Article

Journal of Macromarketing
33(3) 190-203
Anti-Consumption as the Study of ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Reasons against DOI: 10.1177/0276146712462892
jmk.sagepub.com

Andreas Chatzidakis1 and Michael S. W. Lee2

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

Keywords
anti-consumption, ethical consumption, environmental consumption, consumer resistance, symbolic consumption, reasons
theory, macromarketing

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

country of origin) rather than the producer of a product or
Anti-consumption is a nascent yet burgeoning field of research,
service itself (e.g., Starbucks as an American brand).
evident in the recent proliferation of related conferences and
Second, owing to the relative scarcity of acts against con-
special issues (visit www.icar.auckland.ac.nz for a summary).
sumption, when data are available, researchers may be strongly
Most existing work on anti-consumption is built upon one
motivated to theorize about or interpret data in a way which
premise, that the phenomena against consumption warrant
compels evidence to fit into an anti-consumption frame, even
special treatment, since they can provide scholars and prac-
when other explanations may be more suitable. In other words,
titioners with knowledge that is not sufficiently captured in given that acts against consumption have been scant, it is not
conventional studies of consumption (Lee, Fernandez, and
surprising to see a tendency by some scholars to attribute var-
Hyman 2009). The general argument is that knowledge of
ious behaviors to anti-consumption even when they may not be
anti-consumption increases our understanding of consump-
driven by motivations and attitudes that are really against con-
tion overall.
sumption. In line with this criticism, Shaw and Newholm
However, despite the robust arguments put forward by some
(2002) caution that the practice of voluntary simplicity cannot
proponents of anti-consumption research, several intercon-
be viewed only in terms of anti-consumption. Similarly, in
nected problems afflict anti-consumption as an area of inquiry.
their study of users of toy sharing libraries, Ozanne and Ballan-
First, because the consequences of anti-consumption are less tine (2010) found that nearly half of their sample consisted of
observable in the marketplace, and harder to measure than pos-
people that engaged in sharing practices for reasons other than
itive consumer decisions, there are fewer phenomena to study
anti-consumption, such as opportunities for socialization and
on the whole (Wilk 1997). This is evident, for instance, in the
case of boycotting research. Although consumer demand for a
specific branded product (e.g., Starbucks coffee) can be easily
1
measured in the form of actual sales, the conscious avoidance School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London, UK
2
of a purchase constitutes a nonevent (Friedman 1985) that can The University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand
only be indirectly observable through estimates such as boycott
Corresponding Author:
calls, consumer forums, interviews, and news media reports, Andreas Chatzidakis, Royal Holloway University of London–School of Man-
none of which provide a concrete measure of the impact of agement, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.
anti-consumption activity. Further convolution arises when the Email: andreas.chatzidakis@rhul.ac.uk

Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015

Chatzidakis and Lee
monetary benefits. Thus, many acts studied under the guise of
anti-consumption are actually driven by motivations that are not
necessarily against consumption. Of course, further confusion
arises from the observation that many acts studied by anti-
consumption scholars can be simultaneously driven by both
anti-consumption and non anti-consumption reasons. As Ozanne
and Ballantine’s study implies, one may engage in sharing prac-
tices because of anti-consumerist motivations that coincide with
additional motivations such as socialization and financial savings.
Clearly, these problems undermine the distinctive contribu-
tion of anti-consumption and raise questions as to whether it is
superfluous when held alongside related and established terms
such as ethical consumption, environmental consumption, con-
sumer resistance, and symbolic consumption.
Previous work has drawn a comparison between anti-
consumption and health care, suggesting that many of the
advances in medicine have come through studying unhealthy
(fringe) rather than healthy (mainstream) people (consumers;
Lee, Fernandez, and Hyman 2009). Other special issues have
linked anti-consumption to sustainability (Black 2010), high-
lighted the importance of ideology (Kozinets, Handelman, and
Lee 2010), and contrasted anti-consumption with consumer
resistance (Lee et al. 2011). All of these works proclaim the
importance of focusing on acts against consumption, arguing
that it is only through appreciating all aspects of consumer
behavior (including its contrary) that we can fully understand
consumption as a phenomena, at both micro individual and
macro sociocultural levels. However, with the exception of Lee
et al. (2011) who attempt to delineate anti-consumption with
consumer resistance, no other work attempts to explain what
the unique contribution of anti-consumption is, above and
beyond other similar phenomena.
Lee et al. (2011) contend that anti-consumption is distinct
from consumer resistance because the latter requires consumers
to oppose a force of domination, while anti-consumption
focuses on ‘‘phenomena that are against the acquisition, use,
and dispossession of certain goods’’ (p. 1681). Thus, resistance
is not always a necessary condition; for example, when anti-
consumption is motivated by symbolic incongruity, negative
experiences, or value inadequacy (Lee, Motion, and Conroy
2009). Furthermore, Lee et al. (2011) suggest that consumer
resistance can sometimes be expressed through consumption
rather than against consumption. For example, in the case of
anti-brand loyalty, selective consumption of a competing brand
(Saab vs. Volvo, Mac vs. PC) demonstrates consumers’ alle-
giance to one brand and the simultaneous (and intentional)
resistance of another (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001). Similarly,
consumer cooperatives and other consumer resistance move-
ments such as open source software communities may actually
result in more consumption of goods through economies of
scale, and/or increased consumption of products to oppose the
‘‘enemy,’’ rather than an increase in anti-consumption beha-
vior. In such cases of consumer resistance, it is obvious that
consumption also helps to express resistance against some
power imbalance within the market place (Cromie and Ewing
2009; Herrmann 1993).
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
191
While Lee et al.’s (2011) position on the differences
between anti-consumption and consumer resistance seem legit-
imate, their paper stops short of highlighting any attribute
unique to anti-consumption that makes it, as a topic, distinct
and therefore valuable; especially when held alongside a
plethora of similar areas, such as nonconsumption; symbolic,
ethical, environmental, and alternative consumption; or even
consumer resistance. Therefore, in this article, we attempt to
clarify the domain of anti-consumption by drawing upon, and
applying the analytical distinction between ‘‘reasons for’’ and
‘‘reasons against’’ (Westaby 2002, 2005a, 2005b; Westaby
and Fishbein 1996; Westaby, Fishbein, and Aherin 1997; Wes-
taby, Probst, and Lee 2010) to the four main clusters of theore-
tical and empirical interest that scholars often convolute with
anti-consumption: environmental consumption, ethical con-
sumption, consumer resistance, and symbolic consumption.
Concurrently, following emerging developments in these fields
(cf. Barnett et al. 2011; Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha
2010) we attempt to move away from the micro-
psychological focus that has so far predominated those streams
of research. Paralleling Prothero and Fitchett’s (2000) notion of
a green commodity discourse and Barnett et al.’s (2011) genea-
logical approach to ethical consumerism, we argue that reasons
against can be viewed as part of emerging discourses and
narratives that stretch beyond the micro realm of individual
decision making and action. Subsequently, the article poses
some research questions and suggestions as to how new direc-
tions for anti-consumption research might develop.
Reasons for versus Reasons Against
Extant consumer research mainly focuses on cognitions and
reasons that explain performing a given behavior, despite the
fact that the reasons concerning not performing that same beha-
vior may be qualitatively different. For example, a decision to
buy Fair Trade products may be consistently explained by spe-
cific, positive attitudes toward Fair Trade (e.g., Chatzidakis
et al. 2004), but a decision not to buy Fair Trade products, may
or may not coincide with scoring negatively on an evaluation
scale used to assess these attitudes. Likewise, an anticonsumer
of meat (vegetarian) may avoid meat owing to concerns about
animal welfare, but it is unlikely that those who consume meat
do so because they want animals to be killed (Richetin, Conner,
and Perugini 2011). In line with this idea, social psychological
research draws a distinction between ‘‘reasons for’’ and ‘‘rea-
sons against’’ performing a behavior (e.g., Westaby 2002,
2005a, 2005b; Westaby and Fisbein 1996; Westaby, Fishbein,
and Aherin 1997; Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010). This dichot-
omous differentiation of motivational forces (Roe, Busemeyer,
and Townsend 2001) is assumed with slight variations (such as
pros versus cons, costs versus benefits) in various models of
social cognition (see Westaby 2005b) and related dimensions
have been supported in several empirical settings (e.g., Janis
and Mann 1977; Marcus, Rakowski, and Rossi 1992; Novick
and Cheng 2004).
