is high in attractiveness (i. 135) p 4. In contrast. Although the results of this study are consistent with our theorizing. Finally. Further. The absence of statistical significance suggests that the decrease in SBA realized in the different line condition is consistent with our theorizing related to similarity and is not explained by the simple protective nature of greater distance. 135) p 38. when the normal shopper and the coupon redeemer were located in the same line (i. Planned contrasts revealed that participants were least likely to want to interact with the normal shopper when a low value coupon was redeemed and the shoppers were in the same line (M p 3.80. the store was evaluated lower when a low value coupon was redeemed and the two shoppers were in the same line (M p 7. an ANOVA using the stigma index as the dependent variable only revealed a main effect for coupon value (F(1. Dahl. as compared to a smaller number of people who are highly attractive.STIGMA BY ASSOCIATION IN COUPON REDEMPTION 565 4. 1971.72. p ! . SBA did not occur. Overall. when a normal shopper was located in a different line (i. the normal shopper was physically further away from the coupon redeemer in the different (vs. a marginally significant main effect for location ( p ! . t (139) p 3.67. an additional experimental (proximity) condition was included. Msame p 3.. Berscheid et al. Mlo/dif p 8.42. This study demonstrates that conditions that signal higher (lower) similarity between an individual engaging in a negative behavior and a normal individual increase (decrease) the extent to which SBA occurs. similarity is high) and both a relationship exists and the coupon value is low.96. consumers will be less likely to stigmatize the coupon-redeeming shopper.89. t (139) p 3. 001).87.58. Finally. selecting those in the high attractiveness condition. Method This study used a 2 (coupon value: low vs.05.001.001. The results produced a significant main effect for level of attractiveness (F(1. appealing. including attractive. p ! . and attractiveness (F(1. the no coupon control group (M p 1.20.93). This resulting match or mismatch in gender between the participant and the shopper in the photograph did not influence the results and is not discussed further. p ! . a no coupon control condition was included. 3).62. Mhi/no p 2. average) # 2 (personal relationship: yes vs. One hundred and sixty-nine undergraduates (64 males and 105 females) from the University of Alberta completed the study in exchange for $10.60. SBA effects were greater when a low value coupon was redeemed and a personal relationship existed (M p 5. A 2 (coupon value) # 2 (personal relationship) ANOVA with SBA as the dependent variable produced a main effect for coupon value ( p ! . all manipulations were successful. First. differences in both SBA and stigmatization will be mitigated. Mno p 3. t (66) p 2. VALUE # RELATIONSHIP INTERACTION Results Preliminary Analyses. and good-looking (attractive index a p .11.73. a significant two-way interaction between coupon value and attractiveness ( p ! . Test of Hypotheses.15.84). t (30) p 7.20). behavioral index a p . A pretest confirmed the normal shopper’s designated level of attractiveness. In the high attractiveness condition the photograph was of an extremely attractive model. Mavg p 2. the photograph was used to manipulate the attractiveness of the normal shopper (rather than physical location). post hoc tests comparing the control group revealed that.94. A second simple interaction was then conducted. 135) p 3. t (66) p 6. see fig. A second ANOVA using the coupon value index as the dependent variable revealed a significant main effect for value (F(1.36.001). while in the average attractiveness condition the photograph was of an averagelooking individual. a simple interaction was first conducted selecting for those in the average attractiveness condition. a third ANOVA with the relationship index as the dependent variable produced a significant main effect for . male participants saw both male and female shoppers). When the shopper was high in attractiveness.05).74). Mhi p 4. Therefore.001) and a significant two-way interaction (F(1.11. while a post hoc test confirmed that those average in attractiveness were perceived to be more similar to a typical shopper (Mavg p 4. Mhi p 4. Finally. H6b: When the normal shopper is high in attractiveness. p ! .001.001.82) as described in study 2 were used with three exceptions. Myes p 3.14. and a significant threeway interaction among coupon value.82) did FIGURE 3 STUDY 3: DEGREE OF STIGMA BY ASSOCIATION. p ! .85.. the no coupon control (M p 2. because this study focused on the impact of the social environment. high) # 2 (attractiveness: high vs.001) and when a high value coupon was redeemed and a personal relationship was present (t (66) p 4. p ! . The gender of the shopper in the photograph was varied across participants (e.001). 135) p 94. personal relationship (F(1. 