journal of macromarketing...

http://jmk.sagepub.com/Journal of Macromarketing

http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/190The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0276146712462892 2013 33: 190 originally published online 4 November 2012Journal of Macromarketing

Andreas Chatzidakis and Michael S. W. LeeAnti-Consumption as the Study of Reasons against

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Macromarketing Society

can be found at:Journal of MacromarketingAdditional services and information for

http://jmk.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jmk.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/190.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 4, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 14, 2013Version of Record >>

at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/190http://www.sagepublications.comhttp://www.macromarketing.orghttp://jmk.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jmk.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/190.refs.htmlhttp://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/190.full.pdfhttp://jmk.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/11/01/0276146712462892.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/

Article

Anti-Consumption as the Study ofReasons against

Andreas Chatzidakis1 and Michael S. W. Lee2

AbstractAnti-consumption studies are gaining in popularity, but doubt remains as to whether they can add anything unique to consumerresearch and marketing that other similar topics cannot. This article attempts to explain the distinctive nature ofanti-consumption and how it can contribute to the understanding of marketing beyond other related phenomena, such as ethicalconsumption, environmental consumption, consumer resistance, and symbolic consumption. Drawing upon reasons theory, thearticle contends that the ‘‘reasons against’’ consumption are not always the logical opposite of the ‘‘reasons for’’ consumption andthere are important differences between phenomena of negation and affirmation. By focusing on the reasons against consumption,anti-consumption research acts as a lens that scholars and practitioners may use to view similar phenomena in a new light. Thearticle illustrates this point by offering anti-consumption as an overarching perspective that spans a range of behavioral andthematic contexts, thereby revealing its unique contribution to marketing.

Keywordsanti-consumption, ethical consumption, environmental consumption, consumer resistance, symbolic consumption, reasonstheory, macromarketing

Introduction

Anti-consumption is a nascent yet burgeoning field of research,

evident in the recent proliferation of related conferences and

special issues (visit www.icar.auckland.ac.nz for a summary).

Most existing work on anti-consumption is built upon one

premise, that the phenomena against consumption warrant

special treatment, since they can provide scholars and prac-

titioners with knowledge that is not sufficiently captured in

conventional studies of consumption (Lee, Fernandez, and

Hyman 2009). The general argument is that knowledge of

anti-consumption increases our understanding of consump-

tion overall.

However, despite the robust arguments put forward by some

proponents of anti-consumption research, several intercon-

nected problems afflict anti-consumption as an area of inquiry.

First, because the consequences of anti-consumption are less

observable in the marketplace, and harder to measure than pos-

itive consumer decisions, there are fewer phenomena to study

on the whole (Wilk 1997). This is evident, for instance, in the

case of boycotting research. Although consumer demand for a

specific branded product (e.g., Starbucks coffee) can be easily

measured in the form of actual sales, the conscious avoidance

of a purchase constitutes a nonevent (Friedman 1985) that can

only be indirectly observable through estimates such as boycott

calls, consumer forums, interviews, and news media reports,

none of which provide a concrete measure of the impact of

anti-consumption activity. Further convolution arises when the

target of consumer boycotts is indirect (e.g., America as a

country of origin) rather than the producer of a product or

service itself (e.g., Starbucks as an American brand).

Second, owing to the relative scarcity of acts against con-

sumption, when data are available, researchers may be strongly

motivated to theorize about or interpret data in a way which

compels evidence to fit into an anti-consumption frame, even

when other explanations may be more suitable. In other words,

given that acts against consumption have been scant, it is not

surprising to see a tendency by some scholars to attribute var-

ious behaviors to anti-consumption even when they may not be

driven by motivations and attitudes that are really against con-

sumption. In line with this criticism, Shaw and Newholm

(2002) caution that the practice of voluntary simplicity cannot

be viewed only in terms of anti-consumption. Similarly, in

their study of users of toy sharing libraries, Ozanne and Ballan-

tine (2010) found that nearly half of their sample consisted of

people that engaged in sharing practices for reasons other than

anti-consumption, such as opportunities for socialization and

1 School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London, UK2 The University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:

Andreas Chatzidakis, Royal Holloway University of London–School of Man-

agement, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Macromarketing33(3) 190-203ª The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0276146712462892jmk.sagepub.com

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp:/jmk.sagepub.com/

monetary benefits. Thus, many acts studied under the guise of

anti-consumption are actually driven by motivations that are not

necessarily against consumption. Of course, further confusion

arises from the observation that many acts studied by anti-

consumption scholars can be simultaneously driven by both

anti-consumption and non anti-consumption reasons. As Ozanne

and Ballantine’s study implies, one may engage in sharing prac-

tices because of anti-consumerist motivations that coincide with

additional motivations such as socialization and financial savings.

Clearly, these problems undermine the distinctive contribu-

tion of anti-consumption and raise questions as to whether it is

superfluous when held alongside related and established terms

such as ethical consumption, environmental consumption, con-

sumer resistance, and symbolic consumption.

Previous work has drawn a comparison between anti-

consumption and health care, suggesting that many of the

advances in medicine have come through studying unhealthy

(fringe) rather than healthy (mainstream) people (consumers;

Lee, Fernandez, and Hyman 2009). Other special issues have

linked anti-consumption to sustainability (Black 2010), high-

lighted the importance of ideology (Kozinets, Handelman, and

Lee 2010), and contrasted anti-consumption with consumer

resistance (Lee et al. 2011). All of these works proclaim the

importance of focusing on acts against consumption, arguing

that it is only through appreciating all aspects of consumer

behavior (including its contrary) that we can fully understand

consumption as a phenomena, at both micro individual and

macro sociocultural levels. However, with the exception of Lee

et al. (2011) who attempt to delineate anti-consumption with

consumer resistance, no other work attempts to explain what

the unique contribution of anti-consumption is, above and

beyond other similar phenomena.

Lee et al. (2011) contend that anti-consumption is distinct

from consumer resistance because the latter requires consumers

to oppose a force of domination, while anti-consumption

focuses on ‘‘phenomena that are against the acquisition, use,

and dispossession of certain goods’’ (p. 1681). Thus, resistance

is not always a necessary condition; for example, when anti-

consumption is motivated by symbolic incongruity, negative

experiences, or value inadequacy (Lee, Motion, and Conroy

2009). Furthermore, Lee et al. (2011) suggest that consumer

resistance can sometimes be expressed through consumption

rather than against consumption. For example, in the case of

anti-brand loyalty, selective consumption of a competing brand

(Saab vs. Volvo, Mac vs. PC) demonstrates consumers’ alle-

giance to one brand and the simultaneous (and intentional)

resistance of another (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001). Similarly,

consumer cooperatives and other consumer resistance move-

ments such as open source software communities may actually

result in more consumption of goods through economies of

scale, and/or increased consumption of products to oppose the

‘‘enemy,’’ rather than an increase in anti-consumption beha-

vior. In such cases of consumer resistance, it is obvious that

consumption also helps to express resistance against some

power imbalance within the market place (Cromie and Ewing

2009; Herrmann 1993).

While Lee et al.’s (2011) position on the differences

between anti-consumption and consumer resistance seem legit-

imate, their paper stops short of highlighting any attribute

unique to anti-consumption that makes it, as a topic, distinct

and therefore valuable; especially when held alongside a

plethora of similar areas, such as nonconsumption; symbolic,

ethical, environmental, and alternative consumption; or even

consumer resistance. Therefore, in this article, we attempt to

clarify the domain of anti-consumption by drawing upon, and

applying the analytical distinction between ‘‘reasons for’’ and

‘‘reasons against’’ (Westaby 2002, 2005a, 2005b; Westaby

and Fishbein 1996; Westaby, Fishbein, and Aherin 1997; Wes-

taby, Probst, and Lee 2010) to the four main clusters of theore-

tical and empirical interest that scholars often convolute with

anti-consumption: environmental consumption, ethical con-

sumption, consumer resistance, and symbolic consumption.

Concurrently, following emerging developments in these fields

(cf. Barnett et al. 2011; Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha

2010) we attempt to move away from the micro-

psychological focus that has so far predominated those streams

of research. Paralleling Prothero and Fitchett’s (2000) notion of

a green commodity discourse and Barnett et al.’s (2011) genea-

logical approach to ethical consumerism, we argue that reasons

against can be viewed as part of emerging discourses and

narratives that stretch beyond the micro realm of individual

decision making and action. Subsequently, the article poses

some research questions and suggestions as to how new direc-

tions for anti-consumption research might develop.

