J Consum Psychol - 2020 - Hill - Consumer Vulnerability

Consumer Vulnerability
Ronald Paul Hill Eesha Sharma

The American University Dartmouth College
Accepted by Anirban Mukhopadhyay, Editor; Associate Editor, Stefano Puntoni
Consumer vulnerability affects billions of consumers worldwide, yet there is no consensus about what consti-
tutes this state or about its consequences for consumers. Indeed, while consumer vulnerability is often
invoked in consumer research, it is usually discussed informally, with little conceptual anchoring. The goal of
the current work was to advance the field's understanding of consumer vulnerability by (a) reviewing and
integrating existing research, (b) extracting common features to develop a comprehensive framework for the
concept of consumer vulnerability, and (c) charting paths forward for future research. We begin by defining
consumer vulnerability as a state in which consumers are subject to harm because their access to and control
over resources are restricted in ways that significantly inhibit their ability to function in the marketplace. We
then introduce two lenses through which to identify this state: experience and observation. Next, we delineate
the antecedents and consequences of consumer vulnerability and discuss the merits of adopting a view of this
state as more global and dynamic. Finally, we use our framework to offer future research considerations.
Keywords Consumer vulnerability; Harm; Resources; Control; Coping strategies
The term consumer vulnerability is widely used to comprehensive conceptual framework that orga-
describe a variety of difficult situations that con- nizes antecedents and consequences of this state,
sumers face. These situations may be associated and (c) charting paths forward for future research.
with individual characteristics (e.g., age, race, phys- This article is organized as follows: First, to
ical capabilities), social phenomena (e.g., stereo- ground our conceptual understanding of consumer
types, prejudicial treatment), business practices vulnerability, we discuss how the term has been
(e.g., store layouts, marketer manipulations), and articulated in the existing research to date and
environmental forces (e.g., hurricanes, tsunamis) delineate some open questions from that research.
(for a review, see Baker, Gentry, & Rittenburg, Second, we introduce our proposed conceptual
2005). Despite the wide-ranging implicit or explicit framework, beginning with a definition of con-
applications of this term in consumer research, sumer vulnerability. We define consumer vulnera-
there is a need for greater conceptual anchoring. bility as a state in which consumers are subject to
Indeed, the field lacks consensus about the defini- harm because their access to and control over
tion of consumer vulnerability, as well as a frame- resources are restricted in ways that significantly
work for researchers and practitioners to recognize inhibit their ability to function in the marketplace.
its antecedents and consequences. Our goal is to We then discuss how to identify consumer vulnera-
advance the field’s understanding of consumer vul- bility, arguing for two methods of identification:
nerability by (a) reviewing and integrating previous experience and observation. The key difference
research related to consumer vulnerability, (b) between these two methods of identification is the
extracting relevant features to introduce a perceiver of this state—either the vulnerable con-
sumer (experienced vulnerability) or a third-party
observer such as a researcher or policymaker (ob-
Received 30 December 2018; accepted 5 March 2020 served vulnerability). Next, we propose and classify
Available online 10 March 2020
The authors are listed in alphabetical order and contributed the antecedents and consequences of consumer vul-
equally to this paper. They thank Lan Chaplin, Eileen Fisher, nerability. After describing the key elements of our
Praveen Kopalle, Ellie Kyung, Mark Laidre, Rich Lutz, Debbie proposed framework, we offer several considera-
MacInnis, Julie Ozanne, Mukul Pandya, Matthew Paronto, Shelle
Santana, and Stephanie Tully for their helpful remarks on vari- tions for how to view and manage this state. In
ous draft of this manuscript. They also appreciate the insightful
and developmental comments by the Review Team.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to © 2020 Society for Consumer Psychology
Ronald Paul Hill, 4400 Massachusetts Ave, Washington, DC, All rights reserved. 1057-7408/2020/1532-7663/30(3)/551–570
USA. Electronic mail may be sent to ronhill@american.edu. DOI: 10.1002/jcpy.1161
15327663, 2020, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1161 by Norwegian School Of Management, Wiley Online Library on [19/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
552 Hill and Sharma
contrast to existing research that has focused largely described why and how gullibility and interper-
on one specific consumer context at a time, we sonal influence make consumers vulnerable to mar-
argue that the field should adopt a global perspec- keting scams, especially with the rise of the
tive that considers and integrates multiple con- Internet. Researchers have also tried to understand
sumer contexts. Furthermore, we present the merits how to mitigate the problem of marketer manipula-
of adopting a more dynamic view of consumer vul- tion, as well as how to support vulnerable con-
nerability. Finally, we conclude by proposing consumers. For instance, researchers have looked at
siderations for future research on consumer governmental agencies like the Federal Trade Com-
vulnerability. mission (FTC), evaluating their status as possible
By (a) integrating existing research; (b) providing watchdogs and analyzing how consumer research
a comprehensive framework that defines consumer might inform public policy decisions to protect con-
vulnerability, suggests methods of identification, sumers (Cohen, 1969; Wilkie & Gardner, 1974).
and delineates antecedents and consequences; and Although both streams of research have
(c) offering future research considerations, we hope advanced over the last decade (e.g., respectively,
to advance a more systematic approach to identify- Martin & Hill, 2012; Moore, Wilkie, & Desrochers,
ing and understanding consumer vulnerability. 2017), theory building in these areas has received
less scholarly attention than other topics in the field
of consumer psychology. Instead, these subjects
Conceptual Foundations of Consumer have been investigated primarily within the field of
Vulnerability applied consumer research and been published in
outlets such as the Journal of Public Policy & Market-
Previous Articulations of this Construct
ing.
Early research on consumer vulnerability Additional work that relates to consumer vulner-
emerged from two distinct streams: The first con- ability is research on the relationship between scar-
sidered relative disadvantage among subpopulations, city and consumer decision making (Briers,
and the second concentrated on varied marketer Pandelaere, Dewitte, & Warlop, 2006; Cannon,
manipulations that affected consumer decision-mak- Goldsmith, & Roux, 2019; Hamilton et al., 2019;
ing processes. The former often examined the inter- Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013; Paley, Tully, &
section of poverty and racial prejudice during the Sharma, 2019; Roux, Goldsmith, & Bonezzi,
cultural revolution of the 1960s. For example, 2015; Sharma & Alter, 2012; Sharma & Keller, 2017;
accounts of disadvantage appeared in works on Sharma, Mazar, Alter, & Ariely, 2014; Sharma,
consumers in urban ghettos (Andreasen, 1975, 1978) Tully, & Wang, 2020; Tully, Hershfield, & Meyvis,
and works on racism against African Americans in 2015). This literature defines scarcity as a subjective
the marketplace (Sexton, 1971, 1972). Although sense of having more needs than available
instances of consumer vulnerability surely existed resources (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). A common
well before this time, this research was some of the theme in the literatures on scarcity and consumer
first to begin to document it. Much of this scholar- vulnerability is the effort to understand the effects
ship was concerned with the combination of fewer of resource restrictions on individuals’ consumption
resources (e.g., income, food, clothing) available to decisions. However, while these literatures share
disadvantaged consumers and higher prices in their some conceptual overlap (e.g., what happens when
communities. This research led to further investiga- consumers face resource restrictions), scarcity
tions that examined race (e.g., Bone, Christensen, & research generally focuses on how and why con-
Williams, 2014) and other stigmas, such as lower sumers facing resource scarcity behave the way
socioeconomic status (Saatcioglu & Ozanne, 2013) they do (for a review, see Cannon et al., 2019). In
and age (Chaplin & John, 2010; Kang & Ridgway, contrast, consumer vulnerability research has
1996). This line of research on disadvantaged indi- focused on who is deemed vulnerable and what
viduals was one of the two precursors to research downstream situations those individuals face as a
on consumer vulnerability. result. Moreover, scarcity research conducted in
The second stream of research examined how experimental settings does not always examine the
particular groups in American society were sub- same types of consumption restrictions that con-
jected to manipulations by marketers (e.g., Olson & sumer vulnerability research investigates through
Dover, 1978; Pechmann, Levine, Loughlin, & Leslie, qualitative and ethnographic data collections.