135) p 83. Differences also arose when no personal relationship existed and a low versus high value coupon was redeemed (t (66) p 3.566 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH the greatest extent when the coupon value is low and a relationship exists. stigma index a p . Participants also completed three items using 7-point scales (not at all/ very) that assessed their perceptions of the attractiveness of the shopper with the magazine.001. p ! . Second. Mlo p 2. p ! . 135) p 11. A similar scenario and dependent variables (SBA a p .g.47). no) + 1 (no coupon control) between-subjects experimental design. Procedure.14. An ANOVA was conducted with the inclusion of the three independent variables and the attractiveness index as the dependent variable.51. when the normal shopper was average in attractiveness.81. Results did not produce any significant effects ( p’s 1 . To analyze the three-way interaction. the three items used to assess SBA were included to assess participants’ evaluations of the store’s clientele (clientele index a p . Finally.96).001) but did not differ from the high value coupon condition ( p 1 . regardless of the coupon value and the personal relationship.64 . Planned contrasts found that. No other main effects or interactions were significant in the analyses.20 ).89. p ! . p ! . when the normal shopper was average in attractiveness. 66) p 4.05). p ! . Mhi p 2.18) was lower then when the coupon value was low ( p ! . personal relationship.83. t (66) p 5. A 2 (coupon value) # 2 (attractiveness) # 2 (personal relationship) ANOVA using the SBA index as the dependent variable produced significant main effects for coupon value and attractiveness ( p’s ! .001). p ! . Mlo/no p 4.07) versus the other conditions (Mhi/yes p 2.38.80. p ! . p ! .. the first evidence for a contrast effect in SBA research.g. t (139) p 5.52.001). thereby protecting the normal shopper. the presence of a highly attractive normal shopper not only mitigates the existence of SBA. when similarity is low (i. p 1 . Mlo/hi p 4.53. regardless of the coupon value.001) and a significant interaction between coupon value and attractiveness (F(1. p ! . similar analysis using participants’ evaluations of the store’s clientele as a dependent variable revealed main effects for coupon value and attractiveness ( p’s ! . Birenbaum 1970. Planned contrasts revealed that the consumer redeeming a coupon was stigmatized more when the normal shopper was average in attractiveness and a low (M p 4. 135) p 34.73. when a low value coupon is redeemed and a relationship exists.. SBA is less likely to occur. In particular. An ANOVA using the behavioral index as the dependent variable revealed a main effect for each of the independent variables ( p’s ! . Importantly. attractiveness is average) we replicate our earlier findings. normal shoppers should experience felt SBA to a greater extent when they share a relationship (high in similarity) with the stigmatized coupon redeemer. t (139) p 3. and the research indicates that stigmas are personally problematic as they disrupt other family relations (Wahl and Harman 1989). Store clientele were evaluated as significantly cheaper when a low value coupon was redeemed and the normal shopper was average in attractiveness (M p 4.31. to our knowledge.001). 2001).25.. Thus.e. it appears that the positive trait related to attractiveness not only protects the normal shopper from SBA but also reflects back to protect the normal coupon redeemer from being stigmatized. metaperceptions) related to felt SBA arising from another consumer’s behavior when personal relationship and coupon value are manipulated. H7: Normal shoppers will experience felt SBA to a greater extent when they share a relationship with the coupon redeemer and the coupon value is low (vs. this study presents. t (138) p 3. t (139) p 4. normal shopper’s felt SBA should not differ. t (139) p 3.001.01).98.001) and a low value coupon was stigmatized less (M p 3. More important and consistent with our prediction that a contrast effect can occur when a normal shopper has a highly positive trait.e. regardless of the coupon value and the relationship between the two shoppers. Related empirical research on collective threat (e. average) in attractiveness.g. p ! ..59. study 4 tests normal shoppers’ self-reports (i.10). p ! .001.01.05).20) and was marginally lower than the high value coupon condition (t (99) p 1. t (139) p 7.68.07) versus the other conditions (Mhi/avg p 4. p ! . Finally. when the normal shopper was high (vs. In sum. In doing so we are able to determine whether normal shoppers actually believe that they are being stigmatized by association and whether this belief is related to the degree of similarity that exists between them and the coupon redeemer. When in the presence of coupon redeemer with whom they do not share a relationship.29. but also Felt Stigma by Association..05. attractiveness is high). STUDY 4 Study 4 extends the results of