Reasons for versus Reasons Against

Extant consumer research mainly focuses on cognitions and

reasons that explain performing a given behavior, despite the

fact that the reasons concerning not performing that same beha-

vior may be qualitatively different. For example, a decision to

buy Fair Trade products may be consistently explained by spe-

cific, positive attitudes toward Fair Trade (e.g., Chatzidakis

et al. 2004), but a decision not to buy Fair Trade products, may

or may not coincide with scoring negatively on an evaluation

scale used to assess these attitudes. Likewise, an anticonsumer

of meat (vegetarian) may avoid meat owing to concerns about

animal welfare, but it is unlikely that those who consume meat

do so because they want animals to be killed (Richetin, Conner,

and Perugini 2011). In line with this idea, social psychological

research draws a distinction between ‘‘reasons for’’ and ‘‘rea-

sons against’’ performing a behavior (e.g., Westaby 2002,

2005a, 2005b; Westaby and Fisbein 1996; Westaby, Fishbein,

and Aherin 1997; Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010). This dichot-

omous differentiation of motivational forces (Roe, Busemeyer,

and Townsend 2001) is assumed with slight variations (such as

pros versus cons, costs versus benefits) in various models of

social cognition (see Westaby 2005b) and related dimensions

have been supported in several empirical settings (e.g., Janis

and Mann 1977; Marcus, Rakowski, and Rossi 1992; Novick

and Cheng 2004).

Chatzidakis and Lee 191

Reasons for and against capture the ‘‘specific subjective fac-

tors people use to explain their anticipated behavior’’ (Westaby

2005b, 100) and in this sense comprise the underlying cogni-

tions that explain global attitudes or motives in favor of, or

against, performing a behavior. In other words, an individual

or society’s overall attitudinal disposition toward a particular

behavior (e.g., positive about buying Fair Trade products) can

be explained on the basis of underlying reasons such as helping

Third World producers, making a difference, enjoying products

of a higher quality and so on. Focusing on reasons as opposed

to related constructs such as beliefs (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980;

Ajzen 1985) or goals (e.g., Clary et al. 1998) offers advantages

because they can be measured at a more context-specific level

and they can also capture self-justification and defense

mechanisms that are otherwise left unaccounted for, in models

of buyer behavior (Westaby 2002, 2005a). For instance,

research by Eckhardt, Belk, and Devinney (2010) implies that

some individuals may reinterpret certain behaviors as instances

of anti-consumption (e.g., anti-SUVs) even though it may not

be anti-consumption attitudes that truly motivate such behavior

in the first place (increasing petrol prices). Unlike traditional

measures of attitudes, reasons for and against incorporate post-

behavioral accounts and rationalizations in addition to prebeha-

vioral, presumably causal explanations, in so far as they satisfy

individuals’ needs for self-consistency and sense making (e.g.,

Westaby 2005b). In turn, the capacity of reason constructs to

capture such processes may help explain why, in various stud-

ies, reasons for and against are found to explain variance in

intentions and/or behavior over and above conventional mea-

sures of global attitudes and their underlying beliefs or goals

(Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010).

The implication that reasons against are more than, or at

least different from, the logical opposites of reasons for per-

forming a behavior carries important implications for the

development of anti-consumption research. Indeed, most

research to date has focused on measuring cognitions with

respect to performing a behavior rather than not performing,

assuming that the latter will simply be the exact opposite of the

former. This ‘‘complementarity assumption’’ (Sutton 2004) is

plausible in the case of intentions or global attitudinal measures

but is highly questionable in the case of underlying cognitions

(reasons). That is, asking people whether they have a favorable

attitude toward Nike or whether they intend to buy Nike prod-

ucts is the logical opposite of asking whether they do not have a

favorable attitude toward Nike or whether they do not intend to

buy Nike products, but this is not the case with underlying rea-

sons. The reasons for buying Nike, such as perceptions of good

quality, or preference for an aggressive and athletic brand

image (see Figure 1) could certainly be the logical opposite

of reasons against buying Nike; for example, perceptions of

poor quality, or disdain toward the brand’s overly aggressive

athletic image (these reasons fulfill the complementarity

assumption). But reasons against buying Nike could also

include additional considerations, such as issues around sweat-

shop labor and multinational companies (see Figure 2). These

reasons against are unlikely to be the logical opposite of the

‘‘reasons for’’ purchasing Nike (i.e., people are unlikely to pur-

chase Nike because they want to support sweatshop clothing).

Furthermore, research by Richetin and colleagues (Richetin,

Conner, and Perugini 2011; Richetin et al. 2012) has illustrated

across various domains that intentions to not perform certain

Figure 1. Nike’s provocative branding motivates both reasons forand reasons against consuming the brand.Source: http://www.designyourway.net/blog/inspiration/35-nike-print-advertise

ments-that-boosted-the-companys-income/.

Figure 2. Reasons against consuming Nike may not always be the logi-cal opposite of reasons for consuming Nike.Source: http://anongallery.org/146/nike-just-do-it.

192 Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)

actions increase the variance explained in behavior over and

above intentions to perform those same actions. Thus, asking

people both whether they intend to reduce consumption and

whether they do not, increases the variance explained in actual

behavior despite the fact the two statements should be logical

opposites. The authors concluded that this is because even neg-

ative statements that seem tautological to positive ones (e.g.,

intent to perform vs. not perform a pro-environmental beha-

vior) may correspond to underlying goals (or reasons) that are

psychologically distinct rather than opposite. Richetin et al.

(2012) found that intentions to reduce consumption were

driven by reasons such as ‘‘saving the planet’’ whereas inten-

tions not to reduce consumption were motivated by reasons

such as ‘‘maintaining current lifestyles’’ (p. 115). Their find-

ings resonate with emerging evidence across several streams

of research, from studies on stereotype activation (Gawronski

et al. 2008) to neuroscience (Brass and Haggard 2007), all con-

cluding that ‘‘negation of a construct is not the conceptual

opposite of the affirmation of a construct’’ (p. 41), thereby

reinforcing the value of studying both reasons for and against

consumption.

Although the extant research on reasons theory has

remained within the micro context of individual decision mak-

ing and cognition, the analytical focus on reasons and the for/

against distinction can be incorporated into several alternative

theoretical traditions and corresponding levels of aggregation.

Within sociological and more macro-oriented perspectives, for

example, the study of reasons includes self-justifications,

accounts, and related cognitions that are ‘‘extensions of pat-

terns of thought prevalent in society rather than something cre-

ated de novo’’ (Sykes and Matza 1957, 669). In this sense,

when accounting for their decisions, individuals choose from

a repertoire of available social, public, and cultural narratives

or discourses that are ultimately limited. Reasons for and

against can be viewed as vocabularies of motive (Mills

1940), socially learned and legitimized accounts (Scott and

Lyma 1968), or broader narratives (e.g., Maruna and Copes

2005) that say more about a given culture and society rather

than the individual.

The study of reasons for and against is therefore not only

possible at the micro level of individual choice but also in the

variety of meso-, macro-, and supra-national levels through

which various actors (e.g., businesses, governments, nongo-

vernmental organizations [NGOs]) mobilize anti- (and pro-)

consumption discourses. Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha

(2010) discuss how the apparent mainstreaming of the ‘‘green

commodity discourse’’ in contemporary societies has been pos-

sible not only through the adoption of various micro practices

by green consumers but also because of media activities such as

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, business interest in triple bottom

line (social, environmental, financial) reporting, mobilization

by institutions such as World Watch Institute, and various

national and transnational policy initiatives such as the United

Nations Millennium Goals. Likewise, Barnett et al. (2011)

point to the need to relocate the consumer from the position

of main agent of change and to give credit to various

organizations that have played a key role in politicizing and

moralizing consumption logics and practices. The authors

illustrate how data from the Ethical Purchasing Index (EPI),

a survey produced by UK’s Co-Operative Bank and New

Economics Foundation, were deployed by various campaign

organizations not only with a view to provide reasons for pur-

chasing Fair Trade products to individual consumers, but also

to use evidence of broad-based support as a means to exert

influence on governments and businesses and legitimize their

standing to members/supporters and the wider public realm.