2005; Smith & Cooper-Martin, 1997; Sunstein, 2016). Another critical difference is that individuals who
For instance, Langenderfer and Shimp (2001) feel that they are facing scarcity are sometimes, but
Consumer Vulnerability 553
not always, subject to harm in the marketplace, Who determines vulnerability and how?. Another
whereas all vulnerable consumers are subject to limitation of the existing literature is lack of agree-
harm. For example, some people may experience a ment on who is best suited to designate a consumer
sense of scarcity because they feel disadvantaged as vulnerable. Although little research has
relative to their wealthier counterparts, despite hav- attempted to tackle this question, a notable excep-
ing adequate levels of resources to meet their basic tion comes from Baker et al. (2005), who suggest
needs. In contrast, all vulnerable consumers are that consumer vulnerability is contingent on self-
subject to harm because their access to and control perceptions and not others’ perceptions. They argue
over resources are restricted in the marketplace. that individuals are truly vulnerable only when
This feature is a necessary condition for consumer they, themselves, believe that they are vulnerable.
vulnerability. This perspective raises questions about how to inte-
To summarize: The research on disadvantage and grate the existing research on consumer vulnerabil-
marketplace manipulations provided the conceptual ity into a cohesive whole, since much of it consists
foundations for the research on consumer vulnerabil- of observers (researchers or policymakers) examin-
ity. Research on resource scarcity also relates to con- ing the lives of those they view as vulnerable. We
sumer vulnerability because it involves consumer address this issue in our conceptualization of con-
restrictions. However, a critical difference between sumer vulnerability by decoupling the existence of
the scarcity and consumer vulnerability literatures is consumer vulnerability from the identification of
that some consumers who feel they are experiencing that state. Specifically, we define consumer vulnera-
scarcity are subject to harm in the marketplace, bility as a state that occurs when several factors are
whereas all consumers who are vulnerable are by met, and we integrate both the experiencer’s per-
definition subject to that harm. In the next section, spective (experienced vulnerability) and the per-
we discuss open questions that require attention in ceiver’s perspective (observed vulnerability) into
future research. We then build on the research gaps our discussion of identification.
that emerge from this discussion to present our con- What threshold determines consumer vulnerabil-
sumer vulnerability framework. ity?. In addition to issues related to the defini-
tion and identification of consumer vulnerability,
another concern is the tipping point at which vul-
Gaps in Previous Research
nerability occurs. Existing research is relatively
Informal usage of the term. One issue that chal- silent on this matter, with one notable exception:
lenges the clarity of the consumer vulnerability con- Martin and Hill (2012) discuss the level of resources
struct is how the term has been used informally. necessary for consumption adequacy—the amount of
Consumer vulnerability is often used interchangeably goods and services that consumers require to meet
with consumers who experience disadvantage or con- their most basic survival needs. Examples of such
sumers who are susceptible to pitfalls—overt or covert goods and services include safe and adequate hous-
misleading persuasion tactics (Smith & Cooper- ing, sufficient and healthy food and water, clothing
Martin, 1997). These perspectives incorporate a that is appropriate for weather conditions and soci-
range of consumers who often make significantly etal norms, preventative and remedial health care,
less-than-ideal decisions because of particular sets and opportunities for growth through education
of circumstances (e.g., Cartwright, 2015; Overton & and jobs.
O’Mahony, 2018). For instance, designations like In the current work, we consider consumption
homeless consumers (Hill & Stamey, 1990), base-of-the- adequacy to be the level of resources below which
pyramid consumers (Hill, 2010), low literate consumers consumer vulnerability is certainly triggered. How-
(Adkins & Ozanne, 2005), subsistence consumers (Vis- ever, we note that less extreme conditions may also
wanathan, Rosa, & Ruth, 2010), and disabled con- lead to consumer vulnerability. For example, Wes-
sumers (Childers & Kaufman-Scarborough, 2009) are tern, educated, high-income consumers who are
sometimes used to suggest consumer vulnerability. unwittingly targeted by deceptive marketing prac-
While many consumers who fit these descriptions tices may have adequate access to and control over
may in fact be vulnerable, it is not their given des- a variety of goods and services that allow them to
ignation that makes them vulnerable. Conflating function reasonably well in the marketplace. Yet,
the terminology may foster misunderstanding, as these consumers may still be classified as vulnera-
well as the misuse of these designations and the ble to the extent that they are open to harm in the
vulnerable consumer label. We expand on this point marketplace because of one or more restrictions in
in our proposed conceptualization. resources or control. For instance, they may have
554 Hill and Sharma
asymmetric access to marketers’ knowledge (a ability to make informed decisions or that they face
resource limitation) and be unaware of covert per- added obstacles that hinder their well-being. Other
suasion tactics that may influence them (limited literature recognizes individuals as potentially vul-
control) and in turn leave them open to harm. Nev- nerable in the face of products that may cause harm
ertheless, given the relative deficit of research con- (e.g., tobacco—Pechmann & Shih, 1999). In the cur-
ducted on consumers who hover around or below rent work, however, we argue that one should
consumption adequacy, we have chosen to fill in refrain from using particular designations of con-
the research gaps by focusing this article largely on sumers (e.g., children, elderly, obese, lower income,
extreme cases of consumer vulnerability. minorities) interchangeably with the vulnerable con-
Thus far, we have reviewed and integrated exist- sumer label. The categories in which consumers
ing research related to consumer vulnerability and belong are not sufficient to make them vulnerable,
described the open questions that motivate our cur- and such synonymous usage may lead to misunder-
rent work. These open questions center around standing and misuse of the consumer vulnerability
how informal usage of the term consumer vulnerabil- concept. It is the circumstances that consumers face
ity leads to potential misuse and misunderstanding that determine their vulnerability. For example, the
of the term, how consumer vulnerability should be elderly are not vulnerable merely because they are
identified and by whom, and what threshold old; they are vulnerable when they are susceptible to
should be used to determine vulnerability. We aim marketplace harm because of some resource–control
to address these open questions and to further combination: some combination of factors (e.g., physi-
ground the field’s understanding of consumer vul- cal or mental disability, limited knowledge) that
nerability by introducing a comprehensive concep- restrict their access to and control over resources.
tual framework that provides (a) a formal definition (For examples of resource–control combinations, see
of consumer vulnerability, (b) methods to identify Table 2.) This point also highlights the apparently
this state, (c) a taxonomy of its antecedents and subtle distinction between disadvantaged groups
consequences, and (d) a discussion of how to think and vulnerable groups. Disadvantaged groups are
about vulnerability in a global and dynamic man- disadvantaged because they are unequal—worse off
ner. than others—in a specified context. Vulnerable
groups are vulnerable not solely because of a particu-
lar characteristic relative to others, but because they
Our Proposed Framework are subject to harm by marketers or individuals with
whom they interact when seeking to access goods
Definition of the Term
and services. Similar to those experiencing perceived
To provide a comprehensive definition of con- scarcity, those who experience disadvantage may or
sumer vulnerability, we have extracted common may not be open to harm, but all vulnerable con-
features across the varied contexts in which it has sumers are by definition open to harm.
been discussed. (For some examples of academic
and applied definitions of consumer vulnerability,
Methods of Identification: Experience and Observation
see Table 1.) One perspective in applied ethics sug-
gests that four interrelated features must be present Having discussed the conditions under which
in vulnerability contexts: (a) an individual must be consumer vulnerability occurs, we next propose
vulnerable to (b) a target with respect to (c) some methods of identifying this state. Specifically, we
harm in a (d) given context (Brenkert, 1998). Inte- suggest that consumer vulnerability can be identi-
grating these features into consumption contexts fied in two ways: by experiencers and by observers.
more specifically, we propose the following defini- Experienced vulnerability refers to instances of con-
tion: Consumer vulnerability is a state in which sumer vulnerability that individuals feel they
consumers are subject to harm because their access undergo and identify. Observed vulnerability refers
to and control over resources is restricted in ways to instances of consumer vulnerability that third
that significantly inhibit their abilities to function in parties, such as policymakers, detect and identify,
the marketplace. regardless of whether the observed individuals do.