192 Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)

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

tors people use to explain their anticipated behavior’’ (Westaby
2005b, 100) and in this sense comprise the underlying cogni-
tions that explain global attitudes or motives in favor of, or
against, performing a behavior. In other words, an individual
or society’s overall attitudinal disposition toward a particular
behavior (e.g., positive about buying Fair Trade products) can
be explained on the basis of underlying reasons such as helping
Third World producers, making a difference, enjoying products
of a higher quality and so on. Focusing on reasons as opposed
to related constructs such as beliefs (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980;
Ajzen 1985) or goals (e.g., Clary et al. 1998) offers advantages
because they can be measured at a more context-specific level
and they can also capture self-justification and defense Figure 1. Nike’s provocative branding motivates both reasons for
mechanisms that are otherwise left unaccounted for, in models and reasons against consuming the brand.
of buyer behavior (Westaby 2002, 2005a). For instance, Source: http://www.designyourway.net/blog/inspiration/35-nike-print-advertise
research by Eckhardt, Belk, and Devinney (2010) implies that ments-that-boosted-the-companys-income/.
some individuals may reinterpret certain behaviors as instances
of anti-consumption (e.g., anti-SUVs) even though it may not
be anti-consumption attitudes that truly motivate such behavior
in the first place (increasing petrol prices). Unlike traditional
measures of attitudes, reasons for and against incorporate post-
behavioral accounts and rationalizations in addition to prebeha-
vioral, presumably causal explanations, in so far as they satisfy
individuals’ needs for self-consistency and sense making (e.g.,
Westaby 2005b). In turn, the capacity of reason constructs to
capture such processes may help explain why, in various stud-
ies, reasons for and against are found to explain variance in
intentions and/or behavior over and above conventional mea-
sures of global attitudes and their underlying beliefs or goals
(Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010).
The implication that reasons against are more than, or at
least different from, the logical opposites of reasons for per-
forming a behavior carries important implications for the
development of anti-consumption research. Indeed, most
research to date has focused on measuring cognitions with
respect to performing a behavior rather than not performing,
assuming that the latter will simply be the exact opposite of the
former. This ‘‘complementarity assumption’’ (Sutton 2004) is
plausible in the case of intentions or global attitudinal measures
but is highly questionable in the case of underlying cognitions
(reasons). That is, asking people whether they have a favorable
attitude toward Nike or whether they intend to buy Nike prod-
ucts is the logical opposite of asking whether they do not have a
favorable attitude toward Nike or whether they do not intend to
buy Nike products, but this is not the case with underlying rea-
sons. The reasons for buying Nike, such as perceptions of good
quality, or preference for an aggressive and athletic brand
image (see Figure 1) could certainly be the logical opposite Figure 2. Reasons against consuming Nike may not always be the logi-
cal opposite of reasons for consuming Nike.
of reasons against buying Nike; for example, perceptions of Source: http://anongallery.org/146/nike-just-do-it.
poor quality, or disdain toward the brand’s overly aggressive
athletic image (these reasons fulfill the complementarity ‘‘reasons for’’ purchasing Nike (i.e., people are unlikely to pur-
assumption). But reasons against buying Nike could also chase Nike because they want to support sweatshop clothing).
include additional considerations, such as issues around sweat- Furthermore, research by Richetin and colleagues (Richetin,
shop labor and multinational companies (see Figure 2). These Conner, and Perugini 2011; Richetin et al. 2012) has illustrated
reasons against are unlikely to be the logical opposite of the across various domains that intentions to not perform certain

Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015

Chatzidakis and Lee
actions increase the variance explained in behavior over and
above intentions to perform those same actions. Thus, asking
people both whether they intend to reduce consumption and
whether they do not, increases the variance explained in actual
behavior despite the fact the two statements should be logical
opposites. The authors concluded that this is because even neg-
ative statements that seem tautological to positive ones (e.g.,
intent to perform vs. not perform a pro-environmental beha-
vior) may correspond to underlying goals (or reasons) that are
psychologically distinct rather than opposite. Richetin et al.
(2012) found that intentions to reduce consumption were
driven by reasons such as ‘‘saving the planet’’ whereas inten-
tions not to reduce consumption were motivated by reasons
such as ‘‘maintaining current lifestyles’’ (p. 115). Their find-
ings resonate with emerging evidence across several streams
of research, from studies on stereotype activation (Gawronski
et al. 2008) to neuroscience (Brass and Haggard 2007), all con-
cluding that ‘‘negation of a construct is not the conceptual
opposite of the affirmation of a construct’’ (p. 41), thereby
reinforcing the value of studying both reasons for and against
consumption.
Although the extant research on reasons theory has
remained within the micro context of individual decision mak-
ing and cognition, the analytical focus on reasons and the for/
against distinction can be incorporated into several alternative
theoretical traditions and corresponding levels of aggregation.
Within sociological and more macro-oriented perspectives, for
example, the study of reasons includes self-justifications,
accounts, and related cognitions that are ‘‘extensions of pat-
terns of thought prevalent in society rather than something cre-
ated de novo’’ (Sykes and Matza 1957, 669). In this sense,
when accounting for their decisions, individuals choose from
a repertoire of available social, public, and cultural narratives
or discourses that are ultimately limited. Reasons for and
against can be viewed as vocabularies of motive (Mills
1940), socially learned and legitimized accounts (Scott and
Lyma 1968), or broader narratives (e.g., Maruna and Copes
2005) that say more about a given culture and society rather
than the individual.
The study of reasons for and against is therefore not only
possible at the micro level of individual choice but also in the
variety of meso-, macro-, and supra-national levels through
which various actors (e.g., businesses, governments, nongo-
vernmental organizations [NGOs]) mobilize anti- (and pro-)
consumption discourses. Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha
(2010) discuss how the apparent mainstreaming of the ‘‘green
commodity discourse’’ in contemporary societies has been pos-
sible not only through the adoption of various micro practices
by green consumers but also because of media activities such as
Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, business interest in triple bottom
line (social, environmental, financial) reporting, mobilization
by institutions such as World Watch Institute, and various
national and transnational policy initiatives such as the United
Nations Millennium Goals. Likewise, Barnett et al. (2011)
point to the need to relocate the consumer from the position
of main agent of change and to give credit to various
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
193
organizations that have played a key role in politicizing and
moralizing consumption logics and practices. The authors
illustrate how data from the Ethical Purchasing Index (EPI),
a survey produced by UK’s Co-Operative Bank and New
Economics Foundation, were deployed by various campaign
organizations not only with a view to provide reasons for pur-
chasing Fair Trade products to individual consumers, but also
to use evidence of broad-based support as a means to exert
influence on governments and businesses and legitimize their
standing to members/supporters and the wider public realm.
In line with these developments, reasons against consump-
tion can be viewed as part of ‘‘institutional logics’’ (Thornton
and Ocasio 2008) or narratives that are employed by a variety
of actors at differing levels of aggregation. For example, Chat-
zidakis, Maclaran, and Bradshaw (2012) show how reasons
against consumer culture, along with logic of voluntary simpli-
city, can be cultivated in activist groups and areas (e.g., guerilla
parks) that share an explicit anticapitalist ethos. Here, alterna-
tive marketing systems (Layton 2007), such as gifting bazaars
and collective cooking events, form part of broader political
arguments and mobilization against market capitalism. Simi-
larly, Izberk-Bilgin (2010) shows how reasons against can be
employed in the case of specific brands or products not only
at a community level but also at a country-level (e.g., reaction-
ary nationalism) and by alternative communities based on
interests such as religion (e.g., antimaterialistic attitudes).
Izberk-Bilgin also notes how it is not only consumers who engage
with reasons against but also other actors such as marketers who
attempt to counter resistance toward their products or services,
and who may operate both within and out of conventionally
defined markets (see Layton and Grossbart 2006). Adding to this
observation, a recent study on Chinese grassroots nationalism
illustrates how reasons against foreign brands are manifest in var-
ious fronts—from consumer boycotts of individual companies to
antimonopoly laws that coincide with nationalistic interests—and
they are rooted in a confluence of nationalistic motives and agen-
das by agents such as the consumer, the government, the media
and local companies (Gao 2012).