In line with these developments, reasons against consump-

tion can be viewed as part of ‘‘institutional logics’’ (Thornton

and Ocasio 2008) or narratives that are employed by a variety

of actors at differing levels of aggregation. For example, Chat-

zidakis, Maclaran, and Bradshaw (2012) show how reasons

against consumer culture, along with logic of voluntary simpli-

city, can be cultivated in activist groups and areas (e.g., guerilla

parks) that share an explicit anticapitalist ethos. Here, alterna-

tive marketing systems (Layton 2007), such as gifting bazaars

and collective cooking events, form part of broader political

arguments and mobilization against market capitalism. Simi-

larly, Izberk-Bilgin (2010) shows how reasons against can be

employed in the case of specific brands or products not only

at a community level but also at a country-level (e.g., reaction-

ary nationalism) and by alternative communities based on

interests such as religion (e.g., antimaterialistic attitudes).

Izberk-Bilgin also notes how it is not only consumers who engage

with reasons against but also other actors such as marketers who

attempt to counter resistance toward their products or services,

and who may operate both within and out of conventionally

defined markets (see Layton and Grossbart 2006). Adding to this

observation, a recent study on Chinese grassroots nationalism

illustrates how reasons against foreign brands are manifest in var-

ious fronts—from consumer boycotts of individual companies to

antimonopoly laws that coincide with nationalistic interests—and

they are rooted in a confluence of nationalistic motives and agen-

das by agents such as the consumer, the government, the media

and local companies (Gao 2012).

Finally, more macro-oriented reasons against and reasons

for consumption, such as those concerned with the global

effects of consumption rather than more personal, micro con-

cerns (cf. Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha 2010) can be

located within broader ideological and normative appeals that

underpin market capitalism (e.g., Latouche 2009) and neoliber-

alism (Harvey 2010). Consumers are often provided with rea-

sons for buying local goods such as helping local economies

and improving their carbon footprint. There is less public pol-

icy and media discourse around the limits of global economic

growth and the possibility of helping the planet through buying

less rather than more (even when the latter includes green

products). From this perspective, it is not specific services or

products, but consumer society per se that is fundamentally

intertwined with all that is pro-consumption including notions

that quality of life and well-being can be actualized via consu-

merist lifestyles (Kilbourne, McDonagh, and Prothero 1997).

In turn, counterconsumerist critiques and related reasons against


consumption, such as arguments in favor of environmental–

social justice and more sensual, less materialistic lifestyles

(Soper, Ryle, and Thomas 2009), can be viewed as countervail-

ing logics (Thornton and Ocasio 2008) or emerging shifts in the

Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP; Kilbourne et al. 2009).

Anti-Consumption and the Study ofReasons Against

The foregoing discussion highlights that anti-consumption is a

worthy field of investigation because it pertains to a particular

set of reasons against consumption, which are more than and

different from their conceptual opposites—reasons for con-

sumption—and which can be applied at differing levels of

aggregation. However, in this article, we do not aim to develop

a full account of how insights from reasons theory may add to

the existing consumer research literature despite the potential

benefits from such an endeavor. Instead, we draw on the sub-

stantive distinction between reasons for and reasons against

to elucidate issues of conflict, confusion, and convergence

between anti-consumption and other similar streams of empiri-

cal research, such as ethical consumption, environmental con-

sumption, consumer resistance, and symbolic consumption. In

other words, our purpose is not to delineate anti-consumption

with all consumption activities that have a positive and nega-

tive frame, but only those areas (as mentioned) that are more

commonly confused with anti-consumption.

It is also important to note that anti-consumption should not

be conflated with nonconsumption or alternative consumption.

Nonconsumption due to proscription or other contextual influ-

ences, for instance, where preference toward one brand leads

to incidental nonconsumption of another (Cherrier, Black, and

Lee 2011), is not anti-consumption as there is no intentional

choice to avoid the nonconsumed brand (Cherrier 2009). Simi-

larly, alternative consumption or mere choice is also not anti-

consumption, since some behaviors are avoided not because of

their unattractiveness or explicit reasons against them, but

because of the greater appeal of alternative options, such as pre-

ference for private versus public transport (Gardner and Abraham

2008). Instead, anti-consumption is only concerned with those

reasons against consumption that are expressive and consciously

articulated (through either internal or external dialogue), that may

be used as accounts, explanations or narratives of why people ‘‘go

against’’ (Kozinets, Handelman, and Lee 2010) and express

‘‘resistance to, distaste of, or even resentment or rejection’’

(Zavestoski 2002, 121) of specific brands (e.g., anti-Starbucks;

Thompson and Arsel 2004), behavioral and product categories

(e.g., antialcohol; Piacentini and Banister 2009); and/or consumer

culture altogether (e.g., through voluntary simplicity; see

Leonard-Barton 1981; Shaw and Newholm 2002).

The Nature and Scope ofAnti-Consumption Research

Figure 3 summarizes the scope of anti-consumption research

from a reasons for and reasons against perspective. We identify

four nonmutually exclusive clusters of theoretical and empiri-

cal interest, relating to ethical, environmental, resistance, and

symbolic concerns. Figure 3 does not propose that anti-

consumption is a higher-order construct than the four areas of

concern, rather, the main purpose of Figure 3 is to position

anti-consumption as a distinct perspective by which other, see-

mingly similar topics may be viewed. We select those four

areas in particular, because they are the streams of research

most commonly confused with anti-consumption, with such

confusion detracting from the incremental value of anti-

consumption research. Thus, Figure 3, and this article, aims

to redress the confusion by offering anti-consumption, and the

reasons against consumption, as a legitimate lens that provides

additional value to the four areas of concern discussed below.

Ethical Concerns

Ethical consumption has been broadly defined as ‘‘the con-

scious and deliberate decision to make certain consumption

choices due to personal moral beliefs and values’’ (Crane and

Matten 2004, 290). It has been often treated as an evolution of

green consumerism to incorporate concerns such as trading

relationships with the Third World (e.g., Carrigan and Attalla

2001; DePelsmacker, Driesen, and Rayp 2005; Shaw and

Clarke 1999) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR; Sen

and Bhattacharya 2001; Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun

2006). As Figure 3 illustrates, although ethical concerns may

translate into both reasons for (buycotting) and reasons against

(boycotting) specific consumption practices, in following a

similar path with most consumer research, the field has focused

mostly on positive consumer decisions centered on ethical pur-

chases. More fundamentally still, the assumption that the rea-

sons against are always the logical opposite of the reasons

for has also been adopted without scrutiny, when in fact the rea-

sons for consumption may not be the logical opposite of the

reasons against consumption. For instance, a group boycotting

Shell, owing to accusations of unethical government corrup-

tion, may not necessarily buycott (i.e., select) Mobil for a lack

of corruption or being ethical. In fact, situational convenience

may be the main reason for the group’s choice of any petrol

supplier, rather than loyalty or the desire to reward specific

companies for ethical behavior/policies. Consequently, any

conscious decision they make is driven more by anti-

consumption (the main motivation is to boycott Shell), rather

than consumption. In other words, the group is not really loyal

to particular brands, but rather, is simply settling for any brands

apart from Shell. In this sense, a reasons against perspective has

far more to offer in terms of understanding ethical concerns and

market intentions than traditional consumption perspectives,

such as those emphasizing brand loyalty (Lee, Motion, and

Conroy 2009).

Applying an anti-consumption perspective also allows

researchers to analyze the market place activity surrounding

ethical concerns from three other perspectives. First, it

encourages researchers to consider the reasons against

unethical companies as legitimate drivers of the reasons for


purchasing products from more ethical companies. Under-

standing the flip side to ethical consumption choices is of obvi-

ous importance. For the target companies of boycotting such

knowledge may be used to address their negative brand image,

and for their competitors, similar information is useful in terms

of their respective positioning strategies. Second, the anti-

consumption lens may also include consideration of the reasons

preventing anti-consumption. Here the focus would be on

explaining why consumers, and consumer groups, do not reject

or boycott unethical companies, despite their negative assess-

ment of such companies. People’s reasons for not boycotting

a brand may not be the logical opposites of the reasons for boy-

cotting a brand. A consumer may wish to boycott KFC for

unethical treatment of animals, but the reasons preventing him

or her from boycotting KFC may be related to broader group

influences or peer pressure, whereby his or her peers do not

share a similar inclination to boycott KFC and therefore the

consumer is unable to action his or her ‘‘reasons against’’ con-

sumption. This viewpoint is important, given that many proso-

cial movements depend on mass action. Thus, understanding

the reasons why people do not boycott unethical companies,

even though they believe it is the ethical thing to do, is some-

times even more important than understanding their original

motivations. Third, adopting an anti-consumption perspective

may also include looking at the reasons against the buycott

of so-called ethical products. For example, reasons for not buy-

ing Fair Trade products may not include relative indifference

about the welfare of Third World Consumers, or even per-

ceived difficulties in purchasing such products, but additional

concerns such as the extent to which systemic, macro problems

of global injustice are posited onto micro consumer decision-

making contexts and seek a solution there (cf. Dolan 2002).