the first three studies by investigating SBA from a different perspective—the “normal” shopper. Mhi/hi p 4.03.05) and a significant interaction between coupon value and attractiveness (F(1. high) value coupon is redeemed.16. transfers back to attenuate the stigmatization of the coupon redeemer. An ANOVA using the stigma index as the dependent variable produced a main effect for coupon value ( p ! .69.94. research exploring felt SBA has been qualitative and correlational in nature (e. .01) and a significant two-way interaction between the variables (F(1. For instance. p ! . similarity is high because they belong to the same group) engages in stereotype-confirming behaviors.28) versus the other conditions (Mhi/avg p 2. t (138) p 4. a consumer redeeming both a high (M p 3.STIGMA BY ASSOCIATION IN COUPON REDEMPTION 567 not differ statistically from the low value coupon condition (t (99) p 1.. We demonstrate that the positive trait of the normal shopper’s physical attractiveness counteracts the negative trait of cheapness associated with coupon redemption.05). Ostman and Kjellin 2002. t (139) p 5. p ! . 135) p 7. survey research shows that caregivers and family members of stigmatized individuals believe that society looks down on them as a family (Struening et al. p p . Cohen and Garcia 2005) also supports the possibility that SBA will be sensed by normal people when they are in the presence of someone similar. Mlo/hi p 2. we expect that felt SBA will be greater when normal shoppers are in the presence of a coupon redeemer with whom they share a relationship and when a low (vs. stigmas extend to negatively affect perceptions of the store’s clientele.e.69. Participants were least likely to want to interact with the normal shopper when a low value coupon was redeemed and the shopper was average in attractiveness (M p 3. this preliminary evidence would suggest that normal shoppers will be aware that associating with a stigmatized consumer will lead to a risk of being stigmatized themselves. Doyle 1999.28.09. More specifically. Mhi/hi p 3.e. Differences in felt SBA will be attenuated when a relationship does not exist between the two individuals.46. Discussion. p ! .001).79.15. The results of this study are consistent with our theorizing that. Thus. this will result in more negative judgments of the entire group. Wahl and Harman 1989).001.65. To achieve this. 134) p 6. regardless of the coupon value.47. p ! . To date. p ! .48) versus a high (M p 3. this research shows that individuals are concerned that. p ! . when one member of their stereotyped group (i. Thus. t (138) p 2. high).001) value coupon was redeemed.54. When similarity is high (i. Taking this together with our earlier discussion on personal relationship and coupon redemption. participants were told that the purpose of the study was to conduct marketing research for the university bookstore.001. p ! . Results of this analysis produced a significant interaction between coupon value and personal relationship (F(1.59. participants were asked to indicate their metastereotypes relative to the cashier by indicating “to what degree did you think the cashier thought you were ___”). Unbeknownst to the buyers. an open-ended response question was completed that asked participants to indicate their task in the bookstore. Prior to the study’s commencement the experimenter ensured that participants did not know each other in the latter condition. One hundred seventy-six undergraduates (67 males and 109 females) from the University of Alberta completed the study in exchange for $10. high) value FIGURE 4 STUDY 4: FELT STIGMA-BY-ASSOCIATION INDEX.80. The pair then entered the store. VALUE # RELATIONSHIP INTERACTION Procedure. Mhi/no p 3.67.27. A second ANOVA with the same independent variables and the coupon value index as the dependent variable was also conducted to assess the success of the coupon value manipulation. To achieve this. p ! .25 (low value) or $1. and O’Connell 1998).001. Test of Hypothesis. In study 4 we find that normal shoppers indeed feel SBA.001. when a personal relationship existed between the stigmatized and normal shopper. t (83) p 2. Therefore. they privately selected an envelope that identified a product for them. p 1 . The experimenter provided buyers with $5. Finally. p ! . they were told that they would go to the store together. personal relationship a p .13.46.05).001. Main. high) # 2 (personal relationship: yes vs.44. Mlo p 2. Although the buyers’ responses were not of interest. A 2 # 2 ANOVA was conducted using the felt SBA index as a dependent variable.e. regardless of the coupon value (t (83) p 1. p ! . felt SBA was more likely to arise when a low (vs.00 and a coupon worth either $0. while in the no relationship condition participants were asked to sign up individually and were matched with a stranger.05). they completed a questionnaire to maintain the cover story. To determine which product buyers would purchase. Manipulation checks were then assessed (coupon value index r p . all of the envelopes indicated that the target product was a greeting card.568 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH Method This study used a 2 (coupon value: low vs. As only one member of each pair was an actual participant (i. When a personal relationship did not exist. 