In the previous literature, vulnerable consumers The key difference between these two methods of
have been discussed as consumers who are not in a identification is the perceiver of the state of vulner-
position to make mature or rational judgments (e.g., ability.
children; Chaplin & John, 2010). The assumption is Both experiencers and observers may note—
that they do not have the executive functioning although with different levels of accuracy—that
Table 1
Consumer Vulnerability: Academic and Applied Definitions
Source Vulnerability definition Contexts
Baker et al. (2005) “Consumer vulnerability is a state of powerlessness that arises from an Multiple contexts within
imbalance in marketplace interactions or from the consumption of marketing the extant literature.
messages and products. It occurs when control is not in an individual’s hands,
creating a dependence on external factors (e.g., marketers) to create fairness in
the marketplace. The actual vulnerability arises from the interaction of personal
states, personal characteristics, and external conditions within a context where
consumption goals may be hindered and the experience affects personal and
social perceptions of self.”
Overton and This “new conception of consumer vulnerability” goes “beyond narrow, Financial services industry
O’Mahony (2018) individualistic conceptions of vulnerability based on (limited) financial
capability, towards a broader conception which takes account of the connection
between individual circumstances, situations, and market factors in causing or
exacerbating manifestations of consumer vulnerability.”
Smith and Cooper- “We define vulnerable consumers as those who are more susceptible to Focused primarily on
Martin (1997) economic, physical, or psychological harm in or as a result of economic African Americans
transactions because of characteristics that limit their ability to maximize their
utility and well-being.”
Cartwright (2015) “Consumer vulnerability involves exposure to the risk of detriment whether it Financial services industry
results from personal or market dimensions. The personal dimension includes
the attributes and circumstances of individuals which effect consumption
decisions....The market dimension relates both to the nature of the markets
generally and the characteristics of the specific market in issue.”
Legal Services “Risk factors are defined as circumstances that could contribute towards making British legal services
Consumer a consumer vulnerable. The presence of one or more risk factors could increase regulators
Panel (2014) the likelihood of a consumer being at a disadvantage or suffering loss or
detriment during a transaction or communication with an organisation.”
Consumer Affairs “Consumer vulnerability is exposure to the risk of detriment in consumption due Australian consumer
Victoria (2004) to the interaction of market, product and supply characteristics and personal policy
attributes and circumstances. The main cause of vulnerability is this interaction
resulting in inadequate information, poor access to information and/or
ineffective use of information by a consumer or in the deterrence of complaint
or the pursuit of redress by a consumer.”
Commuri and Ekici “[Consumer] vulnerability can be conceptualized as the sum of 1. the Multiple contexts in the
(2008) vulnerability they are likely to experience by virtue of certain abiding extant literature
characteristics that are either demographic in nature or socio-culturally
enforced. 2. the vulnerability specific only to the current episode of
consumption.”
Shultz and Holbrook “We define two key consumer characteristics related to vulnerability: knowledge Multiple contexts in the
(2009) of beneficial means–ends relationships (analogous to cultural capital) and access extant literature
to beneficial means (analogous to economic capital).”
Ringold (2005) “Vulnerable consumers fail to understand their own preferences and/or lack the Focused on marketplace
knowledge, skills, or freedom (i.e., personal prerogatives and marketplace literacy
options) to act on them.”
Martin and Hill (2012) “Consumers are vulnerable if they lack consumption adequacy as access to Impoverished consumers
particular types of clothing, shelter, food and potable water, healthcare, and globally
developmental opportunities for personal and vocational growth.”
consumer vulnerability can occur at different mag- cases of consumer vulnerability likely occur when
nitudes. That is, it can be experienced or observed consumers are below consumption adequacy and
along a continuum, with less extreme states of vul- are subject to harm because they cannot meet their
nerability at one end of the continuum and more most basic needs. The antecedents and conse-
extreme states at the other end. The most extreme quences we discuss pertain to states of vulnerability
556 Hill and Sharma
Table 2
Consumer Vulnerability: Selected Forms
Limits to resources and/

or control Selected processes Behavioral consequences
Reference Method Category (Resource–control combinations) Coping mechanisms and examples
Baker (2006) Qualitative Individual: limited vision Because of a combination of limited Nondefensive: relying on visually
Interpersonal: limited vision, social stereotypes, and laws abled people to navigate
social capital resulting pertaining to individuals with marketplaces
from stereotypes of the disabilities, people who are Defensive: rejecting standardized
disabled visually impaired have restricted definitions of disabled (e.g.,
control over their marketplace refusing to use handicapped
interactions. changing rooms when a person is
visually impaired but otherwise
physically capable)
Baker et al. Qualitative Individual: loss of Traditional marketplaces were Nondefensive: accepting available
(2007) personal possessions destroyed by a natural disaster, donations
Interpersonal: destruction which introduced tensions with Defensive: hoarding resources;
of community; existing respect to resources and their flow rebelling against newly
social hierarchies to various individuals. established rules in the aftermath
Structural/environmental: of the disaster
destruction from
tornado
Bone et al. Qualitative Interpersonal: limited Racial and ethnic minority Nondefensive: leaving or abstaining
(2014) social capital; limited consumers were unable to operate from retail environments
sense of belonging freely and comfortably in the
market because of skin color and
racial prejudices.
Chaplin and Mixed Individual: age (children, Youth are vulnerable to materialism Defensive: being materialistic;
John (2010) Method adolescents); self- when they lack self-esteem compensating for poor self-
esteem because of deficient social support esteem through material goods
Interpersonal: social from parents and peers; however, (adolescents)
support from parents parents and peers may reduce
and peers materialism by providing support
Structural: material and acceptance.
goods
Hill et al. Qualitative Interpersonal: social Incarcerated men faced multiple Nondefensive: conforming to rules
(2016) capital limitations to resources and and policies enforced in prison
Structural: maximum control relative to nonincarcerated Defensive: creating new structures
security prison individuals. for exchange within the prison
Hill and Qualitative Individual: homelessness, The homeless faced multiple Nondefensive: abstaining from
Stamey (1990) mental illness restrictions over resource–control traditional marketplaces (e.g.,
Interpersonal: social combinations; however, among Starbucks)
stigma; limited social them, the ability to create new Defensive: creating new structures
capital because of structures to attain and exchange for barter among the homeless;
poverty and resources was evident. trading with agencies (e.g.,
homelessness recycling organizations)
Structural: economy;
living costs
that may occur at various points along this contin-

Antecedents of Consumer Vulnerability
uum. However, as previously noted, given the spar-
sity of research on consumers living below We have distilled commonalities across the
consumption adequacy, we have focused many of diverse contexts in which consumer vulnerability
our specific examples around extreme cases of con- exists to introduce and categorize antecedents of
sumer vulnerability. this state. We have stated that restricted access to
Table 2
Continued

Kang and Conceptual Individual: age (elderly); Elderly groups may face Nondefensive: being susceptible to
Ridgway less adaptable vulnerability in the marketplace potential exploitation; engaging
(1996) physiologically and because of limited physiological in unpleasant and confrontational
mentally and mental adaptability, as well as interactions with businesses
Interpersonal: (lack of) limited social support; however, Defensive: engaging in social
social integration and engaging in marketplace behaviors marketplace interactions with
social support (e.g., shopping) may also bolster businesses, which indirectly
Structural: contact with the elderly’s mental well-being. contributes to better
and support from psychological and physiological
business employees health
Klein and Hill Qualitative Interpersonal: prejudice; Extreme limits to resources and Nondefensive: complying with rules
(2008) limited social capital control; bans on where Jewish and policies enforced in the
Structural: Holocaust; people could live and interact. camps
concentration camps Defensive: rebelling by hiding
items from guards; creating new
structures by establishing elicit
trade
Langenderfer Conceptual; Individual: knowledge; Consumers are vulnerable to Nondefensive: being repeatedly
and Shimp survey-based self-control fraudulent marketing practices victimized; being unable to
(2001) Interpersonal: and scams because of misleading differentiate between illegitimate
interpersonal influences practices as well as consumers’ and legitimate appeals; being
Structural: fraud; scams; limited knowledge and self- aware of scams but feeling
con artists control. unable to exert control
Defensive: developing a cautious
mindset to reduce the risk of
being defrauded
Lisjak and Lee Experimental Individual: cognitive Depletion may restrict decision- Nondefensive: yielding to impulses
(2014) resources making abilities but also lead to Defensive: engaging in self-
Structural: contexts risk-reducing behaviors. protective behaviors
inducing depletion
Luce and Kahn Experimental Individual: knowledge; Testing events and false-positive Nondefensive: complying with
(1999) physical health results create a sense of future tests
Structural: testing events; vulnerability, presumably Defensive: not complying with
test administration; stemming from stress and lack of future tests when tests are
false-positive results knowledge. perceived as inaccurate
Menon, Block, Experimental Individual: knowledge; Individual’s own self-positivity bias Nondefensive: in the absence of
and beliefs about hinders control over processing other cues, processing and
Ramanathan vulnerability, biases health-related information. assessing risk-behavior
(2002) that may restrict information according to a priori
cognitive processing hypotheses
Structural: health
information; message
cues
Saatcioglu and Qualitative Individual: drug abuse Individuals operate in a highly Defensive: creating new social
Ozanne (2013) Interpersonal: social isolated environment, cut off from hierarchies within the trailer
stigma; prejudice traditional marketplaces; yet, community to exert control and
associated with living social hierarchies also exist within distinguish trailer park residents
in trailer homes the trailer communities.
