Cross-Cultural Diversity - Research Paper Example

If I want you to like me, should I be like you or unlike you? The effect of prior positive interaction with the group on conformity and distinctiveness in consumer decision making” By Veronika Papyrina A CRITICAL REVIEW Executive Summary The report has been formed based on the critical analysis of the article “If I want you to like me, should I be like you or unlike you? The effect of prior positive interaction with the group on conformity and distinctiveness in consumer decision making”. The article was conducted with the help of experimental approach on the students of a North American University. The study revealed that consumer behaviour and decision making within a group influences their tendency towards conformity or distinctiveness. The methodological analysis of the study showed that appropriate considerations were made for designing the research. However, the sample size considered for the research was seemed too small. On the other hand, the outcome of the study differed with the preceding models which can question the implications of the study in the contemporary scenario. Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Summary of Article 4 Approach used for the research 5 Conformity 6 Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions 7 Distinctiveness 8 Experiment and Findings: 9 Validity and reliability 10 Limitations 11 Conclusion 11 Reference List 13 Introduction Consumer decision making and behavioural aspects are among the most debated and discussed topics in the academic and business sphere. The concept of consumer behaviour has been considered as an integral part of the psychological analysis, whereas the business houses are focused on understanding and identifying the factors influencing the consumer behaviour. One of the most interesting concepts related with the consumer behaviour is that of conformity and distinctiveness. As the social communication and interactions are increasing among the global population, the social consciousness among the people to be a part of a group or mark themselves with uniqueness is also increasing. Some researchers believe that consumer decisions are mostly unintentional and thus the influence of external factors is limited. However, Duteurtre and Benderson (2008) stated that consumer decisions are now collective in manner and consider the group behaviour for making their choices. The article considered for this study was writer by Veronika Papyrina and published in Journal of Consumer Behaviour named “If I want you to like me, should I be like you or unlike you? The effect of prior positive interaction with the group on conformity and distinctiveness in consumer decision making”. The article is focused on assessing the influence of conformity and distinctiveness in the consumer behaviour. Summary of Article The article has been developed by considering the social influence on the consumer decision making process. The article reflected that some consumers tend to conform to a particular group while others like to present a unique characteristic, in context of the decision making and behavioural aspects. The study related the aspects of conformity and distinctiveness with the existing theories of behaviour and the influencing factors. This helped in developing a clear viewpoint from the theoretical aspect. On the other hand, a mixed research was conducted in the study for providing evidence towards the development of the research question. The article has presented a critical reflection of the response gathered and also included the reliability and validity tests for ensuring the appropriateness of the responses gathered. The hypothesis of the study focused on assessing the changes in the decision making process of the consumers in public and private situations. The influence of social interactions and social companionship on the consumer behaviour was among the primary guiding factors of the research. This was also the key theme of the primary research conducted in the study. The researcher concluded that the changes in the decision making process of the consumers depends on their social interactions. In situations where an individual has prior interactions with the group members they prefer to be distinctive whereas in groups with no prior commitments, consumers tends to achieve a distinctive status. Approach used for the research The research has been performed by considering an experimental approach. The data collection and analysis process has mainly been quantitative in nature. The study reflected a well explained theoretical underpinning of consumer behaviour and decision making. The entire research was designed in an experimental approach supported by a two by two between-subjects experimental design. The researcher reduced the probability of suspicion regarding the aims of the objectives; the sampling was conducted with perceived scenarios. The data collection process was conducted in three stages with different sets of experiements. Also the researcher used cluster sampling for segmentation and identification of the groups of respondents. As the participants were selected from a North American University and were subjected to the response. However, 14% of the responses were not included in the study as they failed to score in the reliability and validity test. Conformity In the words of Duteurtre and Benderson (2008), conformity is the need or desire to be accepted. Bian and Moutinho (2011) added that conformity is the process that initiates the changes in behaviour with the intention of getting accustomed or associated with a group. Ali (2009) mentioned that social acceptance is one of the major ingredients of the psychological balance of an individual. Considering this statement, the influence of conformity on the consumer behaviour and decision making can justified. However, Bian and Moutinho (2011) argued that social justification may also distract the aim or the preference of an individual which gives importance to the need of uniqueness or distinctiveness. As observed in the study, individuals prefer to follow the trend of a group when there are no prior