This may in turn make more radicalized ‘‘ethical consumers’’

cynical about marketplace exchanges of Fair Trade goods

(Chatzidakis, Maclaran, and Bradshaw 2012). Therefore, inter-

related ethical concerns about world trade justice may translate

into different forms and rationales for buycotting and boycot-

ting action. This anti-consumption perspective challenges the

so-called observation of attitude–behavior gaps in ethical con-

sumerism (e.g., Bird and Hughes 1997; Carrigan and Attalla

2001; DePelsmacker, Driesen, and Rayp 2005; Nicholls and

Lee 2006; Uusitalo and Oksanen 2004) as it implies that rea-

sons against otherwise positively perceived (ethical) products

or reasons for negatively perceived (unethical) ones, may mod-

erate the extent to which actual behavior is in line with general

attitudes.

Environmental Concerns

Following the rise of the environmental movement in the late

1960s, early academic research on socially conscious, green,

or ecologically conscious consumers (e.g., Anderson and Cun-

ningham 1972; Webster 1975; Roberts 1996; Straughan and

Roberts 1999) attempted to understand them in terms of

Green Activism

Green consumption

Ethicalconcerns

Anti-consumptionresearch:

‘Reasons against’

Symbolic concerns

Environmental concerns

Consumer Resistance

Boycott

Buycott

Oppose

Support

Avoid

Approach

Consumption research: ‘Reasons for’

Figure 3. The focus of anti-consumption research from a reasons theory perspective.


gender, income, occupation, and other personal characteristics.

Despite the potential benefits of segmentation studies however,

such attempts soon proved elusive (Oates et al. 2008;

Straughan and Roberts 1999) and later research shifted away

from demographic variables to consider the role of psychologi-

cal and attitudinal constructs (see Bamberg and Moser 2007 for

a review) and broader sociocultural processes (e.g., Belz and

Peattie 2009). Such studies provided valuable insights from the

perspective of anti-consumption, as many of the behaviors of

interest concerned the translation of pro-environmental

concerns into reasons against consumption, from milder and

fragmented forms of green activism to energy conservation

(Wilson and Dowlatabadi 2007) and reduction of private

transport (Gardner and Abraham 2008) to more committed and

radical lifestyles of voluntary simplicity (e.g., Oates et al.

2008). Nonetheless, to provide useful information to marketers

of sustainable products (Straughan and Roberts 1999), most

consumer research focuses on buying eco-friendly products

(green consumption) rather than not-buying environmentally

polluting ones, and only few studies consider the more radical

idea of practicing anti-consumption for environmental con-

cerns by reducing consumption altogether (aka green activism).

At a more fundamental level, however, research into sus-

tainable consumption has not explicitly considered issues of

complementarity between reasons for and reasons against

pro-environmental activism. For instance, although it is highly

likely that a reason for buying eco-friendly products is pro-

environmental concern, it is highly unlikely that a reason

against buying eco-friendly products is intention to harm the

environment. All things equal (e.g., price, quality, and conve-

nience) most consumers would not have a reason to opt for

an environmentally harmful product (McDonald and Oates

2006), but (non environmentally related) reasons against arise

when green buying and other forms of pro-environmental

activism entail a degree of compromise (Peattie 2001). When

consumers decide to go against specific consumption practices

due to pro-environmental concerns, they do so because of a

concurrent commitment and ability to translate their concerns

into action, but it does not follow that those who do not buy

eco-friendly products are not environmentally concerned. This

is evident in more extreme forms of sustainable living, such as

hard core voluntary simplicity and ecofeminism, which are

often underpinned by radical political-environmental motives

and explicitly articulated anticonsumerist agendas (Oates

et al. 2008). Such consumers often have further reasons against

the conventional forms of pro-environmental action, such as

green consumption, as these are perceived to be in line with

consumer culture and hence inefficient for far-reaching ecolo-

gical change (e.g., Dobscha and Ozanne 2001).

Thus, Figure 3 shows that the scope of anti-consumption

focuses on the nexus where environmental concerns and the

reasons against consumption meet. The resultant behaviors

may then manifest as green activism against specific brands

and companies as well as more general and radicalized forms

of anti-consumption, which result in a rejection of consumer-

ism and the adoption of more frugal lifestyles. The alternative

perspective here is that eco-friendly products are ‘‘green

washed’’ by companies as a means of increasing market share

and profitability. Therefore, a better choice to buying more

green products (green consumption) is actually the decision

to practice anti-consumption of such products (green activism;

Black and Cherrier 2010; Dobscha and Ozanne 2001).

Resistance Concerns

Consumer resistance is an area that has been traditionally con-

fused with anti-consumption, that is, until the two domains

were explicitly disentangled by Lee et al. (2011). As mentioned

earlier, not all acts of consumer resistance need to be driven by

anti-consumption motives. The true motivation behind any

consumer resistance movement is, obviously, resistance to

some domineering force (Foucault 1982; Peñazola and Price

1993). Sometimes this resistance is expressed by acts of oppo-

sition and anti-consumption, while at other times resistance is

expressed by acts of support and consumption. In cases of con-

sumer cooperatives and open-source software communities,

support of those activities predominately occurs via consump-

tion, rather than anti-consumption (Cromie and Ewing 2009;

Herrmann 1993). Whereas, in other cases of consumer resis-

tance, it is evident that anti-consumption in the form of oppo-

sition is the main driver. Consumer resistance to multinational

corporations such as Starbucks (Thompson and Arsel 2004)

does indeed support local cafes. However, the real driver of the

consumer resistance activity is opposition to Starbucks. As

Figure 3 shows, anti-consumption is mainly interested in the

opposition part of consumer resistance, and since this is the

most salient aspect of consumer resistance, it comes as no won-

der, that the two domains have been easily confused with one

another.

Symbolic Concerns

Another key theme in anti-consumption research concerns the

reasons against consumption for symbolic communication and

the construction of meaning. Much research has established the

role of consumption in the formation of identity and self-

concept (Belk 1988; Aaker 1999; Dolich 1969; Grubb and

Grathwohl 1967; Heath and Scott 1998; Hogg, Cox, and

Keeling 2000; Levy 1959; McCracken 1986; Sirgy 1982;

Solomon 1983). The role of anti-consumption in such activity

is also well studied, albeit to a lesser extent (Banister and Hogg

2004; English and Soloman 1997; Hogg and Michell 1997;

Levy 1959; Thompson and Arsel 2004). This balance of

approach and avoidance (Elliot 1999; Markus and Nurius

1986) has been applied to understanding consumer behavior for

many years.

However, the authors believe that with overconsumption

gradually becoming the norm over the last four decades (at

least in Western societies), acts of consumption, à la the

approach aspect of the equation, and the reasons driving these

acts, may no longer possess the same unique level of symbo-

lism, as they did in the post–World War II era. Consequently,


acts against consumption, and the reasons driving those avoid-

ance behaviors, are now equally potent symbolic acts through

which consumers may express themselves (Kozinets, Handel-

man, and Lee 2010; English and Solomon 1997). As Figure 3

shows, the focus of anti-consumption is on the avoidance

aspect of these symbolic behaviors. This might include an obvi-

ous interest in what consumers deliberately avoid in order to

prevent themselves from drawing closer to their undesired

self-concepts. For example, some may reject Walmart despite

financial hardship, so that they do not have to perceive them-

selves as bargain hunters or cheap (see www.peopleofwal-

mart.com for examples illustrating with what people

practicing anti-consumption of Walmart wish to avoid associ-

ation). However, the focus of anti-consumption may also be

in the less obvious exploration of what consumers may avoid

in order to maintain or enhance their desired self-concepts.

