Understanding consumer psychology in working-class contexts

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568 – 582

Research Dialogue

Understanding consumer psychology in working-class contexts Rebecca M. Carey ⁎, Hazel Rose Markus Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, United States Accepted by Michel Tuan Pham, Area Editor Received 5 March 2015; received in revised form 2 September 2015; accepted 25 August 2016 Available online 26 August 2016

Consider two television ads for fuel-efficient cars In an ad for the Cadillac ELR (MSRP $75,000), a man moves quickly through his luxurious house, espousing the value of hard work and high reward. He has only brief interactions with family (e.g., high fiving his daughter, passing a newspaper to his wife) as he proclaims, “You work hard, you create your own luck, and you've got to believe anything is possible.” Of the 60s in the ad, 50s depict the man alone as the sole focus of the viewer's attention. By contrast, in an ad for the Chevrolet Malibu (MSRP: $22,465), every scene depicts interactions between people. A mom gets ready for work with her daughter, a son sits with his father at a diner, a group of friends go to the beach. The narrator tells us, “we're trying our best to be role models,” “we don't worry about the opening bell; we're trying to make the school bell,” and that the “corner booth beats corner office every day.” Of the ad's 30s, more than 25 depict close relationships (see Fig. 1 for ads). Although both car ads are visually appealing, featuring beautiful people in attractive spaces, they differ dramatically in the stories they tell and the values they communicate. The consumers targeted by these ads differ in their level of formal educational attainment, occupation, and income. Moreover, the ads communicate a sharp difference in the goals, aspirations, and understandings of what is important in life between those who buy a $20,000 car and those who buy at $75,000 car. In other words, the ads imply that social class matters in understanding

⁎ Corresponding author at: Stanford University, Department of Psychology, 450 Serra Mall, Jordan Hall, Building 01-420, Stanford, CA 94305, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.M. Carey).

consumers. These two ads, the first with a focus on the individual and the second with a focus on relationships, highlight differences between socioeconomic status (SES)-based market segments and are consistent with a growing volume of research revealing how social class standing shapes everyday social behavior. Although the literature on social class is growing, we know relatively little about people occupying the lower end of the social class ladder (Lott, 2002). Indeed, social scientists are increasingly aware that the majority of current generalizations about human behavior are based on studies with middle-class participants in European American contexts (Arnett, 2008). Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan (2010) argue, in fact, that researchers know everything about the “weirdest” people in the world as the majority of research is based on Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) populations. Because most researchers are themselves WEIRD, we know a great deal about WEIRDs but still vanishingly little about the other 85% of people alive today. In particular, we understand relatively little about consumers in working-class contexts even though most measures indicate working-class consumers are by far the majority of consumers in the U.S. For example, based on educational attainment—a frequently used index of social class in the U.S.—70% of Americans would be classified as working-class (i.e., have no more formal education than a high school degree; U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). People who differ in their social class standing have access to different types and amounts of material resources, but they also negotiate worlds patterned by different norms and modes of social interaction. Of key importance, social class shapes different understandings of how to be a self, including what it means to be to be a good, moral, or successful person, and what is ideal, expected, and possible. Together, these differences

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.08.004 1057-7408/© 2016 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

569

Fig. 1. Screenshot and narrative of Cadillac (2014) ad (left) and Chevrolet (2014) ad (right).

result in distinct ways of thinking, feeling, and acting (Fiske & Markus, 2012; Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, 2012; Oyserman & Markus, 1993; Stephens, Fryberg, & Markus, 2012). The national culture of the mainstream U.S. reflects and emphasizes the independence of the individual (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). National media, national political discourse, and most formal institutional practices and policies stress autonomy and individual control and responsibility. And by many accounts, this American emphasis on the individual is strong and growing (Grossmann & Varnum, 2015; Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile, 2012). Yet independent values, understandings, and practices are not uniformly distributed across all American contexts. Independence is most strongly reflected in and fostered by the conditions prevalent in relatively well-resourced U.S. middle class contexts (Plaut, Markus, Treadway, & Fu, 2012). In comparison, U.S. working-class contexts include relatively high levels of risk, scarce resources, and dense relationality Greenfield, 2013; Kraus et al., 2012; Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013; Stephens,

Markus, & Phillips, 2014). The conditions of these worlds highlight one's connectedness to others and the necessity of enduring and adjusting to an uncontrollable world (Brannon, Markus, & Taylor, 2015; Greenfield, 2013; Markus & Conner, 2013; Snibbe & Markus, 2005). U.S. working-class families, communities, and work environments promote some aspects of the American concern with freedom and independence, but they also simultaneously give rise to a strong sense of interdependence with others and with the world that tracks the emphasis on independence. In the current article, we focus on the influence of working-class culture on the American consumer. We will suggest that the psyches of people negotiating working-class contexts are complex and in need of further systematic analysis. People in working-class contexts live at the busy crossroads of the ideas and practices of mainstream American culture and those of American working-class culture. We propose that as a consequence of this intersectionality, they are likely to develop two selves—i.e., two ways of understanding the self—one rooted in the independence of

570

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

the individual and one rooted in the interdependence of the individual with others. We seek to examine how the ideas and practices of U.S. working-class cultures can differ from the U.S. middle-class cultures that are often the default in social science research. Specifically, we will examine how working-class realities can influence the psychological processes of self-construal, cognition, emotion, and motivation and then show how these processes, in turn, influence one of the most important aspects of consumer behavior—choice. Two specific conclusions that are relevant to consumer behavior follow from our analysis: (1) the conditions of social existence in U.S. working-class contexts can shape the psychological tendencies and behavior of consumers, and (2) appealing to the needs and interests of these consumers is likely to require leveraging interdependence as well as the independence that is a signature of American national culture.

Conner, 2013; Markus & Kitayama, 2010). In other words, individual minds and their various cultural worlds “make each other up” (p. 27, Shweder, 1990). Social class differences in behavior are not inherent or essential; instead, they are derived from differences in culture cycles. As people engage different cultures cycles, their behavior will change. Three features of culture cycles are notable here. First, individuals and their cultures make each other up, or constitute one another. Second, the elements of culture are constantly in motion and not static—as one element changes, the other interconnected elements will also change. Third, as individuals are part of their cultures, they can change these cultures. In the following sections, we briefly sketch some of the ideas, institutions, and interactions that shape the psychological processes of people in middle-class culture cycles and then show how they contrast with those in working-class culture cycles (see Figs. 2 and 3 for visual summaries).

Social class culture cycles

Ideas—what is a person, what is good?