Finally, more macro-oriented reasons against and reasons
for consumption, such as those concerned with the global
effects of consumption rather than more personal, micro con-
cerns (cf. Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha 2010) can be
located within broader ideological and normative appeals that
underpin market capitalism (e.g., Latouche 2009) and neoliber-
alism (Harvey 2010). Consumers are often provided with rea-
sons for buying local goods such as helping local economies
and improving their carbon footprint. There is less public pol-
icy and media discourse around the limits of global economic
growth and the possibility of helping the planet through buying
less rather than more (even when the latter includes green
products). From this perspective, it is not specific services or
products, but consumer society per se that is fundamentally
intertwined with all that is pro-consumption including notions
that quality of life and well-being can be actualized via consu-
merist lifestyles (Kilbourne, McDonagh, and Prothero 1997).
In turn, counterconsumerist critiques and related reasons against
194
consumption, such as arguments in favor of environmental–
social justice and more sensual, less materialistic lifestyles
(Soper, Ryle, and Thomas 2009), can be viewed as countervail-
ing logics (Thornton and Ocasio 2008) or emerging shifts in the
Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP; Kilbourne et al. 2009).
Anti-Consumption and the Study of
Reasons Against
The foregoing discussion highlights that anti-consumption is a
worthy field of investigation because it pertains to a particular
set of reasons against consumption, which are more than and
different from their conceptual opposites—reasons for con-
sumption—and which can be applied at differing levels of
aggregation. However, in this article, we do not aim to develop
a full account of how insights from reasons theory may add to
the existing consumer research literature despite the potential
benefits from such an endeavor. Instead, we draw on the sub-
stantive distinction between reasons for and reasons against
to elucidate issues of conflict, confusion, and convergence
between anti-consumption and other similar streams of empiri-
cal research, such as ethical consumption, environmental con-
sumption, consumer resistance, and symbolic consumption. In
other words, our purpose is not to delineate anti-consumption
with all consumption activities that have a positive and nega-
tive frame, but only those areas (as mentioned) that are more
commonly confused with anti-consumption.
It is also important to note that anti-consumption should not
be conflated with nonconsumption or alternative consumption.
Nonconsumption due to proscription or other contextual influ-
ences, for instance, where preference toward one brand leads
to incidental nonconsumption of another (Cherrier, Black, and
Lee 2011), is not anti-consumption as there is no intentional
choice to avoid the nonconsumed brand (Cherrier 2009). Simi-
larly, alternative consumption or mere choice is also not anti-
consumption, since some behaviors are avoided not because of
their unattractiveness or explicit reasons against them, but
because of the greater appeal of alternative options, such as pre-
ference for private versus public transport (Gardner and Abraham
2008). Instead, anti-consumption is only concerned with those
reasons against consumption that are expressive and consciously
articulated (through either internal or external dialogue), that may
be used as accounts, explanations or narratives of why people ‘‘go
against’’ (Kozinets, Handelman, and Lee 2010) and express
‘‘resistance to, distaste of, or even resentment or rejection’’
(Zavestoski 2002, 121) of specific brands (e.g., anti-Starbucks;
Thompson and Arsel 2004), behavioral and product categories
(e.g., antialcohol; Piacentini and Banister 2009); and/or consumer
culture altogether (e.g., through voluntary simplicity; see
Leonard-Barton 1981; Shaw and Newholm 2002).
The Nature and Scope of
Anti-Consumption Research
Figure 3 summarizes the scope of anti-consumption research
from a reasons for and reasons against perspective. We identify
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)
four nonmutually exclusive clusters of theoretical and empiri-
cal interest, relating to ethical, environmental, resistance, and
symbolic concerns. Figure 3 does not propose that anti-
consumption is a higher-order construct than the four areas of
concern, rather, the main purpose of Figure 3 is to position
anti-consumption as a distinct perspective by which other, see-
mingly similar topics may be viewed. We select those four
areas in particular, because they are the streams of research
most commonly confused with anti-consumption, with such
confusion detracting from the incremental value of anti-
consumption research. Thus, Figure 3, and this article, aims
to redress the confusion by offering anti-consumption, and the
reasons against consumption, as a legitimate lens that provides
additional value to the four areas of concern discussed below.
Ethical Concerns
Ethical consumption has been broadly defined as ‘‘the con-
scious and deliberate decision to make certain consumption
choices due to personal moral beliefs and values’’ (Crane and
Matten 2004, 290). It has been often treated as an evolution of
green consumerism to incorporate concerns such as trading
relationships with the Third World (e.g., Carrigan and Attalla
2001; DePelsmacker, Driesen, and Rayp 2005; Shaw and
Clarke 1999) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR; Sen
and Bhattacharya 2001; Sen, Bhattacharya, and Korschun
2006). As Figure 3 illustrates, although ethical concerns may
translate into both reasons for (buycotting) and reasons against
(boycotting) specific consumption practices, in following a
similar path with most consumer research, the field has focused
mostly on positive consumer decisions centered on ethical pur-
chases. More fundamentally still, the assumption that the rea-
sons against are always the logical opposite of the reasons
for has also been adopted without scrutiny, when in fact the rea-
sons for consumption may not be the logical opposite of the
reasons against consumption. For instance, a group boycotting
Shell, owing to accusations of unethical government corrup-
tion, may not necessarily buycott (i.e., select) Mobil for a lack
of corruption or being ethical. In fact, situational convenience
may be the main reason for the group’s choice of any petrol
supplier, rather than loyalty or the desire to reward specific
companies for ethical behavior/policies. Consequently, any
conscious decision they make is driven more by anti-
consumption (the main motivation is to boycott Shell), rather
than consumption. In other words, the group is not really loyal
to particular brands, but rather, is simply settling for any brands
apart from Shell. In this sense, a reasons against perspective has
far more to offer in terms of understanding ethical concerns and
market intentions than traditional consumption perspectives,
such as those emphasizing brand loyalty (Lee, Motion, and
Conroy 2009).
Applying an anti-consumption perspective also allows
researchers to analyze the market place activity surrounding
ethical concerns from three other perspectives. First, it
encourages researchers to consider the reasons against
unethical companies as legitimate drivers of the reasons for
Chatzidakis and Lee
Anti-consumption
research:
‘Reasons against’
Ethical Environmental
concerns concerns
Green
Boycott Activism
Buycott Green
consumption
Consumption research:
‘Reasons for’
Figure 3. The focus of anti-consumption research from a reasons theory perspective.
purchasing products from more ethical companies. Under-
standing the flip side to ethical consumption choices is of obvi-
ous importance. For the target companies of boycotting such
knowledge may be used to address their negative brand image,
and for their competitors, similar information is useful in terms
of their respective positioning strategies. Second, the anti-
consumption lens may also include consideration of the reasons
preventing anti-consumption. Here the focus would be on
explaining why consumers, and consumer groups, do not reject
or boycott unethical companies, despite their negative assess-
ment of such companies. People’s reasons for not boycotting
a brand may not be the logical opposites of the reasons for boy-
cotting a brand. A consumer may wish to boycott KFC for
unethical treatment of animals, but the reasons preventing him
or her from boycotting KFC may be related to broader group
influences or peer pressure, whereby his or her peers do not
share a similar inclination to boycott KFC and therefore the
consumer is unable to action his or her ‘‘reasons against’’ con-
sumption. This viewpoint is important, given that many proso-
cial movements depend on mass action. Thus, understanding
the reasons why people do not boycott unethical companies,
even though they believe it is the ethical thing to do, is some-
times even more important than understanding their original
motivations. Third, adopting an anti-consumption perspective
may also include looking at the reasons against the buycott
of so-called ethical products. For example, reasons for not buy-
ing Fair Trade products may not include relative indifference
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
195
Consumer Symbolic
Resistance concerns
Oppose Avoid
Support Approach
about the welfare of Third World Consumers, or even per-
ceived difficulties in purchasing such products, but additional
concerns such as the extent to which systemic, macro problems
of global injustice are posited onto micro consumer decision-
making contexts and seek a solution there (cf. Dolan 2002).