Some continue to avoid Walmart despite financial hardship

in a patriotic effort to support local/neighborhood stores (see

Figure 4). Superficially, both examples appear interchangeable

in terms of their influence on self-concept. Certainly, both

may well operate simultaneously within the same individual

and among anti-Walmart group members. Yet, previous liter-

ature on the undesired self suggests that, in a similar vein to

reasons theory, the undesired self is not the mere opposite

of the desired self, with the former being a more concrete

concept (Ogilvie 1987).

Another key point to remember is that while the comple-

mentarity argument applies to some cases of symbolic con-

sumption, numerous occasions occur when the symbolic

reasons for approaching brands may not be the logical opposite

for avoiding brands. In cases where the complementarity

argument holds, some consumers may avoid Dell because of

poor symbolic match and approach Apple because of a

good symbolic match. On the other hand, in cases where the

complementarity argument does not hold, consumers may pre-

fer Apple for its symbolic value, but avoid Dell for issues

related to functionality. These scenarios can also occur within

the same brand. The market may choose VW beetles for its nos-

talgic value but may also avoid the same brand if a new market-

ing campaign is considered too edgy in symbolism. And in

cases where the complementarity argument does not hold, con-

sumers may avoid VW beetles for the company’s opposition to

CO2 emission legislation. Thus, it is important to look at both

the reasons for and against consumption to gain greater insights

into market place motivations, with anti-consumption provid-

ing a lens by which scholars are encouraged to focus on the

avoidance aspect of the equation.

Overall, Figure 3 relates anti-consumption to the four afore-

mentioned areas, which have been used in most cases inter-

changeably with anti-consumption. Indeed, the dashed lines

of the four clusters suggest fluidity and overlaps between the

related domains of anti-consumption research. In other words,

none of the four clusters are mutually exclusive. More impor-

tantly, Figure 3 illustrates how the reasons for are not the logi-

cal/mirror opposites of the reasons against. Hence, each cluster

of concern is visually divided by a solid jagged line rather than

reflected in what we term the broken mirror metaphor. Further-

more, each cluster is represented not only by differing terms,

such as boycott versus buycott (under the cluster of ethical

concerns), but also nonequivalent shapes (i.e., triangles and

rectangles) to depict the difference between the reasons for

consumption versus the reasons against consumption. Conse-

quently, this article’s main argument is that anti-consumption

research focuses on the reasons against consumption and,

therefore, provides scholars with an alternative perspective

on phenomena in those four areas. Black (2010) suggests that

one way to promote sustainability is to consider that, in some

cases, anti-consumption and buying less (reasons against mass

consumption) can provide citizens with more opportunities for

symbolic self-expression than environmental consumption

alone (reasons for buying green products). Similarly, other

scholars suggest that avoidance choices are just as important

to the formation of self-concept as approach behaviors (Banis-

ter and Hogg 2004; English and Solomon 1997). It is clear then

that both reasons for and reasons against motivate and influ-

ence individual consumers and the market. The underlying

explanations or reasons that people give to themselves and oth-

ers may be employed in a synergistic rather than antagonistic

fashion to increase understanding of consumer behavior and

marketing.

Discussion and Implications for FutureResearch

Anti-consumption is primarily concerned with those reasons

against that are expressive, consciously articulated and may

reflect ‘‘resistance to, distaste of, or even resentment or rejec-

tion’’ (Zavestoski 2002, 121) of specific brands, products, ser-

vices, and/or consumer culture altogether. This article borrows

from reasons theory in an attempt to delineate the boundaries

Figure 4. Bumper sticker displaying a symbolic reason against con-sumption, which assists in positive identity construction.Source: http://carryabigsticker.com/btn_patriots_dont.htm.


between anti-consumption and various streams of research

concerned with ethics, environment, resistance, and symbo-

lism. The predominant focus of previous studies on descriptive

accounts and outward behaviors, rather than upon underlying

motivations, has failed to successfully demarcate these similar

research traditions. Accordingly, clear boundaries of conver-

gence and divergence should be based on the basic premise that

anti-consumption is predominantly concerned with reasons

against rather than reasons for consumption.

However, a further question is what anti-consumption, as an

independent field of study, can add to our understanding of

such phenomena that is not already accounted for in those

aforementioned streams of research (albeit in a fragmented

way). Apart from the obvious explanation that the universe

of reasons against stretches beyond ethical, environmental,

symbolic, and resistant concerns, more research on anti-

consumption is pertinent on a variety of conceptual and

empirical grounds. First, in line with advancements in social

psychological research and reasons theory, reasons against may

include more than the logical opposites of reasons for. Conven-

tional measurement and conceptualizations of attitudes,

reasons, and related cognitions may therefore fail to capture

phenomena relating to negation rather than affirmation. Indeed,

even when the reasons for performing a certain behavior is the

main topic of interest to researchers, considering the reasons

against performing that same behavior promises to increase the

explanatory and predictive ability of the adopted theoretical

models (e.g., Richetin, Conner, and Perugini 2011), and thus

enhance understanding of that phenomenon. Overall, consumer

research here has a unique opportunity to gain ground in an

emerging stream of cross-disciplinary research that acknowl-

edges that not doing is much more than, or at least different

than, the conceptual opposite of doing.

Second, as noted in the introduction, anti-consumption is a

worthy stream of research because it redresses the tendency

of both lay people and academics to focus on the phenomena

that are made tangible in the conventional marketplace rather

than acts that are not. Yet, dislikes, distastes and undesired

selves, usually reflected in nonpurchases may be more telling

of individual identities, and societies, than likes, tastes, and

desires that translate into reasons for purchases (Hogg and

Banister 2001; Wilk 1997). In other words, what is conspicuous

by its absence may be of equal importance to understanding

consumer lifestyles and consumer culture overall. It has been

well documented, for instance, that many consumer boycotts

are symbolic and serve an important expressive function,

regardless of whether or not they are effective in terms of

reducing sales (Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Smith 1990).

Third, the independent study of reasons against across more

specific streams of research—such as ethical/green consump-

tion and resistance—allows for further examination of the com-

monalities that may characterize anti-consumption phenomena.

On one hand, despite the potential diversity of underlying moti-

vations, negation of a specific brand or product category may

often be less financially demanding and time consuming than

affirmation. Yet, both positions (e.g., anti-Coca-Cola vs.

pro-Coca-Cola) may leave equal space for symbolic

expression. On the other hand, another related research

question is how people cope with the fact that manifestations

of anti-consumption attitudes and motivations tend to be less

tangible and observable than acts of consumption (Wilk

1997). Consequently, individuals or groups may use anti-

brand bumper stickers (Figures 2 and 4) or engage in other

forms of online culture jamming (see Figure 5 or simply enter

‘BP’ as a search term in Google Images) to redress the intang-

ibility of their negative position toward brands. Thus, ironi-

cally, expressing anti-consumption may, in such cases, prove

more effortful and require more investment, than expressing

consumption.

More broadly, anti-consumption phenomena may also be

usefully observed at the level of consumption constellations

(Solomon and Assael 1987) and anti-constellations (Hogg and

Mitchell 1997). As consumers’ negation of symbolically inter-

connected products, brands, and activities tends to be more

intangible than affirmation, they may choose to redress this

through alternative activities that are invested with related

meaning. For instance, resistance to the overcommercialization

of Christmas or Valentine’s Day can be expressed through

symbolic celebrations (e.g., anti-Christmas parties), and alter-

native exchanges such as handmade gifts and cards (Close and

Zinkhan 2009).

In terms of future research, the purpose of this article was to

provide clarity by showing how focus on the reasons against

can help delineate anti-consumption from four commonly con-

fused streams of research. However, the for and against dichot-

omy provided by reasons theory can likely be applied to other

topics, such as love versus hate brand relationships (Fournier

1998), consumer reactance versus compliance (Brehm 1966),

and conformity versus anti-conformity (Willis 1965), to name

a few. In other words, the reasons for love, compliance, and

conformity (respectively) are probably also not the logical

Figure 5. Acts of anti-consumption may sometimes involve moreeffort from individuals and organizations (such as Greenpeace) thanacts of consumption.Source: http://www.listoid.com/list/103/page2.


opposites of the reasons for hate, reactance, and anti-conformity

(respectively). However, given the focus herein and indeed the

macro focus of this Journal, these more micro-psychological

issues should be explored further by future research.