In the sociological literature and rapidly expanding social psychological literature on class (Fiske & Markus, 2012; Lareau & Conley, 2008), social class is a complex and multifaceted construct—a function of both a person's social rank and status and his or her access to material wealth and resources (Hout, 2008). Consequently, even within the same article, researchers conceptualize social class in different ways. For example, the studies we review here define social class through both objective measures of wealth, education, and occupation, as well as through subjective measures of feelings of relative status and wealth (e.g., where do you think you stand with respect to others in your community?). Classifications such as “working-class” and “middle-class” are broad categories that can easily oversimplify the complexity and dynamic nature of individual lived experience. Yet for the purpose of synthesizing recent findings on behavioral differences associated with societal rank, we will refer to people navigating their social contexts with relatively lower status, rank, power, and fewer resources as working-class (Lareau & Conley, 2008; Fiske & Markus, 2012). This group includes people who have a high school education or less, are low income, or who work in blue-collar or labor-centric occupations. In contrast to this group occupying the lower end of the social class strata, we will refer to people with relatively greater status, rank, power, and resources as the middle class. This group includes people who have a college education, higher income, and professional, or managerial occupations. Social class is one of the many forms of culture that fuels an individual's understanding and experience of the world. As a form of culture, social class can be described as a dynamic system of ideas (e.g., what is right, what is good), institutions (e.g., government, media, education, etc.), and interactions (e.g., with family, classmates, coworkers, etc.) that guides individuals' thinking, feeling, and acting. Through their behavior, individuals perpetuate the cultures of which they are a part. We call the process by which cultures shapes behavior and behavior shapes cultures the culture cycle (Markus &

The first and most abstract layer of the culture cycle is made up of the central, usually invisible ideas that inform our institutions, interactions, and ultimately our selves and psychological processes. Some of the most powerful and prevalent ideas in mainstream American culture can be found in the nation's foundational documents. The Declaration of Independence asserts, “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (U.S., 1776). Ideas and values of individual rights, independence, self-determination, freedom, and equality are pervasive in the U.S. and are particularly evident in middle-class American contexts (Bellah et al., 1985; Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998; Triandis, 1995). In middle-class contexts people are understood to be separate individuals, autonomous, freely choosing, special, and equal to other individuals. They are defined by their rights and by the personal attributes that guide their actions, such as traits, preferences, beliefs, and attitudes. Behavior that expresses these attributes is necessary to fulfill ideas of what it means to be a normatively appropriate person (Stephens, Markus, & Fryberg, 2012). This particular idea of personhood is reflected throughout the culture cycle; it is inscribed in institutional policies and practices, echoed in child-rearing manuals, and reflected in individual self-characterizations. When a middle-aged college-educated respondent from a representative sample of Americans says of himself, “I'm smart, maybe not brilliant, but well-organized, a good sport. I plan for the future and I make choices about what I want, feel, and want to be,” his words bear the stamp of a pervasive American answer to the question of “what is a person?” (Markus & Conner, 2013). In the U.S., people in working-class contexts also engage with mainstream American ideas of individuality and independence. However, in contrast to those in middle-class contexts, they are also likely to put a premium on relationships and interdependence. In working class culture, people are understood

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

571

Fig. 2. U.S. middle-class culture cycle examples.

as fundamentally connected to others, and adjustment to others and the social environment is normative (Fiske, Moya, Russell, & Bearns, 2012; Stephens, Fryberg & Markus, 2012). When a

middle-aged high school-educated respondent says, “I think I'm, if not by a college degree, an intelligent person. I have a lot of knowledge of a lot of different things. I have strong belief in God.

Fig. 3. U.S. working-class culture cycle examples.

572

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

I am kind to people. I treat people like I want to be treated. I never talk down to anyone, and I never talk behind people's backs,” he reveals the focus on personal attributes that characterizes the independent understanding of personhood but also a concern with maintaining relationships and fulfilling one's duties to others. Interdependence can be a useful and often necessary strategy for surviving when there are too few resources to go around. Paying attention to others and fitting in with other people can create and maintain networks that will deliver emotional support and material assistance. Being strong, weathering the events of everyday life, and making do in a changing and sometimes chaotic world come before worries over being separate and special (Stephens, Markus, et al., 2014). In the words of a high school-educated construction worker “[w]hat matters is endurance, not giving up, just being in there, sticking with your friends when the going is not so good, hanging tough” (Markus & Conner, 2013, p. 95). In working-class worlds, fostering connections to others, being loyal to friends, and treating close others well takes on extra significance. As both the college-educated and high school-educated respondents quoted here suggest, morality, or what is understood as “good” or “right” is tightly linked to what is self. Morality can emphasize both the rights and welfare of the individual and the obligations and duties toward others. In an analysis of moral foundations of behavior, Haidt and Graham (2007) and Haidt (2012) draw a distinction between morality rooted in individual concerns and morality rooted in relational concerns. They propose five moral foundations that fall into two broad categories—individualizing morals and binding morals. Individualizing morals include many mainstream American concerns that focus on the individual such as harm, care, fairness, and equality. Binding morals are rooted in interdependent concerns such as in-group loyalty, respect for authority, and respect for the holy and sacred. Examining the relationship between social class and moral foundations, Carey and Markus (2015) found that middle-class Americans are more likely to value individualizing morals than binding morals. In middle-class contexts, ideas of equality, freedom, and pursuing individual happiness provide an answer to the “what is a person” question and simultaneously outline the moral ideal. Working-class Americans also strongly value individualizing morals, yet they are more likely than their middle-class counterparts to also value the binding morals (Carey & Markus, 2015). Michele Lamont's extensive ethnography comparing blue and white collar workers supports this ideological difference. Blue-collar workers in working-class contexts held relatively “connected selves” and saw moral dimensions in working hard, being responsible, and providing for their family (Lamont, 2000). For people, in working-class contexts, the moral tension between respecting the individual and valuing social roles and obligations is often in high relief.

that reflect and promote a culture's pervasive ideas of what makes a person and what is good or right. The media is a particularly powerful institution for distributing culturally prevalent ideas about the good way to be. For example, comparative studies of ads in the U.S. and East Asia show that individualistic messages about choice, freedom, uniqueness, and rebelling against norms saturate mainstream American advertising (Kim & Markus, 1999). A study by Han and Shavitt (1994), for example, found that American ads emphasize independence, personal goals, ambition, and benefits to the consumer. Korean ads, in contrast, stress group well-being, concerns about others, relationships with others, and group goals. The opening Cadillac ad is an extreme example of an emphasis on independence in the media. The protagonist is shown in a resource-rich world in which he is free from constraints, can satisfy his needs, and is able to influence a world of his own making. The Chevy ad, however, is populated with messages about connecting and belonging and is closer in dominant themes to those in East Asian ads. Consistent with the Cadillac and Chevy ads, Stephens, Markus, and Townsend (2007) found that car ads targeting middle-class consumers focused on ideas that emphasized differentiation from others, such as uniqueness or breaking rules, e.g., “only one of its kind in the world.” By contrast, the images and the messages in the ads targeting working-class consumers focused on family, friends, and connections to others, e.g., “take family time further.” The policies and practices of educational institutions also differ in the extent to which they emphasize the individual and independence or relationships and interdependence (Stephens, Markus, et al., 2014). Curricular practices in middle-class schools stress the development and expression of children's unique selves. They encourage teachers to ask questions so that students can express their personal thoughts and develop their own voices (Kusserow, 2004; Lareau, 2003; Stephens, Markus, et al., 2014). They tend to promote leadership skills, learning to chart one's own path, and individual problem solving (Stephens, Fryberg, & Markus, 2012). In comparison, practices in working-class schools emphasize learning to follow rules (Kusserow, 2004; Stephens, Markus, etal., 2014). These practices prepare students for jobs that require routine, supervision, and fewer opportunities for control and choice (Kohn & Schooler, 1973). Rather than entering college, where students spend years cultivating their own interests and developing their independent selves, working-class young adults are likely to fill blue-collar jobs. The structure of these jobs tends to further foster their interdependent selves. The working-class jobs typically require adjusting to others and strict adherence to rules while encouraging deference to a superior's demands through discipline and close monitoring by superiors.