This may in turn make more radicalized ‘‘ethical consumers’’
cynical about marketplace exchanges of Fair Trade goods
(Chatzidakis, Maclaran, and Bradshaw 2012). Therefore, inter-
related ethical concerns about world trade justice may translate
into different forms and rationales for buycotting and boycot-
ting action. This anti-consumption perspective challenges the
so-called observation of attitude–behavior gaps in ethical con-
sumerism (e.g., Bird and Hughes 1997; Carrigan and Attalla
2001; DePelsmacker, Driesen, and Rayp 2005; Nicholls and
Lee 2006; Uusitalo and Oksanen 2004) as it implies that rea-
sons against otherwise positively perceived (ethical) products
or reasons for negatively perceived (unethical) ones, may mod-
erate the extent to which actual behavior is in line with general
attitudes.
Environmental Concerns
Following the rise of the environmental movement in the late
1960s, early academic research on socially conscious, green,
or ecologically conscious consumers (e.g., Anderson and Cun-
ningham 1972; Webster 1975; Roberts 1996; Straughan and
Roberts 1999) attempted to understand them in terms of
196
gender, income, occupation, and other personal characteristics.
Despite the potential benefits of segmentation studies however,
such attempts soon proved elusive (Oates et al. 2008;
Straughan and Roberts 1999) and later research shifted away
from demographic variables to consider the role of psychologi-
cal and attitudinal constructs (see Bamberg and Moser 2007 for
a review) and broader sociocultural processes (e.g., Belz and
Peattie 2009). Such studies provided valuable insights from the
perspective of anti-consumption, as many of the behaviors of
interest concerned the translation of pro-environmental
concerns into reasons against consumption, from milder and
fragmented forms of green activism to energy conservation
(Wilson and Dowlatabadi 2007) and reduction of private
transport (Gardner and Abraham 2008) to more committed and
radical lifestyles of voluntary simplicity (e.g., Oates et al.
2008). Nonetheless, to provide useful information to marketers
of sustainable products (Straughan and Roberts 1999), most
consumer research focuses on buying eco-friendly products
(green consumption) rather than not-buying environmentally
polluting ones, and only few studies consider the more radical
idea of practicing anti-consumption for environmental con-
cerns by reducing consumption altogether (aka green activism).
At a more fundamental level, however, research into sus-
tainable consumption has not explicitly considered issues of
complementarity between reasons for and reasons against
pro-environmental activism. For instance, although it is highly
likely that a reason for buying eco-friendly products is pro-
environmental concern, it is highly unlikely that a reason
against buying eco-friendly products is intention to harm the
environment. All things equal (e.g., price, quality, and conve-
nience) most consumers would not have a reason to opt for
an environmentally harmful product (McDonald and Oates
2006), but (non environmentally related) reasons against arise
when green buying and other forms of pro-environmental
activism entail a degree of compromise (Peattie 2001). When
consumers decide to go against specific consumption practices
due to pro-environmental concerns, they do so because of a
concurrent commitment and ability to translate their concerns
into action, but it does not follow that those who do not buy
eco-friendly products are not environmentally concerned. This
is evident in more extreme forms of sustainable living, such as
hard core voluntary simplicity and ecofeminism, which are
often underpinned by radical political-environmental motives
and explicitly articulated anticonsumerist agendas (Oates
et al. 2008). Such consumers often have further reasons against
the conventional forms of pro-environmental action, such as
green consumption, as these are perceived to be in line with
consumer culture and hence inefficient for far-reaching ecolo-
gical change (e.g., Dobscha and Ozanne 2001).
Thus, Figure 3 shows that the scope of anti-consumption
focuses on the nexus where environmental concerns and the
reasons against consumption meet. The resultant behaviors
may then manifest as green activism against specific brands
and companies as well as more general and radicalized forms
of anti-consumption, which result in a rejection of consumer-
ism and the adoption of more frugal lifestyles. The alternative
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)
perspective here is that eco-friendly products are ‘‘green
washed’’ by companies as a means of increasing market share
and profitability. Therefore, a better choice to buying more
green products (green consumption) is actually the decision
to practice anti-consumption of such products (green activism;
Black and Cherrier 2010; Dobscha and Ozanne 2001).
Resistance Concerns
Consumer resistance is an area that has been traditionally con-
fused with anti-consumption, that is, until the two domains
were explicitly disentangled by Lee et al. (2011). As mentioned
earlier, not all acts of consumer resistance need to be driven by
anti-consumption motives. The true motivation behind any
consumer resistance movement is, obviously, resistance to
some domineering force (Foucault 1982; Peñazola and Price
1993). Sometimes this resistance is expressed by acts of oppo-
sition and anti-consumption, while at other times resistance is
expressed by acts of support and consumption. In cases of con-
sumer cooperatives and open-source software communities,
support of those activities predominately occurs via consump-
tion, rather than anti-consumption (Cromie and Ewing 2009;
Herrmann 1993). Whereas, in other cases of consumer resis-
tance, it is evident that anti-consumption in the form of oppo-
sition is the main driver. Consumer resistance to multinational
corporations such as Starbucks (Thompson and Arsel 2004)
does indeed support local cafes. However, the real driver of the
consumer resistance activity is opposition to Starbucks. As
Figure 3 shows, anti-consumption is mainly interested in the
opposition part of consumer resistance, and since this is the
most salient aspect of consumer resistance, it comes as no won-
der, that the two domains have been easily confused with one
another.
Symbolic Concerns
Another key theme in anti-consumption research concerns the
reasons against consumption for symbolic communication and
the construction of meaning. Much research has established the
role of consumption in the formation of identity and self-
concept (Belk 1988; Aaker 1999; Dolich 1969; Grubb and
Grathwohl 1967; Heath and Scott 1998; Hogg, Cox, and
Keeling 2000; Levy 1959; McCracken 1986; Sirgy 1982;
Solomon 1983). The role of anti-consumption in such activity
is also well studied, albeit to a lesser extent (Banister and Hogg
2004; English and Soloman 1997; Hogg and Michell 1997;
Levy 1959; Thompson and Arsel 2004). This balance of
approach and avoidance (Elliot 1999; Markus and Nurius
1986) has been applied to understanding consumer behavior for
many years.
However, the authors believe that with overconsumption
gradually becoming the norm over the last four decades (at
least in Western societies), acts of consumption, à la the
approach aspect of the equation, and the reasons driving these
acts, may no longer possess the same unique level of symbo-
lism, as they did in the post–World War II era. Consequently,
Chatzidakis and Lee
Figure 4. Bumper sticker displaying a symbolic reason against con-
sumption, which assists in positive identity construction.
Source: http://carryabigsticker.com/btn_patriots_dont.htm.
acts against consumption, and the reasons driving those avoid-
ance behaviors, are now equally potent symbolic acts through
which consumers may express themselves (Kozinets, Handel-
man, and Lee 2010; English and Solomon 1997). As Figure 3
shows, the focus of anti-consumption is on the avoidance
aspect of these symbolic behaviors. This might include an obvi-
ous interest in what consumers deliberately avoid in order to
prevent themselves from drawing closer to their undesired
self-concepts. For example, some may reject Walmart despite
financial hardship, so that they do not have to perceive them-
selves as bargain hunters or cheap (see www.peopleofwal-
mart.com for examples illustrating with what people
practicing anti-consumption of Walmart wish to avoid associ-
ation). However, the focus of anti-consumption may also be
in the less obvious exploration of what consumers may avoid
in order to maintain or enhance their desired self-concepts.
Some continue to avoid Walmart despite financial hardship
in a patriotic effort to support local/neighborhood stores (see
Figure 4). Superficially, both examples appear interchangeable
in terms of their influence on self-concept. Certainly, both
may well operate simultaneously within the same individual
and among anti-Walmart group members. Yet, previous liter-
ature on the undesired self suggests that, in a similar vein to
reasons theory, the undesired self is not the mere opposite
of the desired self, with the former being a more concrete
concept (Ogilvie 1987).