Additional future research directions and implications

should also continue to look beyond the micro level of individ-

ual decision making to meso and macro levels where reasons

against, as well as reasons for, are mobilized by a variety of

actors other than the consumer. For instance, businesses may

engage with anti-consumption discourses through their market-

ing communications, and the media, to counter reasons against

their brands (Figure 6 provides one such example of a business

cleverly using anti-consumption discourse to their advantage).

Alternatively, companies may implement strategies that pre-

vent or discourage the market from being able to enact their

reasons against the brand, such as by furtive subbranding or

increasing exiting fees (Lee, Motion, and Conroy 2009). The

rhetoric and types of strategies employed in all these settings

could be analyzed through a variety of interpretive methodolo-

gies and this could provide valuable insights as to how

businesses interact with both their consumers and their anti-

consumers (Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel 2006). Indeed,

although applications of reasons theory mostly remain within

a sociocognitive, logicodeductive paradigm, interpretive

approaches may prove better suited to address issues around

self-presentation and the dynamics of sense making and

account giving. In addition, known methodological problems

such as social desirability bias (e.g., Crane 1999) can be more

effectively addressed through prolonged engagement, building

trust and rapport, and triangulating with different data collec-

tion methods. Likewise, interpretive studies could explore how

other actors such as bottom-up, grassroots movements but also

top-down institutional actors also engage with anticonsumerist

attitudes and motivations. Opposition to genetic modification

(GM) forms part of an agenda that is negotiated not only at the

level of individual choice but also in policy-making settings

where various stakeholders engage with the rhetoric for and

against GM.

Furthermore, the types of reasons for and against consump-

tion that consumers employ in their everyday purchasing (and

nonpurchasing) contexts are fundamentally intertwined with

taken-for-granted notions of desirable lifestyles and the ideolo-

gical nexus of market capitalism. Contemporary markets legit-

imize consumer choice based on the functional, use value of

products rather than their potential environmental and social

externalities. Consumers may criticize Chevron (or Ryanair)

for their exploitation of the environment (or workers), but they

may still carry on buying petrol (or using the low cost airline) if

those brands fulfill a function and the consumer makes no con-

nection between the concepts of exploitation and functionality

(Salzer-Morling and Strannegård 2007). Potentially useful

perspectives here include institutional theory (Thornton and

Ocasio 2008) and Kilbourne, McDonagh, and Prothero’s

(1997) approach to understanding the institutional foundations

of the DSP. Reasons against could be treated as counterconsu-

merist critiques or ‘‘countervailing logics’’ (e.g., Seo and

Creed 2002) that reflect paradigmatic shifts in the dominant

socioeconomic order. A parallel stream of research could dis-

tinguish between macro- versus micro-oriented reasons

against consumption and the extent to which they are in

rooted in different institutional forces and stakeholder actions.

In the context of green consumerism, Prothero, McDonagh,

and Dobscha (2010) differentiate between micro-level (e.g.,

helping one’s family or local economy) versus macro-level

motivations (e.g., concerns about the global effects of con-

sumer culture). Likewise, micro- and macro-level reasons

against are expected to have distinct ideological and motiva-

tional underpinnings.

Conclusion

In sum, this article argues that anti-consumption is a distinct

area of research interested in the reasons against consumption.

By drawing on reasons theory, the article offers anti-

consumption as an overarching perspective that spans a range

of behavioral and thematic contexts, and acts as a lens that

encourages scholars to consider the other side of the consump-

tion continuum. In doing so anti-consumption research

attempts to increase understanding of consumption overall, as

well as contribute to an emerging cross-disciplinary tradition

that acknowledges the ways in which phenomena of negation

differ from those of affirmation.

Figure 6. Businesses and organizations can also benefit from focusing on anti-consumption discourse (note the number of ‘‘likes’’ in the secondmessage).Source: http://www.twylah.com/redbull/tweets/192462460282867713.


Author’s Note

Both the authors have contributed equally.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

References

Aaker, Jennifer L. (1999), ‘‘The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-

expression in Persuasion,’’ Journal of Marketing Research, 36

(1), 45-57.

Ajzen, Icek (1985), ‘‘From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned

Behavior,’’ in Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior, Julius

Kuhl and Jürgen Beckman, eds. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer,

11-39.

Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and

Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Anderson, Thomas W., and William H. Cunningham (1972), ‘‘The

Socially Conscious Consumer,’’ Journal of Marketing, 36 (3),

23-31.

Bamberg, Sebastian, and Guido Moser (2007), ‘‘Twenty Years after

Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta-analysis of

Psycho-social Determinants of Pro-environmental Behavior,’’

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (1), 14-25.

Banister, Emma N., and Margaret K. Hogg (2004), ‘‘Negative

Symbolic Consumption and Consumers’ Drive for Self-esteem,’’

European Journal of Marketing, 38 (7), 850-868.

Barnett, Clive, Paul Cloke, Nick Clarke, and Alice Malpass (2011),

Globalizing Responsibility: The Political Rationalities of Ethical

Consumption. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Belk, Russell (1988), ‘‘Possessions and the Extended Self,’’ Journal of

Consumer Research, 15 (September), 139-168.

Belz, Frank-Martin, and Ken Peattie (2009), Sustainability Marketing:

A Global Perspective. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Bird, Kate, and David R. Hughes (1997), ‘‘Ethical Consumerism: The

Case of ‘‘Fairly-Traded’’ Coffee,’’ Business Ethics: A European

Review, 6 (3), 159-167.

Black, Iain R. (2010), ‘‘Editorial: Sustainability through Anti-Con-

sumption,’’ Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9 (Nov-Dec), 403-411.

Black, Iain R., and Helene Cherrier (2010), ‘‘Anti-consumption as Part

of Living a Sustainable Lifestyle: Daily Practices, Contextual

Motivations and Subjective Values,’’ Journal of Consumer Beha-

vior, 9 (Nov-Dec), 437-453.

Brass, Marcel, and Patrick Haggard (2007), ‘‘To Do or Not to Do: The

Neural Signature of Self Control,’’ Journal of Neuroscience, 27

(34), 9141-9145.

Brehm, Jack W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New

York, NY: Academic Press.

Carrigan, Marylyn, and Ahmad Attalla (2001), ‘‘The Myth of the Ethi-

cal Consumer- Do Ethics Matter in Purchase Behavior?’’ Journal

of Consumer Marketing, 18 (7), 560-577.

Chatzidakis, Andreas, Sally Hibbert, Darryn Mitussis, and Andrew

Smith (2004), ‘‘Virtue in Consumption?’’ Journal of Marketing

Management, 20 (5/6), 527-544.

Chatzidakis, Andreas, Pauline Maclaran, and Alan Bradshaw (2012),

‘‘Heterotopian Space and the Utopics of Ethical and Green Con-

sumption,’’ Journal of Marketing Management, 28 (3-4), 494-515.

Cherrier, Helene 2009, ‘‘Anti-Consumption Discourses and Consumer

Resistant-Identities,’’ Journal of Business Research, 62 (2),

181-190.

Cherrier, Helene, Iain R. Black, and Michael S. W. Lee (2011),

‘‘Intentional Non-consumption for Sustainability: Consumer

Resistance and/or Anti-Consumption?’’ European Journal of Mar-

keting, 45 (11/12), 1757-1767.

Clary, Gil E., Mark Snyder, Robert D. Ridge, John Copeland, Arthur

A. Stukas, Julie Haugen, and Peter Miene (1998), ‘‘Understanding

and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A Functional

Approach,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74

(6), 1516-1530.

Close, Angeline G., and George M. Zinkhan (2009), ‘‘Market-

resistance and Valentine’s Day Events,’’ Journal of Business

Research, 62 (2), 200-207.

Crane, Andrew (1999), ‘‘Are You Ethical? Please Tick Yes? or No?

On Researching Ethics in Business Organizations,’’ Journal of

Business Ethics, 20 (3), 237-248.

Crane, Andrew, and Dirk Matten (2004), Business Ethics: A European

Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cromie, John G., and Mike T. Ewing (2009), ‘‘The Rejection of Brand

Hegemony,’’ Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 218-230.

DePelsmacker, Patrick, Liesbeth Driesen, and Glenn Rayp (2005),

‘‘Do Consumers Care about Ethics? Willingness to Pay for

Fair-Trade Coffee,’’ Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 (2),

363-385.

Dobscha, Susan, and Julie L. Ozanne (2001), ‘‘An Ecofeminist Anal-

ysis of Environmentally Friendly Women Using Qualitative Meth-

odology: The Emancipatory Potential of an Ecological Life,’’

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20 (2), 201-214.