Structural: poverty
558 Hill and Sharma
Table 2
Continued

Shah, Experimental; Individual: mental Individuals focus on the most Defensive: focusing more on
Mullainathan, field capacity; limited imminent tasks at the expense of imminent tasks; possibly
and Shafir resources (e.g., time) less imminent tasks. neglecting other less imminent
(2012) Structural: poverty; but potentially important tasks
limited resources (e.g.,
externally provided
budget)
Sharma and Experimental Individual: feelings of Consumers perceive inferior Defensive: creating new ways to
Alter (2012) wealth financial resources relative to redress resource imbalances by
Interpersonal: others; however, gaining resources selecting scarce goods that seem
comparisons to peers; that are unavailable to others may to be unavailable to others
social capital offset this imbalance.
Sharma and Experimental Individual: feelings of Consumers feel financially Defensive: shifting resource
Keller (2017) wealth constrained and unable to spend allocation from opportunities to
Interpersonal: freely; however, they shift save more to opportunities to
comparisons to peers; strategies to try to improve and earn more (especially
social capital gain control over their financial pronounced among those feeling
security. financially deprived)
Smith and Conceptual Individual: Some consumers may be vulnerable Nondefensive: purchasing
Cooper- demographics; to target marketing, particularly Defensive: boycotting; discouraging
Martin (1997) consumer knowledge; when products may cause harm. friends from purchasing;
cognitive ability complaining
Interpersonal: perceived
ethics
Structural: target
marketing; product
harmfulness
Spotswood and Conceptual Individual: age (children); Children are vulnerable to business Nondefensive: being influenced by
Nairn (2016) limited knowledge; practices and marketing messages parents, peers, teachers, and
experience; processing because of their lack of cognitive extended family members
ability and social abilities, which prevent
Structural: market forces; them from being savvy in the
marketing appeals marketplace.
Viswanathan, Qualitative Individual: illiteracy Illiteracy hinders ability to read and Nondefensive: using pictographic
Rosa, and Structural: structures process product information. thinking (e.g., using visual cues
Harris (2005) established to support such as brand logos to
the literate; expectation differentiate between brands and
of literacy discern quality)
Viswanathan Qualitative Interpersonal: existing Limited ability to navigate the Nondefensive: maintaining
et al. (2010) gender norms; lack of marketplace because of gender- relationships and maintaining the
social capital based stereotypes and same suppliers
Structural: economic socioeconomic hierarchies. Defensive: switching suppliers;
factors; conditions of creating new structures by
poverty engaging in women-to-women
interactions and trade
and control over resources lead to consumer vul- vulnerability in our conceptual framework are lim-
nerability when these restrictions inhibit market- ited resources and restricted control. For consumers
place functioning and leave consumers susceptible to have sufficient goods and services to improve
to harm. Thus, two key antecedents of consumer their consumption environments, they must have
access to necessary resources to meet their primary (e.g., Hill, 1991), illiteracy (e.g., Adkins & Ozanne,
needs, and they must be able to exert some control 2005), and physical disabilities (e.g., Childers &
over those resources. Kaufman-Scarborough, 2009). Interpersonal is the
Resources. Previous literature has suggested second category of consumer resources and
that resources play a role in contributing to vulner- includes social factors such as social capital, belong-
abilities within societies (e.g., Bourdieu, 1986; Gid- ing, and social support. Common examples in the
dens, 1984). Recent consumer research has provided literature include those reflecting social exclusion,
a broad conceptualization of resources: Resources such as racial discrimination (Bone et al., 2014). The
are “assets that a person values for their character- third category of consumer resources, structural,
istics or as a means to accomplish a desired end- encompasses marketplace and environmental fac-
state” (Dorsch, T€ornblom, & Kazemi, 2017, p. 7; see tors such as common business practices, laws and
also Hobfoll, 2002). Thus, many different resources enforcement, and marketspace configurations. Expe-
can contribute to consumer vulnerability, depend- riences of mobile home dwellers (Saatcioglu &
ing on the desired end-state. However, we posit Ozanne, 2013) and concentration camp prisoners
that the vast number of resources that can con- during the Holocaust (Klein & Hill, 2008) fit this
tribute to different instances of consumer vulnera- last category, revealing embedded biases against
bility can be integrated into a single conceptual certain groups of consumers. Together, the exam-
framework. ples provided also illustrate that consumers often
Our framework proposes an integrative yet sim- face multiple (vs. singular) resource restrictions
ple categorization: individual resources, interpersonal across these states of vulnerability.
resources, and structural resources. This categoriza- Control. Previous consumer literature has
tion is inclusive of resources that have been dis- described control as an essential human desire and
cussed in prior literature (e.g., economic capital, defined it as an individual’s ability to intentionally
cultural capital, social capital; see Bourdieu, 1986) seek and achieve certain outcomes and to intention-
but is broader than any we have reviewed, and ally prevent unwanted outcomes (Cutright, Bett-
hence more inclusive of the varying states of con- man, & Fitzsimons, 2013; Skinner, Chapman, &
sumer vulnerability that may exist. (See Table 3 for Baltes, 1988). In the current work, we present a
examples of these resources.) broad conceptualization of control using the three
The first category of consumer resources, individ- categories we introduced in our section on con-
ual, contains self-related assets and capabilities of sumer resources: individual, interpersonal, and
consumers such as money, native intelligence, and structural. At the individual level, control resides in
physical and mental health. Much scholarship on a range of consumer abilities, such as self-efficacy
vulnerable consumers has been concerned with the and self-confidence. At the interpersonal level,
lack of individual resources—including poverty greater or lesser control stems from social interac-
tions and socially constructed dynamics between
individuals. For example, interpersonally created
Table 3 and enforced norms involving social class, race,
Individual, Interpersonal, and Structural Resources
and gender may impose significant constraints on
Category Antecedent Examples consumers’ control of resources in the marketplace
(e.g., Bone et al., 2014; Viswanathan et al., 2010).