Institutions—norms, policies, laws

At the interaction level of the culture cycle are everyday exchanges with other people in local worlds of home, school, workplace, and places of worship. Families are one source of the daily interactions that are particularly important in

The institutional level of the culture cycle includes the norms, rules, policies, and practices of the many institutions

Interactions—daily exchanges with people and products

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

conveying a culture's pervasive ideas and in shaping how people understand the self, others, and the world. Parents in middle-class contexts are likely to encourage their children to cultivate and explore creative hobbies, to develop their preferences so they can choose, and to learn to influence others and the world around them. The relative security of middle-class contexts leads parents to believe that their children will enter a safe and welcoming world (Kusserow, 2004). Parents in working-class contexts, however, tend to prepare their children for a more unpredictable world by encouraging tough, resilient selves that are attentive to the people and constraints in their environment (Kusserow, 2004; Markus & Conner, 2013). Using direct commands and strict punishment, many working-class parents enforce adherence and adjustment to rules rather than expression of individual goals and desires (Kusserow, 2004; Stephens, Markus, etal., 2014). Social class also shapes social networks. For many people in middle-class contexts, attending college means moving to another city or state and forming relationships with new people who are chosen by them. As a result of this greater mobility, people in middle-class contexts are likely to form large but relatively loosely connected social networks (Oishi, 2010; Williams, 2012). By contrast, people in working-class contexts often remain near the places they grew up, living close to extended family and in relationships with people they have known much of their lives (Granovetter, 1973; Lamont, 2000; Williams, 2012). As such family members often form the foundation of social networks and working-class individuals are likely to live in what Lamont (2000) calls “tight networks of sociability” (p. 11). These networks have higher degrees of embeddedness in that many of the members in the network also have enduring connections to each other (Carey & Markus, 2015). Interactions in relatively loose networks of the middle class versus the relatively tight networks of the working-class have different consequences on understandings of self and others. For the middle class, interactions with others and the environment occur in contexts of greater resources, affording opportunities to freely choose and exert influence based on personal goals, desires, and preferences (Piff, Stancato, Martinez, Kraus, & Keltner, 2012). When interactions with others have fewer constraints (of both a material and social nature), people are free to focus on their individual selves and personal preferences. For those navigating working-class contexts, however, interactions with others and with the environment are more likely to occur in contexts of limited access to resources and relatively greater risks. More constraints on what people can and cannot do increase the necessity of adjusting to the environment, enduring uncontrollable circumstances, and relying on and supporting others (Stephens, Markus, etal., 2014). Working-class networks tend to resemble a web in which an impact on any part of the web reverberates throughout the entire web. Embedded networks reinforce the importance of others and a focus outward flows from a world in which others are the main buffers of threats from an unpredictable environment (Adams, 2005). As a specific everyday example, consider middle-class Jane and her decision about what to eat for dinner. Having recently moved to another state for college, she lives on campus with a

573

roommate. Because her meals do not necessarily include others, and because she has the resources to buy most of the meals in her location, what she chooses to eat is not constrained socially or economically. Instead she can (and will) decide on what to eat on the basis of her personal goals (e.g., eating healthy), desires (e.g., preference for Indian food), or needs (e.g., hunger for a large meal). Now consider working-class Hannah. She lives at home with her family while attending a local community college. Because she shares meals, or because she does not have the means to buy her own meal, what she eats is likely to depend on what is cooked by her family. Even if she eats alone, what she eats might depend on the food available to her at home or on the cost of food outside of her home. It might even depend on whether or not others in her house will want to eat the food at another time. What is eaten for dinner will reflect both others and situational constraints, like the cost of food. In fact, as we will elaborate later in the discussion, given so many constraints on what working-class Hannah can eat, dinner may not even be experienced as a “choice.” Individuals—selves, identities, and agencies The ideas, institutions, and interactions of the culture cycle shape how people construe themselves and how they understand what they are doing (i.e., agency). Recent studies reveal that when people in working-class contexts describe their self-concepts, they tend to reflect a stronger relationality and connection to others. Exploring self-concepts, Carey and Markus (2015) asked working-class adults to describe the relationship between themselves and close others using the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). The scale includes a series of increasingly overlapping circles. At one end of the scale, the circles share no overlap and the self is seen as completely separate from others (an independent understanding of self). At the other end of the scale, the circles are almost completely overlapping and the self is seen as connected to and part of others (an interdependent understanding of self). Compared to middle-class adults, working-class adults rated themselves as more overlapping with the selves of their mothers and also the selves of their closest friend. Another study (Grossmann & Varnum, 2010) asked participants to diagram their social networks by drawing circles. Compared to middle-class adults who drew themselves as bigger than their friends, working-class adults drew circles representing their selves as close in size to the circles representing their friends, reflecting less self-inflation and less need to stand out and distinguish themselves from others in their network. Psychological processes in working-class cultural contexts Ideas, institutions, and interactions shape selves and selves in turn they mediate and regulate thoughts, feelings, and actions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2010). Most people are likely to have both independent and interdependent selves that can be used to guide their behavior. Yet people differ in how familiar and practiced their two selves are, and their behavior will tend

574

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

to draw on one more than the other. For those navigating contexts that promote independent selves, the self is experienced as separate and distinct from others. Consequently, psychological processes are likely grounded in the needs, desires, and goals of the individual. However, for those navigating contexts that foster interdependent selves, the self is connected to others, and psychological processes are likely to be somewhat less tied to individuals needs and goals and more likely to reference and implicate other people and forces outside of the individual. In the following sections, we briefly review the still minimal but growing literature on how social class contexts can shape cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes (see Table 1 for summary). Considering how working-class contexts shape psychological processes and behavior is a key to understanding working-class consumers.

Cognition Reflecting differences in their social class culture cycles, people tend to reason about the world in divergent ways. When Kraus, Piff, and Keltner (2009) asked participants why there was a growing disparity between the rich and the poor, middle-class participants explained the gap in terms of individual or dispositional attributes—ambition, ability, or effort. By contrast, working-class participants gave a different set of reasons that implicated a wide array of situational or contextual factors. They named the economic structure of society, personal background, educational opportunity, and prejudice and discrimination as playing relatively greater roles in important economic outcomes. Similarly, when asked to explain obesity or admission to certain schools, middle-class respondents saw these outcomes as the responsibility of the individual while working-class respondents saw them as the consequence of situational forces outside of the individual's control. Moreover, inferences about the causes of behavior are so fast they are virtually automatic (Varnum, Na, Murata, & Kitayama, 2011). Explaining behavior as dependent on a variety of contextual factors both reflects and fosters a holistic cognitive style—a pattern of psychological processing that emphasizes connections between objects and their backgrounds (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Compared to an analytic cognitive style, in which attention is focused on individual and focal objects, a holistic cognitive style involves distributing attention

across the foreground and the background, and perceiving objects as integral parts of their context (Nisbett et al., 2001). People in working-class contexts also demonstrate holistic cognitive processes in how they attend to information. When asked to identify changes between two highly similar scenes, middle-class individuals were more likely to notice changes to objects central to the scenes. By contrast, working-class individuals noticed changes to background images like buildings and clouds (Grossmann & Varnum, 2010). For those wielding independent selves, attention reflects the importance of autonomous and individual focal objects. However, for those wielding interdependent selves, attention reflects the importance of objects and the importance of elements of the context or background. In another demonstration of social class differences in analytic and holistic cognition, Miyamoto and Ji (2011) asked participants to identify which two of three words were most closely related— e.g., “dog,” “seagull,” and “sky.” Middle-class participants saw seagull and dog as more closely related, attending to them as individual objects with shared animal features. Working-class participants, however, saw seagull and sky as more closely related, attending to the relationship between the seagull and sky as that between an object and its background.