Dolan, Paddy (2002), ‘‘The Sustainability of ‘‘Sustainable Consump-

tion,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 22 (2), 170-181.

Dolich, Ira J. (1969), ‘‘Congruence Relationships between Self Images

and Product Brands,’’ Journal of Marketing Research, 6

(February), 80-84.

Eckhardt, Giana M., Russell Belk, and Timothy M. Devinney (2010),

‘‘Why don’t Consumers Consume Ethically?’’, Journal of

Consumer Behavior, 9 (Nov-Dec), 426-436.

Elliot, Andrew J. (1999), ‘‘Approach and Avoidance Motivation and

Achievement Goals,’’ Educational Psychologist, 34 (3), 169-189.

English, Basil G., and Michael R. Solomon (1997), ‘‘Special Session

Summary: I am Not therefore, I Am: The Role of Avoidance Prod-

ucts in Shaping Consumer Behaviour,’’ Advances in Consumer

Research, 24, 61-63.

Foucault, Michel (1982), The Subject and Power, in Michel Foucault:

Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Hubert L. Dreyfus and

Paul Rabinow, eds. Brighton: The Harvester Press, 208-226.

Fournier, Susan (1998), ‘‘Consumers and their Brands: Developing

Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,’’ Journal of

Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343-373.


Friedman, Munroe (1985), ‘‘Consumer Boycotts in the United States,

1970–1980: Contemporary Events in Historical Perspective,’’

Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19 (1), 96-117.

Gao, Zhihong (2012), ‘‘Chinese Grassroots Nationalism and its

Impact on Foreign Brands,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 32 (2),

181-192. doi:10.1177/0276146711428808

Gardner, Benjamin, and Charles Abraham (2008), ‘‘Psychological

Correlates of Car Use: A Meta-analysis,’’ Transportation Research

Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 11 (4), 300-311.

Gawronski, Bertram, Roland Deutsch, Sawsan Mbirkou, Beate Seibt,

and Fritz Strack (2008), ‘‘When ‘‘Just say No’’ is not Enough:

Affirmation versus Negation Training and the Reduction of Auto-

matic Stereotype Activation,’’ Journal of Experimental Social Psy-

chology, 44 (2), 370-377.

Grubb, Edward L., and Harrison L. Grathwohl (1967), ‘‘Consumer

Self-concept, Symbolism and Market Behavior: A Theoretical

Approach,’’ Journal of Marketing, 31 (October), 22-27.

Harvey, David (2010), The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of

Capital. London, UK: Profile Books.

Heath, Adam P., and Don Scott (1998), ‘‘The Self-concept and

Image Congruence Hypothesis,’’ European Journal of Marketing,

32 (11/12), 1110-1124.

Herrmann, Robert O. (1993), ‘‘The Tactics of Consumer Resistance:

Group Action and the Marketplace Exit,’’ Advances in Consumer

Research, 20, 130-134.

Hogg, Margaret K., and Emma N. Banister (2001), ‘‘Dislikes,

Distastes and the Undesired Self: Conceptualising and Exploring

the Role of the Undesired End State in Consumer Experience,’’

Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (1-2), 73-104.

Hogg, Margaret K., and Paul C. N. Michell (1997), ‘‘Special Session

Summary: Exploring Anti-constellations: Content and Consen-

sus,’’ Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 61-63.

Hogg, Margaret K., Alastair. J. Cox, and Kathy Keeling (2000), ‘‘The

Impact of Self Monitoring on Image Congruence and Product/

Brand Evaluation,’’ European Journal of Marketing, 34 (5/6),

641-666.

Izberk-Bilgin, Elif (2010), ‘‘An Interdisciplinary Review of Resis-

tance to Consumption, Some Marketing Interpretations, and Future

Research Suggestions,’’ Consumption Markets & Culture, 13 (3),

299-323.

Janis, Irving L., and Leon Mann (1977). Decision-making: A Psycho-

logical Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment. New York,

NY: Free Press.

Kilbourne, William. E., Pierre McDonagh, and Andrea Prothero

(1997), ‘‘Sustainable Consumption and the Quality of Life: A

Macromarketing Challenge to the Dominant Social Paradigm,’’

Journal of Macromarketing, 17 (1), 4-24.

Kilbourne, William E., Michael J. Dorsch, Pierre McDonagh, Ber-

trand Urien, Andrea Prothero, Marko Grünhagen, Michael Jay

Polonsky, David Marshall, Janice Foley, and Alan Bradshaw

(2009), ‘‘The Institutional Foundations of Materialism in Western

Societies : A Conceptualization and Empirical Test,’’ Journal of

Macromarketing, 29 (3), 259-278.

Kozinets, Robert V., and Jay M. Handelman (2004), ‘‘Adversaries of

Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology,’’

Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 691-704.

Kozinets, Robert V., Jay M. Handelman, and Michael S. W. Lee

(2010), ‘‘Don’t Read This; or, Who Cares What the Hell Anti-

consumption Is, Anyways?’’ Consumption Markets and Culture,

13 (3), 225-233.

Latouche, Serge (2009), Farewell to Growth. Cambridge, UK: Polity

Press.

Layton, Roger A. (2007), ‘‘Marketing Systems—A Core Macromar-

keting Concept,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (3), 227-242.

Layton, Roger A., and Sanford Grossbart (2006), ‘‘Macromarketing:

Past, Present, and Possible Future,’’ Journal of Macromarketing,

26 (2), 193-213.

Lee, Michael S. W., Karen Fernandez, and Michael R. Hyman (2009),

‘‘Anti-consumption: An Overview and Research Agenda,’’

Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 145-147.

Lee, Michael S. W., Judith Motion, and Denise Conroy (2009), ‘‘Anti-

consumption and Brand Avoidance,’’ Journal of Business

Research, 62 (2), 169-180.

Lee, Michael S. W., Dominique Roux, Hélène Cherrier, and Bernard

Cova (2011), ‘‘Anti-Consumption and Consumer Resistance: Con-

cepts, Concerns, Conflicts, and Convergence,’’ European Journal

of Marketing, 45 (11/12), 1680-1687.

Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, (1981), ‘‘Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles

and Energy Conservation,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3),

243-257.

Levy, Sidney J. (1959), ‘‘Symbols for Sale,’’ Harvard Business

Review, 37 (4), 117-124.

Marcus, Bess H., William Rakowski, and Joseph S. Rossi (1992),

‘‘Assessing Motivational Readiness and Decision-making for

Exercise,’’ Health Psychology, 11 (4), 257-261.

Markus, Hazel, and Paula Nurius (1986), ‘‘Possible Selves,’’ Ameri-

can Psychologist, 41 (9), 954-969.

Maruna, Shadd, and Heith Copes (2005), ‘‘Excuses, Excuses: What

Have We Learned from Five Decades of Neutralization Research?’’

Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 32, 221-320.

McCracken, Grant (1986), ‘‘Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical

Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning

of Consumer Goods,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1),

71-84.

McDonald, Seonaidh, and Caroline J. Oates (2006). ‘‘Sustainability:

Consumer Perceptions and Marketing Strategies,’’ Business Strat-

egy and the Environment, 15 (3), 157-170.

Mills, Wright C. (1940), ‘‘Situated Actions and Vocabularies of

Motive,’’ American Sociological Review, 5 (6), 904-913.

Muniz, Albert M., and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), ‘‘Brand Commu-

nity,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-432.

Nicholls, Alex, and Nick Lee (2006), ‘‘Purchase Decision Making in

Fair Trade and the Ethical Purchase ‘‘Gap’’: ‘‘Is There a Fair-Trade

Twix?’’ Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14 (4), 369-386.

Novick, Laura R., and Patricia W. Cheng (2004), ‘‘Assessing Inter-

active Causal Influence,’’ Psychological Review, 111 (2),

455-485.

Oates, Caroline J., Seonaidh McDonald, Panayiota Alevizou, Kumju

Hwang, William Young, and Leigh-Ann McMorland (2008),

‘‘Marketing Sustainability: Use of Information Sources and

Degrees of Voluntary Simplicity,’’ Journal of Marketing Commu-

nication, 14 (5), 351-365.


Ogilvie, Daniel M. (1987), ‘‘The Undesired Self: A Neglected

Variable in Personality Research,’’ Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52 (2), 379-385.