Individual Psychological Cognitive resources; emotional Structurally, control is shaped by organizations
resources Physiological resources (e.g., governments, businesses; Baker, 2006) and by
Characteristics, Vision; hearing; mobility external factors that facilitate (e.g., technical
abilities Knowledge; self-efficacy;
advancements) or hinder (e.g., natural disasters)
Possessions confidence; literacy
consumption in the marketplace. (See Table 4 for
Money; personal belongings
Interpersonal Social capital Status; reputation
additional examples of sources of control.)
resources Sense of Sense of fitting in versus Intermingling of resource–control combina-
belonging standing out in one or more tions. We use the term resource-control combina-
Social support circles tions to refer to instances of multiple resource and
Network of friends, family control categories co-mingling or combining to
members, colleagues affect consumer vulnerability. The categories of
Structural Contextual Available goods and services individual (self-related) factors, interpersonal (so-
resources Environmental Available food, water, land cial) factors, and structural (contextual and environ-
mental) factors are not mutually exclusive and in
560 Hill and Sharma
Table 4 The structural level encompasses such influences

Individual, Interpersonal, and Structural Sources of Control as macroeconomic conditions, technological trends,
Category Antecedent Examples
laws, policies, business practices, weather patterns,
and natural disasters. Baker (2006) examined how
Individual Psychological Self-efficacy; self-confidence visually impaired consumers traversed retail set-
perceptions tings that conformed to the Americans with Disabil-
Interpersonal Socially created Social hierarchies ities Act of 1990 (unintentional source of restricted
structures Religious organizations control), while also navigating typical business
Social practices that downgraded their consumption
organizations
options. These consumers faced both limited indi-
Structural Business practices Accessibility for
vidual resources (vision) and more structurally dri-
Environmental handicapped consumers
occurrences Tornadoes; hurricanes;
ven factors that exacerbated restricted resource–
Other external famine control combinations. They confronted “one-size-
constraints Technological barriers; fits-all” business practices that required them to
economic cycles manage inappropriate accommodation, reducing
their marketplace freedom and access to goods and
services. A similar reduction in access occurred for
consumers who lost their homes (which were
fact regularly coexist with one another. For exam- replaced by institutionally determined government
ple, at the individual level, issues related to con- resources) following a tornado (a natural disaster
sumers’ mental states, competencies, and that limited control; Baker, Hunt, & Rittenburg,
demographic characteristics simultaneously come 2007). Together, these examples illustrate that mul-
into play. Consider Viswanathan et al. (2010), who tiple categories of resources and control often come
showed how poor Indian women, because of their together to affect consumer vulnerability.
poverty, gender, and illiteracy, have limited access
to markedly low levels of resources that are con-
Consequences of Consumer Vulnerability
trolled by merchants in their villages. This example
also speaks to how the combination of inadequate We recognize a range of potential consequences
individual (demographic characteristics) and inter- of vulnerability as consumers try to cope with their
personal (cultural capital) resources and control situations, and we categorize their coping mecha-
(relative to merchants) constrains these individuals’ nisms as either nondefensive or defensive mecha-
ability to be more enabled consumers. nisms. In our framework, the term nondefensive
The interpersonal level includes peer-to-peer refers to consumers’ tendencies to submit to their
influences, social norms, and relationship dynamics state, whereas defensive refers to their tendencies to
that affect resources and control. Saatcioglu and resist or combat it. We posit that for the most part,
Ozanne (2013) showed how people in trailer parks vulnerable consumers react in ways that depend on
were stigmatized by more affluent citizens and sep- their perceptions both of the malleability of a par-
arated from ordinary or more typical consumption ticular context and of their long-term prospects for
environments. Mostly as the result of the interplay improving their situation by obtaining more
between economic capital and socially created resources or control.
norms (e.g., stigmas, social hierarchies), access to Nondefensive coping mechanisms. Our examina-
markets and associated resources was constrained, tion of existing research uncovered behaviors that
impacting consumers’ senses of control, life satisfac- we label as nondefensive coping mechanisms for
tion, and coping behaviors. These restraints are dealing with consumer vulnerability. We character-
sometimes codified in legal documents, as they ize the primary methods as either giving up or giv-
were in Nazi Germany at the time of the Holocaust ing in to constraints on resource flows. The former
(Klein & Hill, 2008) and as they are in prison envi- represents a resignation and acquiescence to the
ronments (Hill, Cunningham, & Gentlemen, 2016). conditions that deny access to goods and services
In other cases, these restrictions may be less overt, that would normally be viewed as essential. Thus,
such as when people believe that they will be giving up means exactly that—no longer seeking
denied retail service in the marketplace because of what could be or was once available. An example
their race (see Bennett, Hill, & Oleksiuk, 2013, for comes from research on the Holocaust (Klein &
an example across all racial categories in the United Hill, 2008), when some concentration camp prison-
States). ers were given the moniker Muselm€anner (literally,
“the walking dead”). They occupied the lowest their largess for one’s own use. Ozanne, Hill, and
rung on the camp’s informal social hierarchy and Wright (1998) investigated juvenile male felons who
were described as withdrawn, compliant, and were incarcerated for property crimes and selling
resigned to await death, having given up their drugs, behaviors that gave them a “high” (which the
desire to improve their consumption options or authors describe as the “sneaky thrill”). Although
even to survive. these young males had sought to take control of
Other groups of vulnerable consumers who use prized resources such as expensive cars, once they
nondefensive coping mechanisms are better possessed them, they did little to make sure that
described as giving in to their circumstances. While these coveted items retained their original values,
this description may suggest only a subtle contrast driving them recklessly up and down the streets of
with giving up, these individuals actually accept or their neighborhoods. When asked why, they said
even embrace consumption restrictions as their own that their rationale was “getting back” at enabled (re-
fault, and they work within current situations, source-rich) consumers who kept them at a (re-
rules, and sanctions to gain greater access to and source-access) disadvantage in their impoverished
acceptance within markets. Accordingly, their cop- communities, leaving them with little control over
ing behaviors serve to legitimize some combination their consumption. These juvenile males eventually
of individual, interpersonal, or structural resource sold the damaged cars to “chop shops” for less than
constraints and lack of control. Consider the low-lit- 5% of their original value. While seemingly counter-
eracy individuals whom Adkins and Ozanne (2005) intuitive, this process allowed them to enter more
investigated. Interviewees used coping mechanisms affluent markets that surrounded their neighbor-
that allowed them to “pass” as faux literate in hoods, even if only for a short period of time.
unsupportive marketplaces, and some of these indi- Our framework’s final defensive coping mecha-
viduals took the initiative to improve their reading nism—creating new structures—involves establishing
skills to functional levels. These tactics were geared or exploiting contexts in which consumers have
toward working with (cooperating), rather than greater possibilities for control over expanded
against (competing), the rules and material resource resources. This strategy recognizes the multiplicity
flows in their consumption environments. of resource–control combinations that are available
Defensive coping mechanisms. We suggest that to consumers across the various environments in
defensive maneuvers come in three forms: tran- which they operate. Consumers who use this cop-
scending, rebelling, or creating new structures that out- ing mechanism seek out new channels of consump-
side observers, because of their narrower vantage tion rather than letting go of previous needs that
point, may not fully recognize or understand. Tran- are no longer being met (transcending) or disrupt-
scending refers to rising above what happens to one- ing other consumption contexts (rebelling). One
self and disallowing constraints to negate one’s example of this strategy also comes from Hill
consumption options. This strategy is different from et al.’s (2016) prison research, in which some incar-
giving up or giving in: Instead of acquiescing to cerated men believed that formal prison channels
constraints on resource flows, consumers reject and were not meeting the primary requirements for a
rise above day-to-day restrictions, purposefully reasonable quality of life. Over time, such men
exerting control. For example, Hill et al. (2016) acclimated to the ebb and flow of goods and ser-
describe how some incarcerated males consciously vices by using a gray (above “ground”) market that
decided to avoid working for the prison-industrial existed alongside the licit and illicit channels for
complex, while still supporting aspects of prison life goods and services. In this context, men formed
that they felt served inmates. These men often relationships that allowed for different exchange
stopped or significantly reduced purchasing from rules, resource flows, and status hierarchies. This
the commissary, which represented the only legiti- defensive coping mechanism also recognizes the
mate market for commodities, and they conducted multiplicity of individual identities and the mal-
their lives simply and on their own terms. For leability of resources across different places and
some, this time in prison allowed them to reflect on times. (See the Figure 1 for a complete articulation
what was truly important; they transcended inter- of our framework.)
personal limits and resource allocations in favor of
enhanced individual harmony.