Another key point to remember is that while the comple-
mentarity argument applies to some cases of symbolic con-
sumption, numerous occasions occur when the symbolic
reasons for approaching brands may not be the logical opposite
for avoiding brands. In cases where the complementarity
argument holds, some consumers may avoid Dell because of
poor symbolic match and approach Apple because of a
good symbolic match. On the other hand, in cases where the
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
197
complementarity argument does not hold, consumers may pre-
fer Apple for its symbolic value, but avoid Dell for issues
related to functionality. These scenarios can also occur within
the same brand. The market may choose VW beetles for its nos-
talgic value but may also avoid the same brand if a new market-
ing campaign is considered too edgy in symbolism. And in
cases where the complementarity argument does not hold, con-
sumers may avoid VW beetles for the company’s opposition to
CO2 emission legislation. Thus, it is important to look at both
the reasons for and against consumption to gain greater insights
into market place motivations, with anti-consumption provid-
ing a lens by which scholars are encouraged to focus on the
avoidance aspect of the equation.
Overall, Figure 3 relates anti-consumption to the four afore-
mentioned areas, which have been used in most cases inter-
changeably with anti-consumption. Indeed, the dashed lines
of the four clusters suggest fluidity and overlaps between the
related domains of anti-consumption research. In other words,
none of the four clusters are mutually exclusive. More impor-
tantly, Figure 3 illustrates how the reasons for are not the logi-
cal/mirror opposites of the reasons against. Hence, each cluster
of concern is visually divided by a solid jagged line rather than
reflected in what we term the broken mirror metaphor. Further-
more, each cluster is represented not only by differing terms,
such as boycott versus buycott (under the cluster of ethical
concerns), but also nonequivalent shapes (i.e., triangles and
rectangles) to depict the difference between the reasons for
consumption versus the reasons against consumption. Conse-
quently, this article’s main argument is that anti-consumption
research focuses on the reasons against consumption and,
therefore, provides scholars with an alternative perspective
on phenomena in those four areas. Black (2010) suggests that
one way to promote sustainability is to consider that, in some
cases, anti-consumption and buying less (reasons against mass
consumption) can provide citizens with more opportunities for
symbolic self-expression than environmental consumption
alone (reasons for buying green products). Similarly, other
scholars suggest that avoidance choices are just as important
to the formation of self-concept as approach behaviors (Banis-
ter and Hogg 2004; English and Solomon 1997). It is clear then
that both reasons for and reasons against motivate and influ-
ence individual consumers and the market. The underlying
explanations or reasons that people give to themselves and oth-
ers may be employed in a synergistic rather than antagonistic
fashion to increase understanding of consumer behavior and
marketing.
Discussion and Implications for Future
Research
Anti-consumption is primarily concerned with those reasons
against that are expressive, consciously articulated and may
reflect ‘‘resistance to, distaste of, or even resentment or rejec-
tion’’ (Zavestoski 2002, 121) of specific brands, products, ser-
vices, and/or consumer culture altogether. This article borrows
from reasons theory in an attempt to delineate the boundaries
198
between anti-consumption and various streams of research
concerned with ethics, environment, resistance, and symbo-
lism. The predominant focus of previous studies on descriptive
accounts and outward behaviors, rather than upon underlying
motivations, has failed to successfully demarcate these similar
research traditions. Accordingly, clear boundaries of conver-
gence and divergence should be based on the basic premise that
anti-consumption is predominantly concerned with reasons
against rather than reasons for consumption.
However, a further question is what anti-consumption, as an
independent field of study, can add to our understanding of
such phenomena that is not already accounted for in those
aforementioned streams of research (albeit in a fragmented
way). Apart from the obvious explanation that the universe
of reasons against stretches beyond ethical, environmental,
symbolic, and resistant concerns, more research on anti-
consumption is pertinent on a variety of conceptual and
empirical grounds. First, in line with advancements in social
psychological research and reasons theory, reasons against may
include more than the logical opposites of reasons for. Conven-
tional measurement and conceptualizations of attitudes,
reasons, and related cognitions may therefore fail to capture
phenomena relating to negation rather than affirmation. Indeed,
even when the reasons for performing a certain behavior is the
main topic of interest to researchers, considering the reasons
against performing that same behavior promises to increase the
explanatory and predictive ability of the adopted theoretical
models (e.g., Richetin, Conner, and Perugini 2011), and thus
enhance understanding of that phenomenon. Overall, consumer
research here has a unique opportunity to gain ground in an
emerging stream of cross-disciplinary research that acknowl-
edges that not doing is much more than, or at least different
than, the conceptual opposite of doing.
Second, as noted in the introduction, anti-consumption is a
worthy stream of research because it redresses the tendency
of both lay people and academics to focus on the phenomena
that are made tangible in the conventional marketplace rather
than acts that are not. Yet, dislikes, distastes and undesired
selves, usually reflected in nonpurchases may be more telling
of individual identities, and societies, than likes, tastes, and
desires that translate into reasons for purchases (Hogg and
Banister 2001; Wilk 1997). In other words, what is conspicuous
by its absence may be of equal importance to understanding
consumer lifestyles and consumer culture overall. It has been
well documented, for instance, that many consumer boycotts
are symbolic and serve an important expressive function,
regardless of whether or not they are effective in terms of
reducing sales (Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Smith 1990).
Third, the independent study of reasons against across more
specific streams of research—such as ethical/green consump-
tion and resistance—allows for further examination of the com-
monalities that may characterize anti-consumption phenomena.
On one hand, despite the potential diversity of underlying moti-
vations, negation of a specific brand or product category may
often be less financially demanding and time consuming than
affirmation. Yet, both positions (e.g., anti-Coca-Cola vs.
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)
Figure 5. Acts of anti-consumption may sometimes involve more
effort from individuals and organizations (such as Greenpeace) than
acts of consumption.
Source: http://www.listoid.com/list/103/page2.
pro-Coca-Cola) may leave equal space for symbolic
expression. On the other hand, another related research
question is how people cope with the fact that manifestations
of anti-consumption attitudes and motivations tend to be less
tangible and observable than acts of consumption (Wilk
1997). Consequently, individuals or groups may use anti-
brand bumper stickers (Figures 2 and 4) or engage in other
forms of online culture jamming (see Figure 5 or simply enter
‘BP’ as a search term in Google Images) to redress the intang-
ibility of their negative position toward brands. Thus, ironi-
cally, expressing anti-consumption may, in such cases, prove
more effortful and require more investment, than expressing
consumption.
More broadly, anti-consumption phenomena may also be
usefully observed at the level of consumption constellations
(Solomon and Assael 1987) and anti-constellations (Hogg and
Mitchell 1997). As consumers’ negation of symbolically inter-
connected products, brands, and activities tends to be more
intangible than affirmation, they may choose to redress this
through alternative activities that are invested with related
meaning. For instance, resistance to the overcommercialization
of Christmas or Valentine’s Day can be expressed through
symbolic celebrations (e.g., anti-Christmas parties), and alter-
native exchanges such as handmade gifts and cards (Close and
Zinkhan 2009).
In terms of future research, the purpose of this article was to
provide clarity by showing how focus on the reasons against
can help delineate anti-consumption from four commonly con-
fused streams of research. However, the for and against dichot-
omy provided by reasons theory can likely be applied to other
topics, such as love versus hate brand relationships (Fournier
1998), consumer reactance versus compliance (Brehm 1966),
and conformity versus anti-conformity (Willis 1965), to name
a few. In other words, the reasons for love, compliance, and
conformity (respectively) are probably also not the logical
Chatzidakis and Lee
Figure 6. Businesses and organizations can also benefit from focusing on anti-consumption discourse (note the number of ‘‘likes’’ in the second
message).
Source: http://www.twylah.com/redbull/tweets/192462460282867713.
opposites of the reasons for hate, reactance, and anti-conformity
(respectively). However, given the focus herein and indeed the
macro focus of this Journal, these more micro-psychological
issues should be explored further by future research.
Additional future research directions and implications
should also continue to look beyond the micro level of individ-
ual decision making to meso and macro levels where reasons
against, as well as reasons for, are mobilized by a variety of
actors other than the consumer. For instance, businesses may
engage with anti-consumption discourses through their market-
ing communications, and the media, to counter reasons against
their brands (Figure 6 provides one such example of a business
cleverly using anti-consumption discourse to their advantage).