84) p 67. a 2 (coupon value) # 2 (personal relationship) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted using the relationship index as the dependent variable. 84) p 225. where one person would make a purchase. Instructions for registering to participate in the study were used to achieve the personal relationship manipulation.67. Results produced a significant main effect for personal relationship (F(1.26. Results Preliminary Analyses. In the yes relationship condition. Mno p 1.39. p ! .87 vs. t (83) p 3. see fig. and returned to the experimenter for a questionnaire. Discussion. 4).97). Myes p 5. Mlo/no p 2.73. To manipulate coupon value. completed their task. 83) p 12. One participant was randomly assigned to the role of the coupon redeemer (buyer) and the other person to the role of the normal shopper (accompanier).00 (high value) off the regular price. the size of the sample analyzed in this study actually consisted of 88 participants (25 males and 63 females).97).46. with the blank filled in with each of the same measures identified in the earlier studies (felt SBA index a p . In particular. Normal shoppers’ beliefs that they were the target of SBA were assessed using metastereotype measures (Vorauer. Mhi p 5..77. buyers were then privately informed that the bookstore was running a promotion and that a coupon was available for the assigned product. participants were informed that the experiment required that they sign up in pairs with a friend. felt SBA did not differ. Normal shoppers believed that they were stigmatized by the cashier the most when they had a personal relationship with the redeemer and the coupon value was low (M p 3. the manipulations were successful.73). . Results revealed a significant main effect for value (F(1.001. t (83) p 3. In particular. To investigate felt SBA a field study was conducted. p p . Upon arrival at the study. examination of the open-ended response question indicated that all participants were cognizant of their task. Mhi/yes p 2. no) between-subjects experimental design.10). Finally. This analysis enabled us to determine the extent to which non-coupon-redeeming shoppers themselves believed that they were stigmatized by association due to another shopper’s couponredeeming behavior. To assess the success of our relationship manipulation. the second member created the personal relationship manipulation and was not of theoretical interest). Participants were run in pairs. and attractiveness. While we motivate our hypotheses using spontaneous trait transfer as an explanation for how stigmas are transferred to normal shoppers and suggest it occurs when similarity is high.e. Penaloza 1994). we identify a condition under which a stigma arises but does not produce SBA for the normal shopper. Second. This study is the first to empirically test for felt SBA as.htm). to date. It has been suggested that there are two dimensions of social desirability: self-deception (the unconscious tendency to perceive oneself in a favorable light) and impression management (the conscious self-presentation of oneself designed for a specific audience.wsd1.g. we demonstrate the role of similarity between a normal shopper and a stigmatized other in influencing the extent to which SBA arises. physical location. see also Leary 1995. Zhou and Soman 2003). 2003) suggests that interactive social encounters are interdependent as each social actor’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors can deliberately affect each other’s face work. One of the difficulties inherent in stigma research is the social desirability bias wherein people have a tendency to present themselves in a positive light (Tourangeau and Yan 2007). shoppers are in the same line. and behaviors (e. high) value coupon is redeemed. Star Trek fans. Further. the absence of a personal relationship mitigates felt SBA.e. 2006. and attractiveness of the normal shopper is average) and a low (vs..STIGMA BY ASSOCIATION IN COUPON REDEMPTION 569 coupon was redeemed. feelings. this research highlights a situation in which a trait associated with the normal shopper overrides the elicitation of a stigma and ultimately protects not only the normal shopper from SBA but also the coupon-redeeming consumer from stigmatization (study 3). by demonstrating that the actions of noninteracting others can also derail another normal shopper’s impression management efforts. Mexican immigrants. in addition to empirically testing the possibility that SBA arises due to the misattribution of traits. and Moore 1978) to determine their role in the elicitation of SBA. future research is also needed to explore