Situational Versus Global Vulnerability
The strategy of rebelling seeks to disrupt, damage,
or destroy the largess of resource-rich, in-control As part of our framework, we have provided a
members of one’s social environment—or to coopt definition of consumer vulnerability, introduced
562 Hill and Sharma
Antecedents Contexts Consequences
Lack of resources
resulting from
limitations on Nondefensive
individual, coping
interpersonal, and/or mechanisms
structural resources Individual (giving up and
contexts in which giving in)
vulnerability can
be experienced or
Defensive
observed to be
coping
fostering (or
mechanisms
inhibiting)
Lack of control over (transcending,
consumption
resource usage because rebelling,
adequacy
of individual, creating new
interpersonal, and/or structures)
structural restrictions
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of consumer vulnerability—experienced or observed.
methods of identifying this state, and both pro- buying power by removing precious metals and
posed and categorized its antecedents and conse- other valuable materials from abandoned buildings
quences. As a final component of our framework, to sell to recyclers around the city.
we raise the issue of situation-specific contexts of This homelessness example epitomizes the multi-
vulnerability, or situational vulnerability, versus the ple selves and dynamic consumption environments
more holistic term global vulnerability. To date, most that consumers may experience. Despite the appear-
discussions of consumer vulnerability have looked ance of certain deficits, some individuals may be
at only singular contexts in which a subset of con- able to expand their access to goods and services in
sumers are embedded but ignore the collection of certain contexts. Accordingly, because individuals
selves that exist across consumption environments experience varied consumption environments over
(e.g., Baker et al., 2005; Hill & Stamey, 1990). How- time and space, we argue that it is beneficial to
ever, consumers may vary in the extent to which adopt a more holistic (global) rather than a singular
they are vulnerable in different contexts—across (situational) view of consumer vulnerability. This
both time and place. Moreover, these contexts may vantage point is especially important for policy-
change over days, weeks, or years, and the num- makers, who typically look at just one context and
bers and types of situations that consumers experi- may miss others. Our broader perspective is akin to
ence may change as well. Thus, both the a physician treating a patient based on holistic and
designation and magnitude of consumer vulnerabil- ongoing assessments of their health rather than
ity may vary over time and across consumption based on one symptom alone at one point in time.
environments, and that variability influences the We will elaborate on this point in our section on
coping mechanisms that consumers pursue. future research considerations.
For example, consider the homeless men that
Hill and Stamey (1990) described. Given their lack
of access to basic resources such as housing, food, Implications for Relevant Stakeholders
and clothing, these individuals fell below consump-
Research Integration and Conceptual Development
tion adequacy, yet some of them were nevertheless
able to navigate their consumption environment in In the current work, we have extracted and inte-
global ways that yielded them the essential grated concepts related to consumer vulnerability
resources they needed. For instance, several men and then introduced a comprehensive conceptual
lived in shadow communities of similarly situated framework that grounds and extends the field’s
people who kept an eye on one another and on one understanding of the idea. Specifically, after review-
another’s possessions. They dumpster dived for ing previous work on this topic, we proposed a def-
access to and control over various foods, sharing inition of consumer vulnerability that helps prevent
their resources with the people who lived near potential confusion stemming from the informal
them. Reciprocity with the group was both the usage of the term. Next, we suggested two methods
expectation and the norm. Also, depending on their of identifying consumer vulnerability that integrate
aptitudes and fortitude, these men expanded their the perspectives of both those who experience it
and those who observe it, and we have noted that vulnerable, and deciding what resources they
states of vulnerability can be experienced or should receive. Our work revisits some of the
observed at different magnitudes of extremity along assumptions underlying such routine determina-
a continuum. Then, we identified antecedents of tions. We argue that these decisions should (a) be
consumer vulnerability, describing various types of based on consumers’ levels of access to and control
resources that when restricted (in access or control), over resources (the antecedents we identify in our
can leave consumers open to harm. Next, we pre- model), (b) incorporate perspectives of both experi-
sented coping mechanisms resulting from consumer encers and observers, (c) incorporate multiple rather
vulnerability that are determined in part by con- than singular contexts of vulnerability, and (d) rec-
sumers’ perceptions of the malleability of their vul- ognize the dynamic and evolving circumstances of
nerable state. Finally, to expand the existing vulnerable consumers through ongoing reevalua-
tendency to consider singular contexts of consumer tions of people’s situations.
vulnerability, we suggested incorporating a more Much additional research is required to further
global and dynamic view of these multicontextual the understanding of consumer vulnerability in the
states. fields of consumer research and public policy, and
Our conceptual framework offers several addi- our work aims to nudge the fields in that direction.
tional contributions. First, we have noted that the In the next section, we advance a set of research
identification of consumer vulnerability poses one considerations that builds on our framework. Our
of the greatest challenges to both researchers and first five considerations are more obvious, low-
policymakers. We have proposed a set of factors hanging fruit in that they are straightforward,
that must be present for consumer vulnerability to although untested, ideas. The remaining six consid-
exist, and we have argued that this state can and erations are more nuanced and may require more
ought to be identified on the basis of the perspec- extensive and ongoing investigations.
tive of both experiencers and observers. Like Baker
et al. (2005), we believe that experiencers tend to
Straightforward Research Considerations
have a fuller understanding of their own consump-
tion environments compared with observers, who Consideration 1. Our first research considera-
may have a limited view of only singular slices of tion draws on the antecedents of consumer vulnera-
consumers’ lives. Our integrative perspective is the bility outlined in our framework. Because
first to synthesize the lived experiences of vulnera- restrictions in access to and control over resources
ble consumers and the observational viewpoints of often co-occur, we have described three categories
third parties such as policymakers. We hope this of resources (individual, interpersonal, and struc-
synergy facilitates the development of more tar- tural) as overlapping and interrelated. This co-oc-
geted and comprehensive efforts to alleviate the fac- currence relates to the term intersectionality, which
tors that create consumer vulnerability. transformative consumer research (TCR) scholars
Second, we are the first to identify restrictions on use to describe how multiple resource deficits com-
resources and control as antecedents of consumer bine to worsen consumption conditions (Mick, Pet-
vulnerability, but we have also delineated types of tigrew, Pechmann, & Ozanne, 2012).
resources and control that fall under these umbrella The examples we have provided in our review
categories. This categorization is useful because it highlight how factors such as poverty; race; institu-
can help connect the antecedents of consumer vul- tional norms; gender; and cultural, social, and eco-
nerability to the consequences of this state. For nomic capital may operate simultaneously to
instance, to the extent that some resource–control significantly impede access to goods and services
combinations are more malleable than others, vul- (e.g., Bone et al., 2014; Viswanathan et al., 2010).