interactions between them. This suggests that the need for conformity is also influenced by the social atmosphere of an individual. Thus, relating it to consumer behaviour and decision making processes, it can be mentioned that consumers tend towards products and services based on its influences on their social acceptance and status. On the other hand, the primary factor in respect of conformity as mentioned by Papyrina (2012) is uncertainty in the selection of brands, products or services. The observation of Papyrina (2012) can also be linked with the common marketing belief that word-of-mouth is the most influential form of marketing process. In context of psychological explanations, Bateman (2007) stated that an uncertain state develops in mind because of lack of knowledge and confidence. This induces the individual to look forward to the most trustworthy source of information required for decision making and hence the mind focuses on the available sources of knowledge. Thus, it can be identified that conformity is developed by both psychological and social factors that are also related with the marketing process of a business. Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions Cross cultural diversity is one of the most common factors prevailing in the social and corporate scenario (Dick and Basu (2007). The cultural dimensions model developed by Hofstede is used for assessing the impact of the social factors on the members of the society. However, Andrews and Teller (2007) criticised that the research of Hofstede was conducted only on a particular group of samples working in a similar work environment and hence the outcome of the cultural dimension may not be appropriate to be implemented in every situation. The cultural dimensions mentioned by Hofstede are power/distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty/avoidance index and long term orientation (Jones and Sasser, 2008). The process of developing the business culture of a firm has been related with this model in order to develop appropriate work structure for the employee base. Masculinity refers to the power distance existing within the work culture of an organisation. In terms of consumer behaviour, this aspect of the cultural dimension model focuses on the influence of the social aspects on the consumers and measures the difference in social status (Kim, 2008). Individualism on the other hand is focused on the internal social communication in social groups. The aspect of individualism focuses on the concept of distinctiveness and allows scope for developing a diverse or unique profile for an individual by communicating within a larger social scenario (Sen, 2009). The variable of masculinity is more focused on the gender differences in an employee base or a society (Bian and Moutinho, 2011). The influence of a gender within the social circle also enhances the level of commitment for individuals to satisfy the most influencing sub-segment of a social group. For instance, the need for impressing the head member of a family can be related with the approach of masculinity. This again reflects the desire of an individual to conform within a group. However, it has to be noted that the result of the research paper stated that consumers tend to select distinctive approach within a group where prior interactions exist which does not tally with the concept of masculinity. Uncertainty, as the name suggests considers the level of anxiety within a social cluster when faced with an uncertain situation. The development of the concept also highlights the requirements of society to gather trustworthy suggestions for decision making. Duteurtre and Benderson (2008) stated that uncertainty or avoidance also leads to the process of creating social relationships. The final variable of the Hofstede’s model is the long term orientation process. This variable measures the acceptance of a society towards long-term and sustainable objectives rather than short-term or temporary solutions to a problem. Considering the influence of long-term orientation, it can be observed that the selection of brands or products or services by a customer is also based on their prior experiences and their needs (Bian and Moutinho, 2011). Distinctiveness Distinctiveness as defined by Andrews and Teller (2007) relates to the requirement of satisfying the desire to represent oneself in a unique manner. Sen (2009) further simplified that an individual tends to differentiate oneself from a particular group for identifying the importance or value of his/her thoughts within the group. Bian and Moutinho (2011) however criticised that distinctiveness creates segmentations in the society and may also lead to a smaller social structure reducing the scope of unified growth of global population. In context of consumer behaviour, Duteurtre and Benderson (2008) explained that consumers have always shown a tendency towards liking the unique characteristics of a product. For instance, global sports company Nike have always followed the approach of reflecting their core value in their promotional practices rather than their products or services. This was accepted by the consumer base because of their difference in style of presenting themselves (Andrews and Teller, 2007). In this regard, Sen (2009) mentioned that it is important for business houses to connect with the needs and requirements of their customers and align it with their process of distinguishing themselves. In respect of consumer behaviour, the article reflected that consumers when faced with confusing scenarios tend to gather suggestions from the groups with whom they have prior interactions. This also highlights that the influence of social interaction automatically builds up within the consumer decision making while gathering information for selection of brands. However, the final outcome of the research also mentioned that consumers try to distinguish themselves from a group in which they had past communications. It can be gathered that the need to stress upon the existence or the social status is a more pressing factor in the consumer behaviour. The bottom-line of the study highlighted that consumer behaviour