alternative mechanisms such as social contagion (Latane ´ 2000). Schlenker 1980. we find that a coupon-related stigma fails to transfer (study 2). In contrast. Future research may seek to explore circumstances in which the stigmatization and SBA of negative behaviors may be desirable. SBA occurs to a greater extent in a coupon redemption context in which similarities are high between the coupon redeemer and the normal shopper (i. We find that the stigma of coupon redemption negatively taints the impressions of others (i. 1967. Past social marketing campaigns that have used slogans such as “friends don’t let friends drink and drive” and “friends don’t let friends smoke” have spoofed traditional advertisements’ focus on the “cool” aspects of smoking (http:// www. Recent work in marketing has focused on consumer stigmatization related to cultural backgrounds (e. Paulhus 1984). We achieve this by operationalizing similarity using three different variables: personal relationship. What both of these social marketing campaigns have in common is that ... or social distraction (Sanders. literacy levels (Adkins and Ozanne 2005).org/sargentpark/webquest/index. Indeed. leading to increased difficulty in examining the process underlying SBA.. we find empirical evidence demonstrating that normal shoppers accurately predict SBA effects due to another consumer’s behaviors (i. felt SBA. Future research should seek to explore new methods such as the use of implicit measures to explore SBA. research exploring felt SBA has been either qualitative or correlational in nature. Leary and Kowalski 1990. age (Tepper 1994). Kozinets 2001). Using spontaneous trait transference as a theoretical framework. the halo effect (Thorndike 1920). Second. First.g. In the present research we focus on the notion that SBA is undesirable and that consumers require protection from its effects. First. we propose that the similarity between a normal shopper and a coupon redeemer influences the extent to which SBA will arise. including literature on face work in psychology and mere presence in marketing. In general. our research broadens that work by empirically demonstrating the existence of SBA.. a personal relationship exists. Both of these conscious and unconscious efforts to project a positive impression can serve to obscure individuals’ stigmatized perceptions. Finally.. In particular. Baron. similarity is low) in the retail environment. Goffman (1959. the stigma of cheapness is transferred to them) by creating SBA. We extend this by showing that one individual can influence another’s face work without interaction or intention. results of this study indicate that the positive trait of the normal shopper’s physical at- tractiveness creates a contrast effect such that it appears to not only protect the normal shopper from SBA but also protect the coupon redeemer. the absence of explicit process measures prevents us from conclusively determining the underlying process.. Our research is the first to empirically demonstrate a number of important findings that extend the psychology literature on stigmas in several noteworthy ways. Our research illustrates that the innocuous behavior of coupon redemption by one consumer in the retail environment results in a normal shopper being stigmatized as cheap despite the fact that the shopper is not redeeming a coupon. study 4). Third. when the coupon redeemer and the normal shopper are in different checkout lines (i. and certain subculture affiliations (e.g. regardless of the coupon value. our results support this proposition.e. While these exploratory efforts have identified the prevalence of stigmas in consumption.e. Argo et al. This pattern of results is consistent with those found in the earlier studies and our theorizing—felt SBA and SBA are most likely to happen when similarity between the normal shopper and the coupon redeemer is high and the coupon value is low. GENERAL DISCUSSION Across four experiments we demonstrate that one consumer’s actions have unintended implications for another shopper’s impression management efforts. 2005. The findings of the current work also contribute to research outside of the stigma domain. we extend literature in marketing that has shown that the mere presence of another shopper affects one’s thoughts. The present research is only a first step in understanding the role of SBA. Crocker. Argo. Jennifer J.” in The Handbook of Social Psychology. Kleck. ed.” Journal of Consumer Research. Darren W. 147–71. ed. Hebl. Darren W. “Consumer Issues in Coupon Usage: An Exploratory Analysis. “When Consumer Behavior Goes Bad: An Investigation of Adolescent Shoplifting..” Journal of Consumer Research. Joseph.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. 11 (3). http://nymag. Cox. 153–83. “On Managing a Courtesy Stigma. 1449–67. Miller (2004). 73 (1). Ellen. “Positive Consumer Contamination: Responses to Attractive Others in a Retail Context. Elaine Walster. and Self-Esteem. our unique use of multiple methods (i.