nerable consumers are more likely to pursue defen- These examples raise the question of whether, and
sive rather than nondefensive coping mechanisms. to what extent, the sum (i.e., multiple resource–con-
Thus, we have provided an initial step toward trol circumstances) is more deleterious than the
bridging antecedents and consequences, and we individual resource–control combinations on their
urge future investigators to conduct more system- own. While a larger number of resource deficits will
atic research into how different categories of likely have a greater net negative impact than a
resources directly affect coping mechanisms. smaller number, it is useful to examine what hap-
Finally, we hope our work will help guide third pens when multiple contexts of consumer vulnera-
parties who are commonly tasked with observing bility come together, given that observers such as
consumers, determining whether they are policymakers tend to examine a single context
564 Hill and Sharma
without recognizing the possibility of synergistic current circumstances, or a growth mindset, believing
effects. Moreover, it is not exactly clear how such that they can modify those circumstances through
combinations come together to impact resources their own personal efforts (see Dweck, 2006). Con-
and their control. Consequently, our first considera- sumers who believe that they are able to garner
tion for future research proposes the following: greater consumption opportunities within a given
Restricted access to and control over multiple (vs. context are less likely to accept or resign themselves
singular) resources may have a larger net negative to their existing circumstances. More formally, we
impact on consumers’ consumption opportunities propose the following: Vulnerable consumers who
than does the sum of the individual contexts. believe that one or more of their resource–control
Consideration 2. Our second consideration for combinations have some degree of malleability are
future research also pertains to the antecedents of more likely to use defensive rather than nondefen-
consumer vulnerability—namely, the potential bidi- sive coping mechanisms.
rectional relationship between resources and con- Consideration 4. Building on our third research
trol. We propose the following: Consumers’ consideration, consideration 4 encourages research
resources and their control over resources are not into determining which resources may be more
independent factors and may influence each other malleable than others and may thus lead to more
across contexts. Although bidirectional relationships defensive (vs. nondefensive) coping mechanisms.
between resources and control may not be surpris- Although this malleability is difficult to assess from
ing, it is unclear (a) exactly how they influence each the existing literature on consumer vulnerability,
other and (b) how the nuances of a bidirectional some evidence suggests that because they are
relationship might affect a consumer’s coping mech- engrained within societies and organizations, inter-
anisms. For instance, consumers facing resource personal and structural resources may be less mal-
restrictions may come to recognize alternative leable than individual resources (Hill et al., 2016).
resources and, in turn, be able to exert greater con- Additionally, Saatcioglu and Ozanne (2013) suggest
trol over those resources than over the original that some individual resources (e.g., knowledge,
resources. This situation was true at the maximum skills, income) may be relatively more malleable.
security prison studied by Hill et al. (2016), where Furthermore, since consumers often face more than
high-status inmates were able to garner goods and one restriction in access to and control over
services through the underground market that were resources, the coping mechanism they select may
not available through licit delivery channels. As depend on whichever resource they perceive as the
these inmates expanded their levels of control over principal, or most focal, resource. Presenting this
these other resources, their social capital grew, research consideration more formally, we propose
allowing them to gain further access to other the following: Vulnerable consumers may vary in
resources. This example shows how the availability their coping mechanisms, depending on whether
of and access to resources worked to expand the their principal resource restriction is at the individ-
consumer’s portfolio of goods and services. It also ual, interpersonal, or structural level. Because struc-
illustrates the usefulness of adopting a cumulative tural factors (e.g., laws) and interpersonal factors
perspective of resource–control combinations that (e.g., societal norms, biases) tend to be less mal-
allows for the bidirectionality of influence. leable than some individual factors (e.g., knowl-
Consideration 3. Our third consideration for edge), as consumers move from resource–control
future research focuses on determining which cop- limitations at the individual level to those at the
ing mechanism vulnerable consumers will seek structural level, the probability that they will use
under a given circumstance. We suggest that these defensive rather than nondefensive coping mecha-
decisions may be a product of the perceived mal- nisms may decrease.
leability of each situation. We also conjecture that Consideration 5. Research consideration 5
contexts that allow for at least some possible moves away from the antecedents and conse-
maneuverability, either at one point or across time, quences of consumer vulnerability and toward the
will lend themselves to defensive (vs. nondefensive) identification of this state. To alleviate consumer
coping mechanisms that seek to advance resource vulnerability, we should form consensus about how
options and the consumer’s control over them (vs. to identify it. However, currently there are mixed
accepting or being resigned to current circum- views around who should identify consumers as
stances). These choices may also relate to consumer vulnerable. It may seem natural to assume that con-
mindsets—whether consumers have a fixed mindset, sumers themselves are better qualified than third
believing that they lack the ability to change their parties to identify states of vulnerability (Baker
et al., 2005). However, previous research has shown tipping point between having enough and not hav-
that consumers routinely misestimate their prefer- ing enough access to and control over resources.
ences, are unaware of what drives their behaviors, Some research has attempted to answer the ques-
and may not accurately predict what will actually tion: What absolute mix of resources and control
improve their lives (for a discussion of consumer leads to reasonable consumption options? In one
confusion, see Garaus & Wagner, 2016). At the such attempt, Farrell and Hill (2018) looked at gov-
same time, people often have a hard time predict- ernment measures of poverty from around the
ing other people’s thoughts and feelings (Epley & world, but their findings suggest that these instru-
Caruso, 2009; Van Boven & Loewenstein, 2005). As ments to measure poverty fail to capture the criteria
a result, it is not obvious whether experiencers or for determining the absolute mix that leads to rea-
observers are better able to identify consumer vul- sonable consumption options. Other research on
nerability. consumer vulnerability shows that relative compar-
In addition, experiencers and observers may dif- isons among community members across resource–
fer in how malleable they perceive states of vulner- control combinations may be important (Hill, Mar-
ability to be. To the extent that vulnerable tin, & Chaplin, 2012).
consumers perceive states as more rather than less Further complicating this issue is that experi-
malleable, they may be more likely to seek defen- encers and observers may have different perspec-
sive rather than nondefensive coping mechanisms. tives on the same resource–control contexts and
However, if observers perceive the same states as thus may have different perspectives on the tipping
less malleable, they may endorse strategies that are point between “enough” and “not enough.” The
misaligned with those readily used by experiencers. perspectives of experiencers are likely to be based
We propose that both perspectives should be more concretely on their own situations, whereas
considered in conjunction with each other. The con- the perspectives of observers may be based on a
sequences of misaligned perceptions of vulnerabil- combination of factors in addition to their observa-
ity await future research. Moreover, it may be tions, including their own political agendas and
fruitful for future researchers to determine when personal biases. The need for further insight into
and why one assessment is believed to be more this complicated issue leads us to present research
accurate than the other. A likely possibility is that consideration 6: The tipping point between being
those experiencing vulnerability and those aiming vulnerable and not vulnerable remains an open
to alleviate it are best served by working together question for future research. Perceptions of this tip-
to identify and understand states of vulnerability ping point may diverge between observers and
(Rapp-Ferrell & Hill, 2018). This discussion leads to experiencers because the perceptions of the former
future research consideration 5: Experiencers and are based on a different paradigm and agenda for
observers may identify different facets and degrees identifying and addressing vulnerability than those
of consumer vulnerability. Future research should of the latter.
investigate the ways in which these perspectives Consideration 7. Related to understanding how
are complementary rather than in opposition. Con- the vulnerability tipping point may vary for experi-
sumer psychologists are likely to reach a fuller encers and observers (consideration 6), research
understanding of conditions of vulnerability when consideration 7 incorporates the multiple (vs. singu-
these states are evaluated jointly by experiencers lar) contexts in which vulnerable consumers live.
and observers rather than when they are considered Specifically, we offer the following consideration:
from just one perspective in isolation. Observers may be more likely than experiencers to
view consumer vulnerability (e.g., of individuals
experiencing homelessness) in one particular, situa-
More Nuanced Research Considerations
tion-specific “slice of life,” leading to false or at
Consideration 6. Research consideration 6 sug- least incomplete impressions of experienced vulner-
gests that future work should examine how experi- ability.
encers and observers might collaborate to form Consideration 7 is relevant to the Nazi concen-
fuller, more aligned understandings of consumer tration camp prisoners that Klein and Hill (2008)
vulnerability. We encourage researchers to consider studied. Many of these prisoners were stripped of
the challenges and opportunities surrounding the their customary goods and left with no avenues for
issue of how to incorporate accounts of vulnerabil- reacquiring items. Over time, however—and consis-
ity by both experiencers and observers—namely, tent with our global, cumulative, and dynamic per-
how to identify the experienced versus observed spective on consumer vulnerability—some
566 Hill and Sharma
individuals bravely sought and discovered alterna- do nothing to help and may even exacerbate the
tive methods of resource access and control that problem (see Dahir, 2020 for a recent discussion of
were outside the purview of the Nazis. such a situation in the press).