changes with their social surroundings and their personal social needs for portraying their existence within a community. Experiment and Findings: The research article was conducted by selecting experimental approach. Papyrina (2012) developed four hypothesises for enhancing specificity in the research outcomes. The development of the experiment process began by designing a scenario which can help the respondents understand the process of data being collected. The study included a group discussion in order to assess the changes in the responses of the participants when they are being interviewed in group from the singular interviews. The process of experiment was further improved by reducing the stress on the respondents for finding a solution to the hypothetical scenario and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the given matter. This also helped Papyrina (2012) in creating a smooth environment by reducing the chances of confrontation among the groups. On completion of the group discussions, the participants were asked to provide their feedbacks about the process with the help of a survey questionnaire. The individual Likert Scale survey conducted among the respondents also helped the researcher to analyse the differentiation in the responses of the group members and evaluate the nature of the participants in context of conformity and distinctiveness. However, hypothesises that laid the framework for the experiment was developed with the assumption of positive interactions among the groups of the research and hence all the possible outcomes may not have been evaluated by this study. The outcome of the research reflected that individuals tend to enhance their distinctiveness when they are within a known group and individuals focus on conformity when they want to indulge within a group with no prior communications. This outcome contracted the previously mentioned theory of Brewer’s which mentioned that individuals try to achieve a unique position within their group. Validity and reliability The article developed by Papyrina (2012) had included authentic literature from valid sources. In order to support the analysis conducted within the study, Papyrina (2012) used the models of Deutsch and Gerard, Turner and Brewer, etc and analysed them in accordance with the requirements of the study. Thus, it can be observed that the literature used in the article were valid and approved the conditions and objectives of the article. The experiment and its time period are also of crucial importance for measuring the validity of the research. The study was published in the year 2012 and hence it can be assumed that the experiment was conducted somewhere between the time period of 2000-2004 which highlights the work as updated. The accuracy gained and showed in the experiment process of the study was further strengthened with the help of appropriate explanations of theories and models used in the literature of the research. However, the outcome of the research presented a dual scenario where the group interactions were appreciated by participants of the USA who are more individualistic by nature. Limitations Papyrina (2012) stated that the respondents included in the study were selected from one of the North American Universities. The participants were also provided with two movie tickets as a reward for taking part in the research process. This act of reward can also hamper the motive of the respondents for taking part in the study. As a result, the answers provided by all the respondents may not be completely justified and hence the outcome of the study will also be hampered. Moreover, the author failed to develop a specific sample size and age boundary for the participants which increased the number of the groups within the research but reduced the preciseness of the answers. Furthermore, the study was conducted only with 64 participants which is considerably a small sample size. The rewards provided to the participants also reduced the ability of Papyrina (2012) to include more respondents in the study and widen the scope of research. Conclusion Considering the analysis conducted in this paper, it can be mentioned that the study made by Veronika Papyrina’s article cannot be considered as a perfect model for business development based on the necessity of . The changes in consumer behaviour have been primarily established on the aspects of performance in a group and individual performance of the respondents. However, the external factors have not been considered in the study. The research methodology of the study has been designed well but the sample size considered was too small to engulf a widespread topic such as consumer behaviour and decision making. Reference List Ali, S. S., 2009. Models in Consumer Buying Behavior. 3rd ed. New York: Harper Collins. Andrews, R. and Teller, M., 2007. Customer choice: the economics of personal living. 5th ed. Harper Press: Liverpool. Bateman, C. R., 2007. Framing effects within the ethical decision making process of consumers, Journal of Business Ethics, 36, pp. 119-126. Bian, X. and Moutinho, L., 2011. Consumer Behavior, Branding and Counterfeiting. 4th ed. New York: Business Expert Press. Dick, A. S. and Basu, K., 2007. Customer Loyalty: An Integrated Conceptual Framework, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), pp. 99-113. Duteurtre, B. and Benderson, B., 2008. Customer Behaviour. 3rd ed. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Jones, T. O. and Sasser, W. E., 2008. Why satisfied customer defects. Harvard Business Review, 71, pp. 88–99. Kim, B.Y., 2008. Mediated Effects of Customer Orientation on Customer Relationship Management Performance. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 9(2), pp. 192-218. Papyrina, V., 2012. If I want you to like me, should I be like you or unlike you? The effect of prior positive interaction with the group on conformity and distinctiveness in consumer decision making, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 11, pp. 467-476 Sen, S., 2009.Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on Consumer Boycotts, Journal of Consumer Research, 28, pp. 399-417. Read More