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior. Finally. First. 1995). “Rich Stocks for a Steal. forthcoming. 15 (4). Shoemaker (1987). Hull. Heatherton. Wolman. Natalie (1982). 207–13. Dahl.e. 196–206. 89–107. “The Stigma of Overweight in Everyday Life. Moschis (1990). 47–51. “The Low Literate Consumer. researchers could focus on the impact of more extreme forms of negative behavior such as binge eating (Faber et al. The Attraction Paradigm. Robert E. Cramer. “Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: Situational Construction of Self-Worth.e. Donn (1971). 17 (2). Michelle R. and Gardner Lindzey. Cox. Ellen and Elaine Walster (1978). and Jay G. Laurence. “Social Stigma.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/ columns/bottomline/12056/. Birenbaum. 7 (2). “The Influence of a Mere Social Presence in a Retail Context. Steele (1998). Delia (2003). “Human Mate Selection. Berscheid. Second. Wilfred and Sanjay Jain (2005).” in The Social Psychology of Stigma. and Kathryn Hunnicutt (1996–97). Coiffi.” American Scientist. Lita Linzer Schwartz. Dahl. ed. and shoplifting (e. Fiske. compulsive buying (O’Guinn and Faber 1989). “Conspicuous Consumption and Sophisticated Thinking. 370–76. field studies and scenarios). and Frederick E. Jennifer and Dianne M.” Management Science. 89 (4). (2005). “Social Stigmas and the Self: Meanings. and Moschis 1990). REFERENCES Adkins. “‘I Am Us’: Negative Stereotypes as Collective Threats. Rochelle (1999). and Andrea C. “Consumer Contamination: How Consumers React to Products Touched by Others. . “Physical Attractiveness and Dating Choice: A Test of the Matching Hypothesis. participant samples (i. 537–48. Manchanda (2005). Cox. Brenda Major. Arnold (1970). Kleck. the individuals who stigmatize and those who are stigmatized) in assessing SBA provides a stringent and compelling demonstration of both the prevalence of the effect in a coupon redemption situation and the identification of factors that protect normal shoppers. Vol.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. 504–53. and George P. “From Stigmatization to Patronization: The Media’s Distorted Portrayal of Physical Disability. New York: Academic Press. Anthony D. Quinn (2003). DC: American Psychological Association.570 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH ——— (2008). Peter R. 70 (2). “The Effects of a Direct-Mail Coupon on Brand Choice Behavior. drunk driving) to focusing on how others might be perceived for associating with those engaging in the behavior (i. 51 (10). 93–106.” Journal of Marketing.g. and Mark Schaller (2005).. 173–89. Geoffrey L.e. Ashworth. Cohen. Bawa.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Heatherton.” Journal of Marketing Research.” Journal of Mental Health. ed. 24 (4). William B.” Journal of Consumer Research. 32 (2). Todd F. Hull. 2. James J. 31–40.” in Psychology and the Media: A Second Look. Dena. and Claude M. Balter. There are a number of additional opportunities for future research. Blame. “Shame. Karen Dion. student and general consumer populations). 13 (6). In conclusion. Jennifer J. Our research suggests that one way to augment the effectiveness of these campaigns may be to encourage individuals to realize that the impressions others form of them are not only influenced by their own behavior but also affected by the actions of others in their social environment.e. Darke. Cox. MA: Addison-Wesley. Berscheid. (1985). ed. they have shifted from negatively focusing on the person engaged in the stigmatized behavior (i. 32 (1). Argo.. given the subtlety of coupon redemption as a stigmatized behavior. while we limit the investigation on the impact of SBA to a nonredeeming consumer. New York: Guilford. Gilbert. future research could test whether such redemption has negative implications for store personnel such as cashiers.e.. Benjamin B. David M. Michelle R. Washington. 566–82. 13 (1). Susan T. and Contamination: A Review of the Impact of Mental Illness Stigma on Family Members. Bonnici. New York: McGraw-Hill. future research could determine the various types of overt and covert strategies consumers can engage in during coupon redemption to minimize SBA and the stigmas arising from the behavior. and perspectives (i. Todd F. and there exist ample opportunities for future investigations.” Journal of Marketing Research. Corrigan. 149–59.. Crocker. Jennifer.” Journal of Applied Business Research. and G. 130–40. Robert E. Fredenberger. Crocker. 184–219. Interpersonal Attraction. Hebl.. “No One Wants to Look Cheap: Trade-Offs between Social Disincentives and the Economic and Psychological Incentives to Redeem Coupons. David P. Ozanne (2005). New York: Van Nostrand Reinbold. New York: Guilford. Jennifer (1999). 35 (1). Reading. Natalie Ross and Julie L. Amaldoss. “The Looking-Glass Self Revisited: Behavior Choice and Self-Perception in the Social Token. Byrne.