Emotion Independent and interdependent selves also support and organize different emotional processes and experiences (Markus & Kitayama, 1994). When the interdependent self is active, emotional processes are likely to be powerfully influenced by social information. Consider a smiling boy surrounded by frowning peers. Will the emotions of his peers influence how the smiling boy feels? In an independent context, we would expect emotion to reflect individual states and feelings—the boy can be happy even when others around him are not. However, in an interdependent context, we would expect emotions to reflect not just the individual, but also the feelings of important others in the individual's context. Masuda et al. (2008) explored this question by asking individuals in interdependent Japanese contexts and independent North American contexts to view images of a boy surrounded by peers. They found that Japanese, but not American, participants were markedly influenced by the emotions of the surrounding group of peers when perceiving the emotions of the focal boy.

Table 1 Social class differences in psychological processes. Psychological process

Middle class

Cognition

• Analytic cognition • Dispositional causal reasoning • Attention to focal objects and their qualities

Emotion

• Emotion emanates from within the individual • Less attuned to the emotions of others

Motivation

• Motivation arises from internal attributes (goals, needs, preferences) • Independent appeals are most motivating

Working class • Holistic cognition • Situational causal reasoning • Attention to backgrounds and the relationship between focal objects and their contexts • Emotions emanate from relationships • Greater empathy and empathic accuracy • Empathy guides behavior • Motivation linked to expectations, obligations of others, norms • Interdependent appeals are most motivating

Summary of differences in psychological processes characteristic of middle- and working-class contexts.

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

For them, the boy was less happy when everyone around him was unhappy. Working-class contexts also promote a focus on others. Even in casual conversation, working-class individuals are more likely to engage with and attend to their social partners. In contrast to the self-grooming, fidgeting, and doodling of the middle class, working-class individuals are more likely to look at, laugh with, and nod at their partners (Kraus & Keltner, 2009). As a consequence, individuals navigating these contexts are more likely to be attuned to and experience the emotions of others (Preston & de Waal, 2002). For example, Kraus, Côté, and Keltner (2010) explored empathy across middle- and working-class contexts by having participants look at faces, watch eye muscle movements, and interact with strangers. Whether it was a face, eyes, or the entire person, working-class participants were more accurate in their identification of the emotions another person was experiencing. Furthermore, those in working-class contexts not only identify the emotions others are experiencing (a cognitive process), they also experience emotional states in response to the emotions of those they observe or with whom they interact. In response to a video about children suffering from cancer, working-class respondents showed a greater deceleration in their heart rate, indicating increased social engagement and sympathy than did middle-class respondents (Stellar, Manzo, Kraus, & Keltner, 2012). The relatively greater empathy of individuals in working-class contexts also guides how they respond to moral dilemmas. When resolving some of the stock problems posed by philosophers, such as whether or not it is right to push one person off a drawbridge to stop a trolley that would otherwise kill five people, middle-class participants were likely to respond with utilitarian reasoning that maximized the greater good and focused on consequences (Côté, Piff, & Willer, 2013). However, working-class participants were more likely to report strong visceral feelings for the person on the bridge and were less likely to endorse pushing him off to save five others. Motivation In American contexts, intrinsic motivation, or motivation stemming from inherent enjoyment or interest, is typically valued more than extrinsic motivation, or motivation stemming from outcomes outside of personal interest or joy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation, with its emphasis on individual interest, reflects a motivational style that is best supported by independent contexts. However, motivation from outside the individual is relatively more prevalent in interdependent contexts in which others shape and define the self (Fu & Markus, 2014). Consider the motives that students bring with them to college. Most colleges and universities are largely independent institutions that reinforce the independent selves of the middle class. Motives for attending college focus on the individual—a desire to explore new interests, become an independent thinker, or realize one's potential (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson & Covarrubias, 2012). However, first-generation working-class students, hailing from interdependent worlds, are less likely to

575

express these independent motives and instead report a set of interdependent motives—a desire to help family out after finishing college, give back to their community, and provide better lives for their own children (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, et al., 2012). Independent motives around personal growth and developing personal interests play a less important role than do outcomes that help achieve goals centered around close others. Interdependent motivations reflect the unique role others play in working-class contexts. Others, particularly close others, help buffer the unsteadiness of a risky world. Indeed, when confronted with their own chaotic experiences or primed with chaos, those in working-class contexts are more likely than those in middle-class contexts to embrace communal orientations, feel connected to their community, and engage in community building behavior (Piff et al., 2012). In independent worlds, the influence of others conflicts with the need to express and pursue personal goals and desires. As a result, interdependence can actually be demotivating. When American college students were primed with interdependent behaviors like “adjust,” “accommodate,” and “flexible,” they did not persist as long on physical and mental tasks as they did when primed with neutral words or with independent behaviors like “autonomous,” “influence,” “control” (Hamedani, Markus, & Fu, 2013). For those from working-class contexts, however, the interdependent self can be motivating. Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, et al. (2012) invited first-generation college students—the first in their families to attend college—to evaluate their university's welcoming materials for freshman. Half of these participants viewed materials with a focus on independence—the letter from the president, brochure, and flyers portrayed the university as a place to explore one's personal interests. The other half viewed a welcome package with a focus on interdependence—these materials presented the university as a place where students can collaborate with others and become part of a community. Students from working-class backgrounds who read that university was a place to become part of a community performed significantly better on spatial and verbal tasks than those who read university was a place to explore personal interests (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, et al., 2012). In a second study, researchers found that working-class students who read the materials focusing on independence underwent a sharp increase in cortisol levels, indicating that they were experiencing more stress while completing the tasks than middle-class students did after reading either set of materials (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, et al., 2012). Supporting these findings, intervention studies with first-generation students show that leveraging the interdependent self can improve academic performance. For example, in one study by Stephens, Hamedani and Destin (2014), a panel of older students communicated to younger student participants that their social class backgrounds can shape the college experience in both positive and negative ways, and that students need to utilize strategies for success that take their different backgrounds into account. Compared to a control condition in which a panel discussed their academic experiences but did not