Alternatively, companies may implement strategies that pre-
vent or discourage the market from being able to enact their
reasons against the brand, such as by furtive subbranding or
increasing exiting fees (Lee, Motion, and Conroy 2009). The
rhetoric and types of strategies employed in all these settings
could be analyzed through a variety of interpretive methodolo-
gies and this could provide valuable insights as to how
businesses interact with both their consumers and their anti-
consumers (Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel 2006). Indeed,
although applications of reasons theory mostly remain within
a sociocognitive, logicodeductive paradigm, interpretive
approaches may prove better suited to address issues around
self-presentation and the dynamics of sense making and
account giving. In addition, known methodological problems
such as social desirability bias (e.g., Crane 1999) can be more
effectively addressed through prolonged engagement, building
trust and rapport, and triangulating with different data collec-
tion methods. Likewise, interpretive studies could explore how
other actors such as bottom-up, grassroots movements but also
top-down institutional actors also engage with anticonsumerist
attitudes and motivations. Opposition to genetic modification
(GM) forms part of an agenda that is negotiated not only at the
level of individual choice but also in policy-making settings
where various stakeholders engage with the rhetoric for and
against GM.
Furthermore, the types of reasons for and against consump-
tion that consumers employ in their everyday purchasing (and
nonpurchasing) contexts are fundamentally intertwined with
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
199
taken-for-granted notions of desirable lifestyles and the ideolo-
gical nexus of market capitalism. Contemporary markets legit-
imize consumer choice based on the functional, use value of
products rather than their potential environmental and social
externalities. Consumers may criticize Chevron (or Ryanair)
for their exploitation of the environment (or workers), but they
may still carry on buying petrol (or using the low cost airline) if
those brands fulfill a function and the consumer makes no con-
nection between the concepts of exploitation and functionality
(Salzer-Morling and Strannegård 2007). Potentially useful
perspectives here include institutional theory (Thornton and
Ocasio 2008) and Kilbourne, McDonagh, and Prothero’s
(1997) approach to understanding the institutional foundations
of the DSP. Reasons against could be treated as counterconsu-
merist critiques or ‘‘countervailing logics’’ (e.g., Seo and
Creed 2002) that reflect paradigmatic shifts in the dominant
socioeconomic order. A parallel stream of research could dis-
tinguish between macro- versus micro-oriented reasons
against consumption and the extent to which they are in
rooted in different institutional forces and stakeholder actions.
In the context of green consumerism, Prothero, McDonagh,
and Dobscha (2010) differentiate between micro-level (e.g.,
helping one’s family or local economy) versus macro-level
motivations (e.g., concerns about the global effects of con-
sumer culture). Likewise, micro- and macro-level reasons
against are expected to have distinct ideological and motiva-
tional underpinnings.
Conclusion
In sum, this article argues that anti-consumption is a distinct
area of research interested in the reasons against consumption.
By drawing on reasons theory, the article offers anti-
consumption as an overarching perspective that spans a range
of behavioral and thematic contexts, and acts as a lens that
encourages scholars to consider the other side of the consump-
tion continuum. In doing so anti-consumption research
attempts to increase understanding of consumption overall, as
well as contribute to an emerging cross-disciplinary tradition
that acknowledges the ways in which phenomena of negation
differ from those of affirmation.
200
Author’s Note
Both the authors have contributed equally.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1999), ‘‘The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-
expression in Persuasion,’’ Journal of Marketing Research, 36
(1), 45-57.
Ajzen, Icek (1985), ‘‘From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned
Behavior,’’ in Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior, Julius
Kuhl and Jürgen Beckman, eds. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer,
11-39.
Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, Thomas W., and William H. Cunningham (1972), ‘‘The
Socially Conscious Consumer,’’ Journal of Marketing, 36 (3),
23-31.
Bamberg, Sebastian, and Guido Moser (2007), ‘‘Twenty Years after
Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta-analysis of
Psycho-social Determinants of Pro-environmental Behavior,’’
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (1), 14-25.
Banister, Emma N., and Margaret K. Hogg (2004), ‘‘Negative
Symbolic Consumption and Consumers’ Drive for Self-esteem,’’
European Journal of Marketing, 38 (7), 850-868.
Barnett, Clive, Paul Cloke, Nick Clarke, and Alice Malpass (2011),
Globalizing Responsibility: The Political Rationalities of Ethical
Consumption. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Belk, Russell (1988), ‘‘Possessions and the Extended Self,’’ Journal of
Consumer Research, 15 (September), 139-168.
Belz, Frank-Martin, and Ken Peattie (2009), Sustainability Marketing:
A Global Perspective. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Bird, Kate, and David R. Hughes (1997), ‘‘Ethical Consumerism: The
Case of ‘‘Fairly-Traded’’ Coffee,’’ Business Ethics: A European
Review, 6 (3), 159-167.
Black, Iain R. (2010), ‘‘Editorial: Sustainability through Anti-Con-
sumption,’’ Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9 (Nov-Dec), 403-411.
Black, Iain R., and Helene Cherrier (2010), ‘‘Anti-consumption as Part
of Living a Sustainable Lifestyle: Daily Practices, Contextual
Motivations and Subjective Values,’’ Journal of Consumer Beha-
vior, 9 (Nov-Dec), 437-453.
Brass, Marcel, and Patrick Haggard (2007), ‘‘To Do or Not to Do: The
Neural Signature of Self Control,’’ Journal of Neuroscience, 27
(34), 9141-9145.
Brehm, Jack W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Carrigan, Marylyn, and Ahmad Attalla (2001), ‘‘The Myth of the Ethi-
cal Consumer- Do Ethics Matter in Purchase Behavior?’’ Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 18 (7), 560-577.
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)
Chatzidakis, Andreas, Sally Hibbert, Darryn Mitussis, and Andrew
Smith (2004), ‘‘Virtue in Consumption?’’ Journal of Marketing
Management, 20 (5/6), 527-544.
Chatzidakis, Andreas, Pauline Maclaran, and Alan Bradshaw (2012),
‘‘Heterotopian Space and the Utopics of Ethical and Green Con-
sumption,’’ Journal of Marketing Management, 28 (3-4), 494-515.
Cherrier, Helene 2009, ‘‘Anti-Consumption Discourses and Consumer
Resistant-Identities,’’ Journal of Business Research, 62 (2),
181-190.
Cherrier, Helene, Iain R. Black, and Michael S. W. Lee (2011),
‘‘Intentional Non-consumption for Sustainability: Consumer
Resistance and/or Anti-Consumption?’’ European Journal of Mar-
keting, 45 (11/12), 1757-1767.
Clary, Gil E., Mark Snyder, Robert D. Ridge, John Copeland, Arthur
A. Stukas, Julie Haugen, and Peter Miene (1998), ‘‘Understanding
and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A Functional
Approach,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74
(6), 1516-1530.
Close, Angeline G., and George M. Zinkhan (2009), ‘‘Market-
resistance and Valentine’s Day Events,’’ Journal of Business
Research, 62 (2), 200-207.
Crane, Andrew (1999), ‘‘Are You Ethical? Please Tick Yes? or No?
On Researching Ethics in Business Organizations,’’ Journal of
Business Ethics, 20 (3), 237-248.
Crane, Andrew, and Dirk Matten (2004), Business Ethics: A European
Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cromie, John G., and Mike T. Ewing (2009), ‘‘The Rejection of Brand
Hegemony,’’ Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 218-230.
DePelsmacker, Patrick, Liesbeth Driesen, and Glenn Rayp (2005),
‘‘Do Consumers Care about Ethics? Willingness to Pay for
Fair-Trade Coffee,’’ Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 (2),
363-385.
Dobscha, Susan, and Julie L. Ozanne (2001), ‘‘An Ecofeminist Anal-
ysis of Environmentally Friendly Women Using Qualitative Meth-
odology: The Emancipatory Potential of an Ecological Life,’’
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20 (2), 201-214.
Dolan, Paddy (2002), ‘‘The Sustainability of ‘‘Sustainable Consump-
tion,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 22 (2), 170-181.