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Campbell. you would be unwise to have friends who drink and drive or to associate with someone who smokes). 81–94.” in The Social Psychology of Stigma. Kapil and Robert W. Allon. addiction (Hirschman 1992). Patrick W. 295–306.” New York Magazine (May 21). Third. and Julio Garcia (2005). Daniel T. and Rajesh V. and Jay G. Situations. William Walster (1971). Buss.. consistent with research on diffusion of responsibility (Latane ´ and Darley 1968) researchers could investigate whether the presence of multiple other shoppers in the retail environment may assist in dissipating SBA. Morales (2006).” in Psychological Aspects of Obesity: A Handbook. O’Brien (2005).” Journal of Consumer Research. 192–202. Steffen (1984).” Psychological Review. 35.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Dale T. Mussweiler. “Preacquaintance Attitude Similarity and Attraction Revisited: Ten Days in a Fallout Shelter. (1986). ——— (1963). “Racial Stereotypes: The Contents of Their Cognitive Representations. Moore (1978). (1992).” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. “Atravesando Fronteras/Border Crossings: A Critical Ethnographic Exploration of the Consumer Acculturation of Mexican Immigrants. Honna C. “Measuring Proximity in Human Organization. 43. Robert (2001). Christenson. A. Aradhna and Robert W. the Mix of Coupon Redeemers. and Kenneth K. 29–35. Monge. WI: Brown & Benchmark. “Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model. Kirste (1980). Major. 21 (1). Hoffman. Ronald J.” British Journal of Psychiatry. and Richard B. 196–209. “Stigma and Mental Illness: A Review and Critique. Madison.” Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. Martina de Zwaan. “Comparison Processes in Social Judgment: Mechanisms and Consequences. 147–57. Maio.” Journal of Advertising Research. Paulhus.. 581–94. “Hispanic Coupon Usage: The Impact of Strong and Weak Ethnic Identification. (2004). “Nonsmokers’ Attributions for the Outcomes of Smokers: Some Potential Consequences of the Stigmatization of Smokers.. Latane ´ . Griffitt. 393–421. Hastorf. Newbury Park. 296–304. “Evidence?” Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal. Denise B. Erving (1959). Leary. Doyle. “Social Reference Points and Accessibility of Trait-Related Information in Self-Other Similarity 571 Judgments. Russell (1994). Glenn S. 32–45. Sigfredo (1988). and Valerie J.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.” Sociometry. Thomas C. “A Qualitative Study of Factors Influencing Psychiatric Nursing Practice in Australian Prisons. 9 (1). Paths to Marriage. 10 (3). Kowalski (1990).” Psychology and Marketing. William and Russell Veitch (1974).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Krishna. and Ronald J.” Social Psychology Quarterly. Edward Ellsworth. and James Mitchell (1995).” Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 20 (2). CA: Sage. John F.” Annual Review of Psychology. Sanders. Scott (1984). Nat (2005). 32–42. and M. O’Cass. 453–67. “Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Star Trek’s Culture of Consumption.” Psychology and Marketing. Bernard I. (1997). (1973). Self-Presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behavior. “Distraction and Social Comparison as Mediators of Social . Green.” Journal of Consumer Research. John (1999). Aron and Emily McEwen (2004). Murstein. O’Guinn. (1978). 113–22. “Exploring Consumer Status and Conspicuous Consumption. Washington.” Journal of Consumer Research.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 29 (2).” Journal of Consumer Research. 46 (4). Mannix (2003). Sheila I.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.. 975–83. Social Desirability. Peter and Jenifer A. Baron. Corliss L. G. 28 (5). Shoemaker (1992). Ted L. Daniel R. “Compulsive Buying: A Phenomenological Exploration. 494–98. 472–89. “So Many Coupons. 215–21.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Nancy Evans. 345–54. “In-Store vs. Miller. (1995). Interaction Ritual Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Margareta and Lars Kjellin (2002). 598–609.” Psychological Bulletin. September 4. “Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies. Tyler (1986). Chester A. 7 (2–3). 58 (6). “Two Forms of Compulsive Consumption: Comorbidity of Compulsive Buying and Binge Eating. Mark R. Leary. New York: Simon & Schuster. Garden City. 36. 34–47. African-. 29 (1).STIGMA BY ASSOCIATION IN COUPON REDEMPTION Donthu. “Gender Stereotypes Stem from the Distribution of Women and Men into Social Roles. “Interpersonal Attraction as a Function of Social Interaction. Latane ´ . Huston.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Wilson (1977).” New York Times. ——— (1967). Hernandez. “Ambiguity of Acceptance. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. 197–99. 22–37. Darley (1968). 16 (September). 155–79. Goffman. and Hispanic-American Redemption. 