576

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

connect their stories to their social class backgrounds, the condition that focused on social class succeeded in reducing the GPA gap between first-generation students and their continuing-generation counterparts. The conditions and realities of social class shape the process by which people perceive and understand their world (see Table 1). How people attend to their world, make sense of it, and react to it flow from their understanding of self. Those in working-class contexts are likely to have processes that are shaped by a self that is fundamentally connected to others, resilient, and adjusting to situational forces. Consequently, the working-class consumer, relative to middle-class consumers, makes consumer choices and decisions in contexts that deemphasize the importance of personal preferences and emphasize the importance of others, situational forces, and norms (Riemer, Shavitt, Koo, & Markus, 2015). Consumer choice in working-class contexts Choice is a crucial feature of consumer behavior. For many in American contexts, choice is good, desirable, and positive (Markus & Schwartz, 2010). Choice provides the opportunity to act on, express, and affirm one's internal self, including one's goals, needs, and preferences (Hoshino-Browne, 2012; Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005; Kitayama, Snibbe, Markus, & Suzuki, 2004). Furthermore, making choices has both cognitive and social consequences that support the independent self. For example, choice fuels analytic cognition (Savani, Stephens, & Markus, 2015), reduces empathy, and focuses people on policies promoting individual rights rather than on policies fostering intergroup equality (Savani, Stephens, & Markus, 2011). Even though choice is highly valued in most contexts (Miller, Das, & Chakravarthy, 2011), recent studies show that the meaning and implications of choice depends on sociocultural environments (see Table 2 for summary of findings). Social class influences how action is construed and what counts as a choice. When asked “How many choices did you make since you got up this morning?” working-class American participants listed 35% fewer choices than did middle-class participants (Markus & Curhan, 2015). Similarly, in events outside of the daily realm, action is less likely to be construed as choice. A survey of Hurricane Katrina survivors found that middle-class survivors construed themselves as controlling their circumstances through choice (e.g., “I wanted to beat the hurricane, so we decided to leave early”, “You've got to make choices and it's hard”). In comparison, working-class New

Orleanians who stayed in the city during the hurricane explained their behavior in terms of interdependence, faith, and strength (e.g., “You have to be strong-minded to survive”, “I just let it make me stronger … because I have to take care of my two sons”; Stephens, Hamedani, Markus, Bergsieker, & Eloul, 2009). Working-class survivors understood their experience as requiring resilience and adjustment to the uncontrollable conditions of their environment. They also frequently described their actions in terms of caring for others in the community ( e.g. “I was worried not only for myself but for a lot people”). In working-class contexts, actions tend to be seen and understood as responses to interpersonal influences and events in the environment, rather than as opportunities to influence and control the world. Choice in middle-class contexts often serves to express and affirm the self. Consider, for example, the act of choosing a product like a music CD. Exploring the meaning of choice across class contexts, Snibbe and Markus (2005) asked middleand working-class participants to choose and rank CDs, one of which they would receive as compensation for completing a study. Ultimately, participants were told they could only choose between two of the low-rated CDs. When evaluating the CDs a second time, middle-class participants, but not working-class participants, increased their ratings for the chosen CD. They liked the CD because they chose it. Similarly, in a second study, participants chose a pen to evaluate and keep. However, after choosing the pen, some of the participants were told they could not have it and were given a different pen to evaluate. When the opportunity to choose was denied, middle-class participants gave the pens chosen by the experimenter significantly worse evaluations than the pens they chose for themselves (Snibbe & Markus, 2005). They exhibited decreased liking for the pen because they did not choose it. Rather than expressing and reflecting the self, choice in working-class contexts often implicates others and connections to others. Consider the working-class participants in Snibbe and Markus's (2005) studies who also made choices about CDs and pens. Unlike their middle-class counterparts, working-class participants did not change their ratings of the products they had chosen. Choice in working-class contexts is more likely to serve relational goals—often anticipating and responding to the needs of others and serving to strengthen connections to others. For example, Stephens, Fryberg, and Markus (2011) offered participants a gift for completing a task. Participants could either accept the gift the experimenter initially offered, or have the experimenter retrieve more options from which the

Table 2 Independent and interdependent understandings of choice. Dimensions of choice Choice as constrained or free Choice as personal or relational

Independent contexts (middle class) • Many choices—choices are freely made • Expresses and affirms personal goals, needs, desires, individuates, affords control • Promotes difference and uniqueness

Interdependent contexts (working class) • Fewer choices—choices constrained by the environment • Serves relational goals, responsive to the needs of others • Promotes similarity and connection

The meaning of choice across independent and interdependent contexts. Middle-class contexts are likely to foster and support independence while working-class contexts are likely to foster and support interdependence.

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

participant could choose. The working-class participants were comfortable accepting a gift chosen by another person (in this case the experimenter) and did not insist on choosing from the full range of options. Similarly, consumer choice can serve the function of making one unique and different from others or similar and connected to others. One study highlighted this difference by asking middle-class and working-class participants to choose among pens of different colors. Participants could either choose a pen that was unique in color or one that was the same color as the majority of the pens. Middle-class participants preferred to make a choice that made them different from others—56% of them chose the pen with the unique color. By contrast, working-class participants preferred to make a choice that would make them more similar to others—72% of them chose a majority color pen (Stephens et al., 2007). In another study, middle and working-class respondents chose which images they liked best from an array of images. Half of these participants were able to see the choices of a “previous respondent.” Most of the middle-class participants shied away from making the same choice as a previous person. By contrast, working-class participants were more likely to choose the images they believed other participants had also chosen (Stephens et al., 2007). Whereas choice in middle-class contexts is typically in the service of individual goals and preferences, choice in working-class contexts can also foster a variety of interpersonal goals and is often contingent on influences other than the press of one's own preferences. This behavior is not a blind imitation of others or conformity as it is commonly understood but instead an intentional adjustment to others in the service of fitting in, belonging, or maintaining good relations. Using choice to create ties with others or to fit in can buffer the threat and uncertainty of worlds where people have relatively little control or power. Rucker, Dubois, and Galinsky (2011) manipulated feelings of power in an American sample and tested how people chose to spend money. They found that when participants imagined themselves with relatively greater power and presumably more security, they spent more money on themselves. However, when participants imagined themselves with little power and less security, they spent more money on others. Rucker et al. (2011) explain their findings by proposing that power changes the utility of the individual over others. At the moment of choice, a person's sense of power or relative standing with respect to control over resources may shape the meaning and function of choice. Relatively little is known about the experience of consumer choice made by an individual with others or for others (Simpson, Griskevicius, & Rothman, 2012). Some research on social class suggests that in situations in which behavior needs to be responsive to the situation, social roles, and the expectations of others, choice may not be an unalloyed good and can, in fact, have negative implications. When there is no recourse for the impact a poor or wrong decision can have on others, choice can be a burden rather than an opportunity. Indeed, when describing choice, adults in working-class contexts are more likely than their middle-class counterparts to associate choice with difficulty. In free associating to choice, they responded with “tough,”