Dolich, Ira J. (1969), ‘‘Congruence Relationships between Self Images
and Product Brands,’’ Journal of Marketing Research, 6
(February), 80-84.
Eckhardt, Giana M., Russell Belk, and Timothy M. Devinney (2010),
‘‘Why don’t Consumers Consume Ethically?’’, Journal of
Consumer Behavior, 9 (Nov-Dec), 426-436.
Elliot, Andrew J. (1999), ‘‘Approach and Avoidance Motivation and
Achievement Goals,’’ Educational Psychologist, 34 (3), 169-189.
English, Basil G., and Michael R. Solomon (1997), ‘‘Special Session
Summary: I am Not therefore, I Am: The Role of Avoidance Prod-
ucts in Shaping Consumer Behaviour,’’ Advances in Consumer
Research, 24, 61-63.
Foucault, Michel (1982), The Subject and Power, in Michel Foucault:
Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Hubert L. Dreyfus and
Paul Rabinow, eds. Brighton: The Harvester Press, 208-226.
Fournier, Susan (1998), ‘‘Consumers and their Brands: Developing
Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,’’ Journal of
Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343-373.
Chatzidakis and Lee
Friedman, Munroe (1985), ‘‘Consumer Boycotts in the United States,
1970–1980: Contemporary Events in Historical Perspective,’’
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19 (1), 96-117.
Gao, Zhihong (2012), ‘‘Chinese Grassroots Nationalism and its
Impact on Foreign Brands,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 32 (2),
181-192. doi:10.1177/0276146711428808
Gardner, Benjamin, and Charles Abraham (2008), ‘‘Psychological
Correlates of Car Use: A Meta-analysis,’’ Transportation Research
Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 11 (4), 300-311.
Gawronski, Bertram, Roland Deutsch, Sawsan Mbirkou, Beate Seibt,
and Fritz Strack (2008), ‘‘When ‘‘Just say No’’ is not Enough:
Affirmation versus Negation Training and the Reduction of Auto-
matic Stereotype Activation,’’ Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 44 (2), 370-377.
Grubb, Edward L., and Harrison L. Grathwohl (1967), ‘‘Consumer
Self-concept, Symbolism and Market Behavior: A Theoretical
Approach,’’ Journal of Marketing, 31 (October), 22-27.
Harvey, David (2010), The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of
Capital. London, UK: Profile Books.
Heath, Adam P., and Don Scott (1998), ‘‘The Self-concept and
Image Congruence Hypothesis,’’ European Journal of Marketing,
32 (11/12), 1110-1124.
Herrmann, Robert O. (1993), ‘‘The Tactics of Consumer Resistance:
Group Action and the Marketplace Exit,’’ Advances in Consumer
Research, 20, 130-134.
Hogg, Margaret K., and Emma N. Banister (2001), ‘‘Dislikes,
Distastes and the Undesired Self: Conceptualising and Exploring
the Role of the Undesired End State in Consumer Experience,’’
Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (1-2), 73-104.
Hogg, Margaret K., and Paul C. N. Michell (1997), ‘‘Special Session
Summary: Exploring Anti-constellations: Content and Consen-
sus,’’ Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 61-63.
Hogg, Margaret K., Alastair. J. Cox, and Kathy Keeling (2000), ‘‘The
Impact of Self Monitoring on Image Congruence and Product/
Brand Evaluation,’’ European Journal of Marketing, 34 (5/6),
641-666.
Izberk-Bilgin, Elif (2010), ‘‘An Interdisciplinary Review of Resis-
tance to Consumption, Some Marketing Interpretations, and Future
Research Suggestions,’’ Consumption Markets & Culture, 13 (3),
299-323.
Janis, Irving L., and Leon Mann (1977). Decision-making: A Psycho-
logical Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Kilbourne, William. E., Pierre McDonagh, and Andrea Prothero
(1997), ‘‘Sustainable Consumption and the Quality of Life: A
Macromarketing Challenge to the Dominant Social Paradigm,’’
Journal of Macromarketing, 17 (1), 4-24.
Kilbourne, William E., Michael J. Dorsch, Pierre McDonagh, Ber-
trand Urien, Andrea Prothero, Marko Grünhagen, Michael Jay
Polonsky, David Marshall, Janice Foley, and Alan Bradshaw
(2009), ‘‘The Institutional Foundations of Materialism in Western
Societies : A Conceptualization and Empirical Test,’’ Journal of
Macromarketing, 29 (3), 259-278.
Kozinets, Robert V., and Jay M. Handelman (2004), ‘‘Adversaries of
Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology,’’
Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 691-704.
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
201
Kozinets, Robert V., Jay M. Handelman, and Michael S. W. Lee
(2010), ‘‘Don’t Read This; or, Who Cares What the Hell Anti-
consumption Is, Anyways?’’ Consumption Markets and Culture,
13 (3), 225-233.
Latouche, Serge (2009), Farewell to Growth. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.
Layton, Roger A. (2007), ‘‘Marketing Systems—A Core Macromar-
keting Concept,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (3), 227-242.
Layton, Roger A., and Sanford Grossbart (2006), ‘‘Macromarketing:
Past, Present, and Possible Future,’’ Journal of Macromarketing,
26 (2), 193-213.
Lee, Michael S. W., Karen Fernandez, and Michael R. Hyman (2009),
‘‘Anti-consumption: An Overview and Research Agenda,’’
Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 145-147.
Lee, Michael S. W., Judith Motion, and Denise Conroy (2009), ‘‘Anti-
consumption and Brand Avoidance,’’ Journal of Business
Research, 62 (2), 169-180.
Lee, Michael S. W., Dominique Roux, Hélène Cherrier, and Bernard
Cova (2011), ‘‘Anti-Consumption and Consumer Resistance: Con-
cepts, Concerns, Conflicts, and Convergence,’’ European Journal
of Marketing, 45 (11/12), 1680-1687.
Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, (1981), ‘‘Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles
and Energy Conservation,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3),
243-257.
Levy, Sidney J. (1959), ‘‘Symbols for Sale,’’ Harvard Business
Review, 37 (4), 117-124.
Marcus, Bess H., William Rakowski, and Joseph S. Rossi (1992),
‘‘Assessing Motivational Readiness and Decision-making for
Exercise,’’ Health Psychology, 11 (4), 257-261.
Markus, Hazel, and Paula Nurius (1986), ‘‘Possible Selves,’’ Ameri-
can Psychologist, 41 (9), 954-969.
Maruna, Shadd, and Heith Copes (2005), ‘‘Excuses, Excuses: What
Have We Learned from Five Decades of Neutralization Research?’’
Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 32, 221-320.
McCracken, Grant (1986), ‘‘Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical
Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning
of Consumer Goods,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1),
71-84.
McDonald, Seonaidh, and Caroline J. Oates (2006). ‘‘Sustainability:
Consumer Perceptions and Marketing Strategies,’’ Business Strat-
egy and the Environment, 15 (3), 157-170.
Mills, Wright C. (1940), ‘‘Situated Actions and Vocabularies of
Motive,’’ American Sociological Review, 5 (6), 904-913.
Muniz, Albert M., and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), ‘‘Brand Commu-
nity,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-432.
Nicholls, Alex, and Nick Lee (2006), ‘‘Purchase Decision Making in
Fair Trade and the Ethical Purchase ‘‘Gap’’: ‘‘Is There a Fair-Trade
Twix?’’ Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14 (4), 369-386.
Novick, Laura R., and Patricia W. Cheng (2004), ‘‘Assessing Inter-
active Causal Influence,’’ Psychological Review, 111 (2),
455-485.
Oates, Caroline J., Seonaidh McDonald, Panayiota Alevizou, Kumju
Hwang, William Young, and Leigh-Ann McMorland (2008),
‘‘Marketing Sustainability: Use of Information Sources and
Degrees of Voluntary Simplicity,’’ Journal of Marketing Commu-
nication, 14 (5), 351-365.
202
Ogilvie, Daniel M. (1987), ‘‘The Undesired Self: A Neglected
Variable in Personality Research,’’ Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52 (2), 379-385.
Ozanne, Lucie K., and Paul W. Ballantine (2010), ‘‘Sharing as a Form
of Anti-consumption? An Examination of Toy Library Users,’’
Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9 (Nov-Dec), 485-498.