110–15. Mark R. “When We Observe Stigmatized and ‘Normal’ Individuals Interacting: Stigma by Association. Lisa (1994). and Amerigo Farina (1988). Thomas (2003). Oxford: Doubleday.” Journal of Consumer Research. “Pressures to Uniformity and the Evolution of Cultural Norms: Modeling Dynamic Social Impact. Harold A. Gary A. 107 (1). Peter T. and Frank J. A. Eagly. Alice H. “The Weight of Obesity in Evaluating Others: A Mere Proximity Effect. Mehta. NY: Anchor. 28–38. Insko. Michelle R. 501–10. Karylowski.” in Computational Modeling in Organizations. “The Social Psychology of Stigma.” Journal of Mental Health. 40–47. Jones. Kozinets. Penaloza. ed. “Associative Stigma: Perceptions of the Difficulties of College-Aged Children of Stigmatized Fathers. 19 (3). 306–12. Delroy L. 9 (6). Elizabeth C. and Laura M. 28 (7). Ives. “An Exploratory Study of Coupon Use in Puerto Rico. 46 (3). 163–73. Dylan M. 5 (1). Bryan (1998). 28 (1). Social Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Relationships. 903–11. and Danny L. Ilgen and Charles L. Steven L. Robert S. Jerzy (1990). Amerigo Farina. and R. Naveen and Joseph Cherian (1992).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Hulin.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. Bright (1997). Hazel Markus. 6 (4). Hirschman.. 35 (1). 22 (1). Faber (1989). 22 (3). Hayward. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Faber. 67–89. “Stigma-by-Association: Psychological Factors in Relatives of People with Mental Illness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Bibb and John M. 56 (February). 100 (3). Ostman. Brenda and Laurie T. Gibson. “The Consciousness of Addiction: Toward a General Theory of Compulsive Consumption. “Similarity in Real-Life Adolescent Friendship Pairs. Bibb (2000). 4 (1). 735–54. (1984). and Robin M. out-of-Store Coupons: An Examination of Anglo-. Hebl. 25–39. 9 (6). “Estimating the Effects of Higher Coupon Face Values on the Timing of Redemptions. “Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding. Dovidio.” Journal of Consumer Behavior. Neuberg. and Purchase Quantity. 181. So Few Redemptions.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. New York: Freeman. DC: American Psychological Association. 37 (2). Kandel. and Dating Choice. Smith. 15 (2). 133 (5). 14 (3). Mark R.. 503–19. 18. “How Do Individuals Expect to Be Viewed by Members of Lower Status Groups? Content and Implications of Meta-stereotypes. “When Are Social Judgments Made? Evidence for the Spontaneousness of Trait Inferences. Rongrong and Dilip Soman (2003). Schindler. 47 (2). Thorndike. Kelly (1994). Struening. 645–54. “Family Views of Stigma. “Using the Implicit Association Test to Investigate JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH Attitude-Behavior Consistency for Stigmatized Individuals. “Stigma as a Barrier to Recovery: The Extent to which Caregivers Believe Most People Devalue Consumers and Their Families. “Sensitive Questions in Surveys. ed. 1633–38. “A Constant Error in Psychological Rating. Laraine and James S. Schlenker. 291–303. Zhou. Laurie A.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Blanchflower (1994).” Cognition and Emotion. Jacquie D. Jane E. and Gordon B. “Consequences of Perceiving Oneself as Responsible for Obtaining a Discount: Evidence for SmartShopper Feelings.. 517–31.. 29 (4). Roger and Ting Yan (2007). “Perceived Consensus Influences Intergroup Behavior and Stereotype Accessibility. Main. ——— (2003). Wetzel. and Interpersonal Relations.” Psychiatric Service. Perlick. Otto F.” Psychological Bulletin.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. and Jo Anne Sirey (2001). 131–39. 20 (March). O’Connell (1998). Swanson. Impression Management: The SelfConcept. (1920). (1980). and David G. Tourangeau. Daniel Herman. 7 (4).” Journal of Consumer Research. Harman (1989). and Chester A. Wahl.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 917–37. C. 80 (4). and Charles Stangor (2001).” Journal of Consumer Research. New York: Guilford. 4. Kelley J. Deborah A. Vorauer. Winter. “The Role of Labeling Processes in Elderly Consumers’ Responses to Age Segmentation Cues. “Looking Back: Exploring the Psychology of Queuing and the Effect of the Number of People Behind. James D. 859–83. Greenwald (2001). 207–30.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Elmer L. Rudman. CA: Wadsworth. Belmont. Uleman (1984). Leary and June Price Tangney. (1998). 75 (4). 237–52. and Charles R. 25–29. G. Insko (1982). Bruce G. Fredric Hellman. Edward L. Social Identity. Sechrist. 148 (July). “The Similarity-Attraction Relationship: Is There an Ideal One?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 15 (1). Tepper. 52 (12). and Anthony G. 371–92. “Obesity and Stature in Adolescence and Earning in Young Adulthood.572 Facilitation Effects. Robert M. “Self-Presentation.” in Handbook of Self and Identity. Barry R. Sargent. Gretchen B. . 253–76.” Schizophrenia Bulletin. Link.” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 681–87. 492–518.