577

“complicated,” and “stressful” and reported greater feelings of negative affect such as fear, nervousness, and anxiety (Stephens et al., 2011). Implications for future research Our brief review of how social class can craft different realities (i.e., ideas, institutions, and interactions), shape different psychological processes, and give rise to different meanings and functions for choice has robust implications for research. In particular, these findings challenge many assumptions about choice and behavior that stem from a predominant focus on middle-class American contexts. These include the following: (1) choice is invariably beneficial, (2) people in working-class or low-income contexts make suboptimal or poor decisions, and (3) effective appeals will transcend social class differences. In the following sections, we briefly discuss how knowledge of social class differences may complicate or challenge these assumptions. Assumption: choice is invariably beneficial The reality of choice changes across different sociocultural contexts (see Table 2). In mainstream (and middle-class) American contexts, choice is largely desirable and exercised as a means to influence the world in a way consistent with personal needs and preferences). Choice is thought to be essential to autonomy, which in turn is assumed to be essential for well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Markus & Schwartz, 2010). From developing social and learning skills in children to extending the lives of older adults, encouraging choice and the expression of internal needs, desires, and preferences is often prescribed as a means to achieve important goals (Miserandino, 1995; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Rodin & Langer, 1977). Choice affords control as well as distinctiveness, and many decades of research reveal that people feel happier and perform better when allowed to choose for themselves (Brehm, 1956; Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Rodin & Langer, 1977). This literature on choice and its consequences takes for granted that the independent self is most likely active and responsible for guiding the behavior behind these effects. When the focus is on middle-class respondents, as it usually is, this assumption is justified. Yet, in working-class contexts, the interdependent self is also likely to be active in guiding behavior. As a consequence, making the right choice involves consideration of more than just personal needs, desires, and preferences. In working-class contexts, more so than in middle-class contexts, there are often social and economic constraints on what a person can do or have that are real, enduring, and difficult to avoid or change (Kraus et al., 2012; Markus & Schwartz, 2010). One example of the divergent effects of choice in middle-class and working-class contexts is school choice. School choice is a proposed solution to inequality in education and underperformance of schools in the U.S. (Viteritti, 2012). Advocates of school choice propose that families should be able to freely choose their children's schools, and that the right

578

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

to choose schools will give their children access to better academic resources, improve their children's academic outcomes, and force schools to become more efficient and productive (Gill, Timpane, Ross, Brewer, & Booker, 2007). The argument is that school choice will be particularly beneficial for low-income families, who are traditionally disadvantaged in their access to high-quality and high-performing schools. Recent analyses, however, suggest that giving parents the freedom to choose schools is most beneficial for families with higher income and higher levels of education (Sirer, Maroulis, Guimera, Wilensky, & Amaral, 2015). Freedom of choice fails to be an equally effective tool in working-class contexts because choice is still highly constrained for low-income families with relatively less education. Parents with fewer years of education are less likely to know about the variety of schooling options and are less likely to apply to school choice programs even when they are available for their children (Goldhaber, Brewer, Eide, & Rees, 1999; Lankford, Lee, & Wyckoff, 1995). Moreover, the lower incomes characteristic of working-class families limits the neighborhoods in which they can live and as such the schools that are geographically feasible given their options for transportation (Bell, 2009). Additionally, school choice is not free choice when schools can allow selective entry and favor the highest performing students (who are more likely to come from middle-class contexts; Lauen, 2007). As a result, the academic quality of a school, the most relevant and desirable element of school choice, becomes most important for high SES families and much less important for low SES families (Burgess, Greaves, Vignoles, & Wilson, 2015). The view that all people are alike in their opportunities to choose—whether it is a school, a health plan, or a car—fuels the belief that people are responsible for their circumstances and their outcomes. This view, common among those whose actions are driven primarily by their independent selves, can foster ineffective programs and policies and can reduce a sense of connection and empathy with those whose life circumstances provide few opportunities to choose among good options. In many contexts, choice is not free and when it is constrained by external limitations, it is more likely to be experienced as negative (Luce, Bettman, & Payne, 1997). Additionally for people with few economic resources, there is little cushion or leeway for bad decisions and mistakes (Bertrand, Mullainathan, & Shafir, 2006), and as a result choice may not be equally beneficial across all social class contexts. Assumption: people in working-class contexts make suboptimal decisions Mullainathan and Shafir (2013) describe poverty as a “scarcity trap” (p. 13). Not having enough, they propose, preoccupies the mind, taking up valuable cognitive capacity and leading people to make poor choices that further contribute to their economic hardship. The scarcity trap perspective reflects a common goal in research on social class and wealth—understanding how the choices people make in contexts of limited wealth and resources contribute to their financial adversity (e.g., Bertrand

et al., 2006; Spears, 2011). This perspective rests on two assumptions: first, that people can have agency over the conditions of their life by making the correct (consumer) choices, and second, that those in contexts of limited financial resources are likely to make the wrong choices. The evidence that conditions of working-class contexts can have deleterious effects on decision making and that the decisions in these constrained contexts can contribute to poor economic standing is strong. Yet the classification of working-class consumer choices as poor serves to obscure the relational source and function of some choices. Consider an example described in Mullainathan and Shafir (2013) in which two men are contemplating buying a $200 leather jacket. While one man has more than enough money to make the purchase, the other man is low on funds. For the man without money, Mullainathan and Shafir (2013) posit, “buying the leather jacket is a mistake,” (p. 83). Indeed, spending money on an expensive leather jacket flies in the face of reason when the prevailing logic says that people without financial resources should save as much money as possible and only purchase products and services that meet their immediate needs. People should ensure they have the monetary resources to handle the costs of everyday life as well as the unexpected costs of emergencies. This financial strategy is meant to avoid borrowing money or taking out loans, actions that often lead to increased financial insecurity (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). Simply, people with limited funds should not make unnecessary purchases. Yet in a study of the amenities available in U.S. households, investigators found that poor households in the U.S. included almost as many televisions, personal computers, cell phones, and video games as households with higher incomes (Rector & Sheffield, 2011). Other studies reveal that people navigating contexts of relatively little wealth often invest in counterfeit brand name items to project the appearance of possessing a brand name item (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010). Under the assumption that consumer choices should be used to improve one's financial situation, the purchase of televisions, video games, or brand name products (real or counterfeit) are poor choices. This analysis, while sound from one perspective, does not take into account the many meanings and functions of a choice. Even if it is economically unsound, a choice may allow people to adhere to social norms, achieve similarity, and build relationships with important others. In her essay titled, “The Logic of Stupid Poor People,” sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom challenges the assumption that purchases that appear unnecessary are always mistakes. She describes how her mother was able to help a neighbor receive government benefits by showing up with the neighbor at a social agency dressed in her “her best Diana Ross ‘Mahogany’ outfit,” and signaling to the employees of the agency that she was “worthy of engaging.” McMillan Cottom's example illuminates that consumer choices can have relational value, or value that increases their social capital. For individuals in working-class contexts, financial security is less guaranteed than social security. Relationships with family, friends, and community provide practical resources as well as psychological security (e.g., Piff

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

et al., 2012). While the choice to buy a product might reduce a working-class consumer's financial resources, it may serve to increase their social resources. Assumption: effective appeals will transcend social class contexts With the exception of research explicitly examining the influence of national culture on behavior (e.g., Briley & Aaker, 2006; Riemer et al., 2015) much of consumer research is still grounded in only one model of the consumer—that of a middle-class person with an independent self whose actions are choices driven by individual needs, goals, and preferences. Because mainstream American culture is saturated with the idea that independence is the right, good, and moral way to be, appealing to the independent self is a winning strategy for many products, services, experiences, and ideas. Yet an exclusive focus on the independent self may fail to fully leverage many of the needs, interests, and concerns of the majority of American consumers in working-class contexts. An assumption that working-class consumers will have the same needs, goals, preferences, and responses to appeals as middle-class consumers will likely lead to consumer strategies that are not optimally effective. Throughout the paper, we have mostly focused on revealing the relative interdependence of working-class contexts in contrast to the independence of middle-class contexts. However, all Americans regardless of social class (or gender, race, and ethnicity) are likely to engage with mainstream independent American culture cycles. Consequently, working-class Americans, in contrast to many middle-class Americans, are likely to develop and wield two selves—one rooted in the independence of the individual and one rooted in the interdependence of the individual with others. As a consequence, the most effective strategies for shaping working-class consumer behavior will likely involve leveraging both selves. The least effective strategies, in comparison, are likely those that infringe, threaten, or undermine both or either self. What does it mean to leverage or undermine the independent and interdependent self? The car ads quoted at the beginning of this paper provide examples of independent and interdependent appeals in the domain of product advertisement (Fig. 1). The Cadillac ELR ad contains appeals to the independent self by referencing distinctively successful and innovative figures (e.g., “Wright Brothers,” “Bill Gates”), and by suggesting that consumer choice serves to reward individuals for personal success (luxury cars are the “upside of only taking two weeks off in August”). The ad focuses on personal achievement and uniqueness, values that are important in independent contexts, and frames choice as a reflection of personal preferences. By contrast, the Chevrolet Malibu ad contains appeals to the interdependent self by highlighting examples in which relationship roles are satisfied (e.g., be a “role model,” “make the school bell,” spend time with close others in the “corner booth”) and suggesting that consumer choice serves relational goals (buying the Malibu is for “the richest guys on Earth”—those who have close others to care for). Compared to the Cadillac ad, the Chevrolet ad focuses on a relational values—caring for