Peattie, Ken (2001), ‘‘Golden Goose or Wild Goose? The Hunt for the
Green Consumer,’’ Business Strategy and the Environment, 10 (4),
187-199.
Peñaloza, Lisa, and Linda Price (1993), ‘‘Consumer Resistance: A Con-
ceptual Overview,’’ Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 123-128.
Piacentini, G. Maria, and Banister N. Emma (2009), ‘‘Managing
Anti-Consumption in an Excessive Drinking Culture’’, Journal
of Business Research, 62 (2), 279-288.
Prothero, Andrea, and James A. Fitchett (2000), ‘‘Greening Capital-
ism: Opportunities for a Green Commodity,’’ Journal of Macro-
marketing, 20 (1), 46-55.
Prothero, Andrea, Pierre McDonagh, and Susan Dobscha (2010), ‘‘Is
Green the New Black? Reflections on Green Commodity Dis-
course,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (2), 147-159.
Richetin, Juliette, Mark Conner, and Marco Perugini (2011), ‘‘Not
Doing is Not the Opposite of Doing: Implications for Attitudinal
Models of Behavioral Prediction,’’ Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37 (1), 40-54.
Richetin, Juliette, Marco Perugini, Mark Conner, Iqbal Adhali, Robert
Hurling, Abhijit Sengupta, and Danica Greetham (2012), ‘‘To
Reduce and Not to Reduce Resource Consumption? That is Two
Questions,’’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32 (2),
112-122.
Roberts, James A. (1996), ‘‘Will the Real Socially Responsible
Consumer Please Step Forward?,’’ Business Horizons, 39 (1), 79-83.
Roe, Robert M., Jermone R. Busemeyer, and James T. Townsend
(2001), ‘‘Multialternative Decision Weld Theory: A Dynamic
Connectionist Model of Decision Making,’’ Psychological Review,
108 (2), 370-392.
Salzer-Morling, Miriam, and Lars Strannegård (2007), ‘‘Ain’t misbe-
havin: Consumption in a Moralized Brandscape,’’ Marketing The-
ory, 7 (4), 407-425.
Scott, Marvin B., and Stanford M. Lyman (1968), ‘‘Accounts,’’ Amer-
ican Sociological Review, 33 (1), 46-62.
Sen, Sankar, and C. B. Bhattacharya (2001), ‘‘Does Doing Good Always
Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social
Responsibility,’’ Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2), 225-243.
Sen, Sankar, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Daniel Korschun (2006),
‘‘The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening
Multiple Stakeholder Relationships: A Field Experiment,’’ Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 158-166.
Seo, Myeong-Gu, and W. E. Creed Douglas (2002), ‘‘Institutional
Contradictions, Praxis and Institutional Change: A Dialectical
Perspective,’’ Academy of Management Review, 27 (2), 222-247.
Shaw, Deirdre, and Ian Clarke (1999), ‘‘Belief Formation in Ethical
Consumer Groups: An Exploratory Study,’’ Marketing Intelligence
and Planning, 17 (2), 109-119.
Shaw, Deirdre, and Terry Newholm (2002), ‘‘Voluntary Simplicity
and the Ethics of Consumption,’’ Psychology and Marketing, 19
(2), 167-185.
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)
Sirgy, Joseph M. (1982), ‘‘Self-concept in Consumer Behavior: A
Critical Review,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December),
287-300.
Smith, Craig N. (1990), Morality and the Market: Consumer Pressure
for Corporate Accountability. London, UK: Routledge.
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), ‘‘The Role of Products as Social Stimuli:
A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective,’’ Journal of Consumer
Research, 10 (3), 319-329.
Solomon, Michael R., and Henry Assael (1987), ‘‘The Forest or the
Trees?: A Gestalt Approach to Symbolic Consumption,’’ in Market-
ing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale, Jean
Umiker-Sebeok, , ed. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 189-218.
Soper, Kate, Martin H. Ryle, and Lyn Thomas (Eds.) (2009), The
Politics and Pleasures of Consuming Differently. Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan
Straughan, Robert D., and James A. Roberts, (1999), ‘‘Environmental
Segmentation Alternatives: A Look at Green Consumer Behavior
in the New Millennium’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16
(6), 558-575.
Sutton, Stephen (2004), ‘‘Determinants of Health Related Behaviors:
Theoretical and Methodological issues,’’ in The Sage Handbook of
Health Psychology, Stephen R. Sutton, Andrew S. Baum and
Marie Johnston, eds. London, UK: Sage, 94-126.
Sykes, Gresham M., and David Matza (1957), ‘‘Techniques of Neutra-
lization: A Theory of Delinquency,’’ American Sociological
Review, 22 (6), 664-670.
Thompson, Craig J., and Zeynep Arsel (2004), ‘‘The Starbucks
Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of
Glocalization,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 631-642.
Thompson, Craig J., Aric Rindfleisch, and Zeynep Arsel (2006),
‘‘Emotional Branding and the Strategic Value of the Doppelganger
Brand Image,’’ Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 50-64.
Thornton, Patricia H., and William Ocasio (2008), ‘‘Institutional
Logics,’’ in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutional-
ism, Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Roy Suddaby and
Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 99-129.
Uusitalo, Outi, and Reetta Oksanen (2004), ‘‘Ethical Consumerism: A
View from Finland,’’ International Journal of Consumer Studies,
28 (3), 214-221.
Webster, Frederick E. (1975), ‘‘Determining the Characteristics of the
Socially Conscious Consumer,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 2
(3), 185-196.
Westaby, James D. (2002), ‘‘Identifying Specific Factors Underlying
Attitudes toward Change: Using Multiple Methods to Compare
Expectancy-Value Theory to Reasons Theory,’’ Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32 (5), 1083-1106.
Westaby, James D. (2005a), ‘‘Comparing Attribute Importance and
Motivational Reason Methods for Understanding Behavior: An
Application to Internet Job Searching,’’ Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 54 (4), 568-583.
Westaby, James D. (2005b), ‘‘Behavioral Reasoning Theory: Identify-
ing New Linkages Underlying Intentions and Behaviour,’’ Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98 (2), 97-120.
Westaby, James D., and Martin Fishbein (1996), ‘‘Factors Underlying
Behavioral Choice: Testing a New Reasons Theory Approach,’’
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26 (15), 1307-1323.
Chatzidakis and Lee
Westaby, James D., Martin Fishbein, and Robert Aherin (1997),
‘‘Self-Reported Reasons: A Test and Application of Reasons
Theory on Occupational Behaviour,’’ Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 19 (4), 483-494.
Westaby, James D., Tahira M. Probst, and Barbara C. Lee (2010),
‘‘Leadership Decision-making: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory
Analysis,’’ The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 481-495.
Wilk, Richard (1997), ‘‘A Critique of Desire: Distaste and Dislike in
Consumer Behaviour,’’ Consumption, Markets and Culture, 1 (2),
175-196.
Willis, Richard H. (1965), ‘‘Conformity, Independence, and Anticon-
formity,’’ Human Relations, 18 (4), 373-388.
Wilson, Charlie, and Hadi Dowlatabadi (2007), ‘‘Models of Decision
Making and Residential Energy Use,’’ Annual Review of Environ-
ment and Resources, 32 (November 2007), 169-203.
Zavestoski, Stephen (2002), ‘‘Guest editorial: Anticonsumption
Attitudes,’’ Psychology and Marketing, 19 (2), 121-126.
Downloaded from jmk.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on July 1, 2015
203
Author Biographies
Andreas Chatzidakis is a lecturer in Marketing at the School of Man-
agement, Royal Holloway University of London and deputy Director
of the Centre for Research into Sustainability. His research focuses on
the intersection of consumption with ethics and politics. He has pub-
lished in the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Marketing Man-
agement, Consumption, Markets and Culture, Sociology of Health
and Illness, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Advances in Consumer
Research, and the International Journal of Consumer Studies.
Michael S. W. Lee is a senior lecturer of Marketing at The University
of Auckland Business School. He is director of The International Cen-
tre of Anti-Consumption Research (ICAR); and has published in the
Journal of Business Research, Consumption, Markets and Culture,
European Journal of Marketing, Australasian Marketing Journal,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Advances in Consumer Research, and the Journal of Macromarketing.