Ozanne, Lucie K., and Paul W. Ballantine (2010), ‘‘Sharing as a Form

of Anti-consumption? An Examination of Toy Library Users,’’

Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9 (Nov-Dec), 485-498.

Peattie, Ken (2001), ‘‘Golden Goose or Wild Goose? The Hunt for the

Green Consumer,’’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 10 (4),

187-199.

Peñaloza, Lisa, and Linda Price (1993), ‘‘Consumer Resistance: A Con-

ceptual Overview,’’ Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 123-128.

Piacentini, G. Maria, and Banister N. Emma (2009), ‘‘Managing

Anti-Consumption in an Excessive Drinking Culture’’, Journal

of Business Research, 62 (2), 279-288.

Prothero, Andrea, and James A. Fitchett (2000), ‘‘Greening Capital-

ism: Opportunities for a Green Commodity,’’ Journal of Macro-

marketing, 20 (1), 46-55.

Prothero, Andrea, Pierre McDonagh, and Susan Dobscha (2010), ‘‘Is

Green the New Black? Reflections on Green Commodity Dis-

course,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (2), 147-159.

Richetin, Juliette, Mark Conner, and Marco Perugini (2011), ‘‘Not

Doing is Not the Opposite of Doing: Implications for Attitudinal

Models of Behavioral Prediction,’’ Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 37 (1), 40-54.

Richetin, Juliette, Marco Perugini, Mark Conner, Iqbal Adhali, Robert

Hurling, Abhijit Sengupta, and Danica Greetham (2012), ‘‘To

Reduce and Not to Reduce Resource Consumption? That is Two

Questions,’’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32 (2),

112-122.

Roberts, James A. (1996), ‘‘Will the Real Socially Responsible

Consumer Please Step Forward?,’’ Business Horizons, 39 (1), 79-83.

Roe, Robert M., Jermone R. Busemeyer, and James T. Townsend

(2001), ‘‘Multialternative Decision Weld Theory: A Dynamic

Connectionist Model of Decision Making,’’ Psychological Review,

108 (2), 370-392.

Salzer-Morling, Miriam, and Lars Strannegård (2007), ‘‘Ain’t misbe-

havin: Consumption in a Moralized Brandscape,’’ Marketing The-

ory, 7 (4), 407-425.

Scott, Marvin B., and Stanford M. Lyman (1968), ‘‘Accounts,’’ Amer-

ican Sociological Review, 33 (1), 46-62.

Sen, Sankar, and C. B. Bhattacharya (2001), ‘‘Does Doing Good Always

Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social

Responsibility,’’ Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2), 225-243.

Sen, Sankar, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Daniel Korschun (2006),

‘‘The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening

Multiple Stakeholder Relationships: A Field Experiment,’’ Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 158-166.

Seo, Myeong-Gu, and W. E. Creed Douglas (2002), ‘‘Institutional

Contradictions, Praxis and Institutional Change: A Dialectical

Perspective,’’ Academy of Management Review, 27 (2), 222-247.

Shaw, Deirdre, and Ian Clarke (1999), ‘‘Belief Formation in Ethical

Consumer Groups: An Exploratory Study,’’ Marketing Intelligence

and Planning, 17 (2), 109-119.

Shaw, Deirdre, and Terry Newholm (2002), ‘‘Voluntary Simplicity

and the Ethics of Consumption,’’ Psychology and Marketing, 19

(2), 167-185.

Sirgy, Joseph M. (1982), ‘‘Self-concept in Consumer Behavior: A

Critical Review,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December),

287-300.

Smith, Craig N. (1990), Morality and the Market: Consumer Pressure

for Corporate Accountability. London, UK: Routledge.

Solomon, Michael R. (1983), ‘‘The Role of Products as Social Stimuli:

A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective,’’ Journal of Consumer

Research, 10 (3), 319-329.

Solomon, Michael R., and Henry Assael (1987), ‘‘The Forest or the

Trees?: A Gestalt Approach to Symbolic Consumption,’’ in Market-

ing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale, Jean

Umiker-Sebeok, , ed. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 189-218.

Soper, Kate, Martin H. Ryle, and Lyn Thomas (Eds.) (2009), The

Politics and Pleasures of Consuming Differently. Basingstoke,

UK: Palgrave Macmillan

Straughan, Robert D., and James A. Roberts, (1999), ‘‘Environmental

Segmentation Alternatives: A Look at Green Consumer Behavior

in the New Millennium’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16

(6), 558-575.

Sutton, Stephen (2004), ‘‘Determinants of Health Related Behaviors:

Theoretical and Methodological issues,’’ in The Sage Handbook of

Health Psychology, Stephen R. Sutton, Andrew S. Baum and

Marie Johnston, eds. London, UK: Sage, 94-126.

Sykes, Gresham M., and David Matza (1957), ‘‘Techniques of Neutra-

lization: A Theory of Delinquency,’’ American Sociological

Review, 22 (6), 664-670.

Thompson, Craig J., and Zeynep Arsel (2004), ‘‘The Starbucks

Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of

Glocalization,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 631-642.

Thompson, Craig J., Aric Rindfleisch, and Zeynep Arsel (2006),

‘‘Emotional Branding and the Strategic Value of the Doppelganger

Brand Image,’’ Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 50-64.

Thornton, Patricia H., and William Ocasio (2008), ‘‘Institutional

Logics,’’ in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutional-

ism, Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Roy Suddaby and

Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 99-129.

Uusitalo, Outi, and Reetta Oksanen (2004), ‘‘Ethical Consumerism: A

View from Finland,’’ International Journal of Consumer Studies,

28 (3), 214-221.

Webster, Frederick E. (1975), ‘‘Determining the Characteristics of the

Socially Conscious Consumer,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 2

(3), 185-196.

Westaby, James D. (2002), ‘‘Identifying Specific Factors Underlying

Attitudes toward Change: Using Multiple Methods to Compare

Expectancy-Value Theory to Reasons Theory,’’ Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 32 (5), 1083-1106.

Westaby, James D. (2005a), ‘‘Comparing Attribute Importance and

Motivational Reason Methods for Understanding Behavior: An

Application to Internet Job Searching,’’ Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 54 (4), 568-583.

Westaby, James D. (2005b), ‘‘Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Identify-

ing New Linkages Underlying Intentions and Behaviour,’’ Organi-

zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98 (2), 97-120.

Westaby, James D., and Martin Fishbein (1996), ‘‘Factors Underlying

Behavioral Choice: Testing a New Reasons Theory Approach,’’

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26 (15), 1307-1323.


Westaby, James D., Martin Fishbein, and Robert Aherin (1997),

‘‘Self-Reported Reasons: A Test and Application of Reasons

Theory on Occupational Behaviour,’’ Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 19 (4), 483-494.

Westaby, James D., Tahira M. Probst, and Barbara C. Lee (2010),

‘‘Leadership Decision-making: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory

Analysis,’’ The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 481-495.

Wilk, Richard (1997), ‘‘A Critique of Desire: Distaste and Dislike in

Consumer Behaviour,’’ Consumption, Markets and Culture, 1 (2),

175-196.

Willis, Richard H. (1965), ‘‘Conformity, Independence, and Anticon-

formity,’’ Human Relations, 18 (4), 373-388.

Wilson, Charlie, and Hadi Dowlatabadi (2007), ‘‘Models of Decision

Making and Residential Energy Use,’’ Annual Review of Environ-

ment and Resources, 32 (November 2007), 169-203.

Zavestoski, Stephen (2002), ‘‘Guest editorial: Anticonsumption

Attitudes,’’ Psychology and Marketing, 19 (2), 121-126.

Author Biographies

Andreas Chatzidakis is a lecturer in Marketing at the School of Man-

agement, Royal Holloway University of London and deputy Director

of the Centre for Research into Sustainability. His research focuses on

the intersection of consumption with ethics and politics. He has pub-

lished in the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Marketing Man-

agement, Consumption, Markets and Culture, Sociology of Health

and Illness, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Advances in Consumer

Research, and the International Journal of Consumer Studies.

Michael S. W. Lee is a senior lecturer of Marketing at The University

of Auckland Business School. He is director of The International Cen-

tre of Anti-Consumption Research (ICAR); and has published in the

Journal of Business Research, Consumption, Markets and Culture,

European Journal of Marketing, Australasian Marketing Journal,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,

Advances in Consumer Research, and the Journal of Macromarketing.


/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 200 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > > /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

journal of macromarketing...

Documents