579

others and fulfilling relational duties—and frames choice as influenced by one's connections to others. The car ads also provide examples of how some appeals may inadvertently challenge or undermine one self or another. In the Cadillac ad, choice is framed as free and unconstrained (“You work hard, you create your own luck, and you got to believe anything is possible”). Such a view of choice is at odds with the many constraints inherent in more interdependent contexts. Similarly, the Chevrolet ad undermines the independent self by directly pitting individual goals against relational goals. The narrator suggests that trying one's best to satisfy relationship roles (e.g., be a “role model,” “make the school bell”) is more important than personal success (e.g., “jump at the sound of the opening bell,” have a “corner office”). Strategies that appeal to and leverage some aspects of both independent and interdependent selves are likely to be optimally effective in working-class contexts. Bicultural consumers (Asian Americans) with both interdependent and independent selves favor appeals that are both interdependent and independent in nature over appeals directed to only one or the other (Lau-Gesk, 2003). The theory of optimal distinctiveness recognizes the utility in satisfying both independent and interdependent needs (Brewer, 1991). Optimal distinctiveness theory states that individuals have drives to differentiate from others (to be independent) and also to assimilate to others (to be interdependent), and that a balance between the two drives is ideal. Strategies derived from this theory, such as creating strong group identities, serve to leverage the needs for both differentiation and assimilation (Brewer, 1991, 1993). As such, a consumer can feel similar to others within a group but can be different from others outside the group. Both car ads foster group identities to which consumers can assimilate and “other” identities from which they can differentiate. In the Cadillac ad, consumers can connect with other Americans and they can differentiate from non-Americans (i.e., Europeans). Referring to the audience as “we,” the narrator explains that buying luxury goods is “the upside of taking only two weeks off in August” as opposed to the “month” the ad claims other countries take. “Why aren't we like that?” the ad asks in regards to the lifestyle of people in these other countries. The Chevrolet ad, by contrast, describes the “other” from which Malibu-buyers are differentiating as “super models” and those who “jump at the sound of the opening bell.” Malibu consumers are instead grouped together as “the richest guys on Earth” in which “rich” does not refer to monetary wealth, but rather to the wealth of relationships. We propose appealing to working-class consumers, whether to sell a product, encourage participation in a service, or convince to support an idea, will be most effect when leveraging and affirming both independent and interdependent selves. At the very least, researchers and those aiming to appeal to working-class consumers should not assume that what is convincing, motivating, and relevant in middle-class contexts is the same in working-class contexts. Conclusion Social class is one of many important forms of culture that influence consumer behavior. People who differ in their social

580

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

class standing engage in different culture cycles—different systems of ideas, institutions, and interactions—that guide the psychological processes of self-construal, cognition, emotion, and motivation. These processes in turn influence choice, a key element of consumer behavior. Understanding the working-class consumer requires understanding the daily realities and psychological tendencies that underlie the meaning and function of choice. The present paper seeks to accomplish this by working through the developing but still very limited research focusing on social class as a form of culture. Analyzing consumer choice serves to synthesize many basic psychological questions. Beyond the objective markers of occupation, education, and money, how is social class lived and experienced? How does it shape thinking, feeling, and acting? The proposition that people in U.S. working-class contexts are exposed to at least two strong cultural imperatives for the right way to be a person—independence and interdependence—may be one clue to understanding behavior that seems suboptimal, such as smoking cigarettes, dropping out of school, not signing up for health insurance, or consuming sugary, salty, and fat-filled diets. Cigarettes and soft drinks, for example, are demonstrably undermining of health. Yet at the same time they afford some opportunity for the expression of preference, freedom, control, and independence in environments that might otherwise be highly constrained. The consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, and many other products also allow consumers to signal interdependence through a shared identity and simultaneously connect to family and friends. Many choices function to enhance social well-being even as the as they work against physical or financial well-being. More research on the meaning of choice and consumption has the potential to enhance understanding of how social class is lived. The cultural cycle analysis, we sketch reveals that free choice and independence is a function of a cultural context that affords the opportunity to develop preferences and practice acting on them. Many working-class contexts are highly constrained and people in these contexts are more likely to make choices in circumstances they have not chosen for themselves and where the choice set in often among a limited set of bad alternatives. Still too much of social analysis and too many theories of change proceed from the tacit assumption of individuals as independent selves who are free to choose what they want from among multiple good alternatives (Stephens, Markus, Fryberg, 2012). A closer analysis of the role of social class in how and why people consume is significant for the study of understanding behavior and for analysis of a wide range of problems including poverty, health, and materialism. Such research has the potential to produce a more nuanced understanding of individual agency and how it both reflects and reinforces our sociocultural contexts. Our hope is that a focus on social class as culture will be a source of ideas for theory development and for tackling a range of consumption-based social problems. References Adams, G. (2005). The cultural grounding of personal relationships: Enemyship in north American and west African worlds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 948–968.

Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596. Bell, C. A. (2009). All choices created equal? The role of choice sets in the selection of schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 191–208. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart. Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bertrand, M., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2006). Behavioral economics and marketing in aid of decision making among the poor. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25(1), 8–23. Brannon, T. N., Markus, H. R., & Taylor, V. J. (2015). “Two souls, two thoughts,” two self-schemas: Double consciousness can have positive academic consequences for African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(4), 586. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384–389. Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition, 11(1), 150–164. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. Briley, D. A., & Aaker, J. L. (2006). Bridging the culture chasm: Ensuring that consumers are healthy, wealthy, and wise. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25(1), 53–66. Burgess, S., Greaves, E., Vignoles, A., & Wilson, D. (2015). What parents want: School preferences and school choice. The Economic Journal, 125(587), 1262–1289. Carey, R. M., & Markus, H. R. (2015). Ties that bind: How social class affects relationship construal and behavior in relationships. Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730. Côté, S., Piff, P. K., & Willer, R. (2013). For whom do the ends justify the means? Social class and utilitarian moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 490. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. Fiske, S. T., & Markus, H. R. (Eds.). (2012). Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Fiske, A., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), (4th ed.). The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 915–981). San Francisco: McGraw-ill. Fiske, S. T., Moya, M., Russell, A. M., & Bearns, C. (2012). The secret handshake: Trust in cross-class encounters. Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 234–251). Fu, A. S., & Markus, H. R. (2014). My mother and me: Why tiger mothers motivate Asian Americans but not European Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(6), 739–749. Gill, B. P., Timpane, M., Ross, K. E., Brewer, D. J., & Booker, K. (2007). Rhetoric versus reality: What we know and what we need to know about vouchers and charter schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Goldhaber, D. D., Brewer, D. J., Eide, E. R., & Rees, D. I. (1999). Testing for sample selection in the Milwaukee school choice experiment. Economics of Education Review, 18(2), 259–267. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Greenfield, P. M. (2013). The changing psychology of culture from 1800 through 2000. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1722–1731. Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2010). Social class, culture, and cognition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 81–89. Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2015). Social structure, infectious diseases, disasters, secularism, and cultural change in America. Psychological Science, 26(3), 311–324.

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582 Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. Hamedani, M. G., Markus, H. R., & Fu, A. S. (2013). In the land of the free, interdependent action undermines motivation. Psychological Science, 24(2), 189-19. Han, S. -P., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 326–350. Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4). Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. Hoshino-Browne, E. (2012). Cultural variations in motivation for cognitive consistency: Influences of self-systems on cognitive dissonance. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(2), 126–141. Hoshino-Browne, E., Zanna, A. S., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Kitayama, S., & Lackenbauer, S. (2005). On the cultural guises of cognitive dissonance: The case of easterners and westerners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 294–310. Hout, M. (2008). How class works: Objective and subjective aspects of class since the 1970s. In A. Lareau, & D. Conley (Eds.), Social class: How does it work?. New York: Russell Sage Foundation (pp.? ?). Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785. Kitayama, S., Snibbe, A. C., Markus, H. R., & Suzuki, T. (2004). Is there any “free” choice?: Self and dissonance in two cultures. Psychological Science, 15(8), 527–533. Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1973). Occupation and psychological functioning. American Sociological Review, 38, 97–118. Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2009). Signs of socioeconomic status a thinslicing approach. Psychological Science, 20(1), 99–106. Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1–8. Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992. Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546–572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028756. Kusserow, A. (2004). American individualisms: Child rearing and social class in three neighborhoods. Palgrave Macmillan. Lamont, M. (2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lankford, R. H., Lee, E. S., & Wyckoff, J. H. (1995). An analysis of elementary and secondary school choice. Journal of Urban Economics, 38(2), 236–251. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Race, class and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lareau, A., & Conley, D. (Eds.). (2008). Social class: How does it work?. Russell Sage Foundation. Lauen, L. L. (2007). Contextual explanations of school choice. Sociology of Education, 80(3), 179–209. Lau-Gesk, L. G. (2003). Activating culture through persuasion appeals: An examination of the bicultural consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 301–315. Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist, 57(2), 100–110. Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(2), 384. Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. (2013). Clash! 8 cultural conflicts that make us who we are. New York: Penguin Group. Markus, H. R., & Curhan, K. B. (2015). Social class and well-being.

581

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 568–579. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. Markus, H. R., & Schwartz, B. (2010). Does choice mean freedom and wellbeing? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 344–355. Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P. C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., Tanida, S., & Van de Veerdonk, E. (2008). Placing the face in context: Cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 365–381. Miller, J. G., Das, R., & Chakravarthy, S. (2011). Culture and the role of choice in agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 46–61. Miserandino, A. D. (1995). Identifying and nurturing mathematical talent in urban school settings. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 6(4), 245–257. Miyamoto, Y., & Ji, L. -J. (2011). Power fosters context-independent, analytic cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1449–1458. Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York, NY: Macmillan. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310. Oishi, S. (2010). The psychology of residential mobility implications for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 5–21. Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. R. (1993). The sociocultural self. In J. M. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self. (pp. 187–200), New York, NY: Psychology Press. Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Martinez, A. G., Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2012). Class, chaos, and the construction of community. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 949. Plaut, V. C., Markus, H. R., Treadway, J. R., & Fu, A. S. (2012). The cultural construction of self and well-being: A tale of two cities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1644–1658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167212458125. Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20. Rector, R., & Sheffield, R. (2011). Air conditioning, cable TV, and an Xbox: What is poverty in the United States today? American Heritage Foundation, 19. Riemer, H., Shavitt, S., Koo, M., & Markus, H. R. (2015). Preferences don't have to be personal: Expanding attitude theorizing with a cross-cultural perspective. Psychological Review, 121(4), 619–648. Rodin, J., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention with the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(12), 897–902. Rucker, D. D., Dubois, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Generous paupers and stingy princes: Power drives consumer spending on self versus others. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1015–1029. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. Savani, K., Stephens, N. M., & Markus, H. R. (2011). The unanticipated interpersonal and societal consequences of choice: Victim-blaming and reduced support for the public good. Psychological Science, 22(6), 795–802. Savani, K., Stephens, N. M., & Markus, H. R. (2015). Choice leads to increased analytical cognition and decreased attention to the context. Shweder, R. A. (1990). In defense of moral realism: Reply to Gabennesch. Child Development, 61(6), 2060–2067. Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., & Rothman, A. J. (2012). Consumer decisions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 304–314.

582

R.M. Carey, H.R. Markus / Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 4 (2016) 568–582

Sirer, M. I., Maroulis, S., Guimera, R., Wilensky, U., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2015). The currents beneath the “rising tide” of school choice: An analysis of student enrollment flows in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 358–377. Snibbe, A. C., & Markus, H. R. (2005). You can't always get what you want: Educational attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 703. Spears, D. (2011). Economic decision-making in poverty depletes behavioral control. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 11(1). Stellar, J. E., Manzo, V. M., Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2012). Class and compassion: Socioeconomic factors predict responses to suffering. Emotion, 12(3), 449. Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., & Markus, H. R. (2012a). It's your choice: How the middle class model of independence disadvantages working class Americans. In S. T. Fiske, & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 87–106). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012b). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities' focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178. Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., & Markus, H. R. (2011). When choice does not equal freedom: A sociocultural analysis of agency in working-class American contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 33–41. Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014a). Closing the socialclass achievement gap a difference-education intervention improves firstgeneration students' academic performance and all students' college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943–953.

Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., Markus, H. R., Bergsieker, H. B., & Eloul, L. (2009). Why did they “choose” to stay? Perspectives of hurricane Katrina observers and survivors. Psychological Science, 20(7), 878–886. Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2012c). Social class disparities in health and education: Reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self model of behavior. Psychological Review, 119(4), 723–744. Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2014b). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 611–634. Stephens, N., Markus, H. R., & Townsend, S. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 814–830. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. New York: McGraw-Hill. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Gentile, B. (2012). Generational increases in agentic self- evaluations among American college students, 1966-2009. Self and Identity, 11, 409–427. U.S. (1776). Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2. U.S. Census Bureau (2013). Educational attainment in the United States: 2013—Detailed tables. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/ education/data/cps/2013/tables.html Varnum, M. E., Na, J., Murata, A., & Kitayama, S. (2011). Social class differences in N400 indicate differences in spontaneous trait inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 518. Viteritti, J. P. (2012). Choosing equality: School choice, the constitution, and civil society. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Williams, J. C. (2012). The class culture gap. In S. T. Fiske, & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 39–58). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.