Importantly, we are not suggesting that access to Consideration 9. Consideration 9 continues to
resources and their control in one domain elimi- build on the dynamic forces surrounding consumer
nates vulnerability. While there may be instances in vulnerability and focuses on understanding the cop-
which greater resources and control in one context ing mechanisms that consumers may pursue over
offset deficiencies and openness to harm in another, time. Although we have introduced and catego-
there are many other instances in which singular rized a set of mechanisms that vulnerable con-
contexts are overwhelming and shape consumers’ sumers may use when aiming to cope with their
global vulnerability. The larger point is that view- state, more research is required to understand the
ing consumers’ lives beyond one “slice” at a time nuances around these strategies. More formally, we
might uncover the varied (vs. singular) coping propose the following: Different individuals within
mechanisms that individuals pursue across the mul- the same contexts may use a variety of coping
tiple contexts they inhabit. Yet, viewing consumers mechanisms. How they combine or pivot among
in this way may be more difficult for observers these strategies awaits future research. For instance,
than for experiencers. Despite these challenges, we research might investigate which strategies con-
urge relevant stakeholders to consider a broad- sumers pursue first, how those strategies may inter-
based, dynamic view of consumer vulnerability— sect to support or detract from consumer well-
one that accounts for context-specific as well as being, and how vulnerable consumers pivot from
overall, cumulative consumer vulnerability (aggre- one strategy to another. Research might also exam-
gating across life domains). Using this view of con- ine whether consumers are limited to using one
sumer vulnerability, observers may be better able coping mechanism (e.g., defensive vs. nondefensive)
to understand and predict how vulnerability mani- at a time within and across contexts as they maneu-
fests itself—and importantly, better able to deter- ver their states of vulnerability. Because they are so
mine how to resolve persistent resource–control complex, each of these topics might serve as the
deficits that dominate consumption environments. basis of an individual investigation.
Consideration 8. Examining multiple (vs. singu- Our conjecture is that even within a given situa-
lar) contexts is relevant to understanding consumer tion, individual consumers may come into contact
vulnerability because consumers have different with unique sets of resource–control combinations
selves with different resource–control combinations and cope differently as a result. For this reason, a
in different situations. As a result, consumer vulner- one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate
ability is likely to be dynamic. Not only do for finding a solution to the problem. Moreover, as
resource–control combinations overlap (see consid- time passes and resource–control combinations
eration 1), but they also change over time. More- evolve, consumers faced with changing circum-
over, since consumers’ individual, interpersonal, stances will most likely modify their psychological
and structural resources jointly affect their coping and behavioral responses. This logic suggests the
mechanisms (see considerations 3 and 4), these need for additional research on strategy pivoting to
strategies are also likely to change over time. This examine when and why pivoting is better than not
view of consumer vulnerability as dynamic leads to pivoting and whether policymakers should direct
research consideration 8: Vulnerable consumers’ consumers to use specific strategies in certain situa-
consumption opportunities may vary as their tions.
resource–control combinations wax and wane over Consideration 10. Consideration 10 aims to
time, potentially causing these consumers to modify draw distinctions between the coping mechanisms
their coping mechanisms. These changes suggest pursued by consumers deemed vulnerable and by
that any policy or prescription made by third par- consumers who face disadvantages but are not nec-
ties to address consumer vulnerability should be essarily open to harm. Many studies examining
correspondingly dynamic in nature. The intricacies resource restrictions make predictions about how
of these dynamics await future research. One way consumers will cope with constraints. However, the
for third parties to address consumer vulnerability same predictions may not apply to individuals who
in light of the dynamism of this state is to institute are vulnerable, since vulnerable consumers tend to
routine reevaluations of programs that are intended face restrictions on major categories of goods and
to alleviate vulnerability—because some initiatives services, and those restrictions tend to be chronic
aimed at improving the welfare of individuals may and enduring. Thus, the coping mechanisms that
vulnerable consumers use may be different from consumers who suffer from racial discrimination,
those that disadvantaged consumers use, or they poverty, and lack of mobility (Andreasen, 1993).
may seem more extreme. For example, a disadvan- One solution that is consistent with our resource–
taged consumer (e.g., someone with limited dining control position would be to modify retail land-
options in a town vs. a city) facing restricted meal scapes in poor communities to mirror those in more
options may substitute Chinese for Italian, but a affluent communities (instead of aiming directly to
vulnerable homeless consumer may substitute reduce discrimination, eliminate poverty, or
dumpster food for a trip to the grocery store. This enhance the physical mobility of individuals). For
scenario highlights the following research consider- example, Hill (2010) recounted how angel investors
ation: Consumer vulnerability changes how con- came into a poor neighborhood, developed a new
sumers conceptualize substitutability. As a result, retail corridor, and found profitable ways to sell an
vulnerable consumers may turn to strategies that expanded set of goods and services in a move
observers could not anticipate and do not view as toward providing greater consumption opportuni-
desirable. ties. Another global solution is to provide vulnera-
Consideration 11. Finally, research considera- ble consumers with greater control over resource
tion 11 pertains to how to address consumer vul- flows. Hill (2010) also showed how investors
nerability—namely, what researchers and allowed community members to determine the mix
policymakers can do to improve consumers’ mar- of shops to fill out their offerings, including local
ketplace interactions and overall well-being. businesses that catered to local tastes and con-
Researchers, policymakers, and nonprofit organiza- sumers. The result was greater access and improved
tions often go to what they believe is the root of a consumption. Thus, future research should explore
dilemma: problematic issues or characteristics asso- managerial and policy efforts that would enable
ciated with particular segments of consumers, such vulnerable consumers to gain greater control over
as race (Bone et al., 2014), gender (Viswanathan resource flows and reduce their barriers to access.
et al., 2010), social class (Saatcioglu & Ozanne,
2013), and poverty (Martin & Hill, 2012). However,
these approaches are more in line with a situational
Conclusion
(vs. global) view of consumer vulnerability and
may be more likely to address idiosyncratic symp- The principal objective of this paper is to provide a
toms of vulnerability only in those specific contexts. richer articulation of consumer vulnerability, in
The commonalities of consumer vulnerability light of the research conducted to date. Having
that emerge from our framework (i.e., restricted identified and described limited resources and
access to and control over resources) suggest that restricted control as antecedents of consumer vul-
we need interventions that get to the heart of con- nerability, we recommend future research into the
sumer vulnerability—namely, the lack of suffi- multiple ways in which vulnerability emerges, and
ciently abundant resource–control combinations. into the coping mechanisms that vulnerable con-
Thus, we recommend prioritizing solutions that sumers use to gain greater access to and control
enhance more global enabling opportunities—oppor- over resource flows. Such research and practical
tunities that help vulnerable consumers gain applications require that we recognize the funda-
resources, and control over resources. The relative mental differences between experienced and
success of this approach awaits future research. Pre- observed vulnerability, the multiplicity of consump-
senting this recommendation more formally, we tion contexts that contain different resource–control
propose the following research consideration: The combinations, and the coping mechanisms that con-
alleviation of consumer vulnerability may be better sumers use across contexts. Our framework itself
served by using more global (vs. situation-specific) may evolve over time as new thinking and empiri-
enabling opportunities that can provide greater cal findings emerge. Indeed, we expect our work to
access to and control over resources and create be as dynamic as the people and consumption envi-
more consumption opportunities for vulnerable ronments that gave rise to it.
individuals. Whether researchers follow this path may
To see how this recommendation could be imple- depend on the extent of scholarly interest in highly
mented, consider communities where such vulnera- restricted consumption environments. We argue
bility exists—for example, a U.S. inner-city that a broader understanding of consumption and
shopping venue with retailers that have historically of vulnerability will require investigating con-
offered fewer and lower-quality food options to sumers in these environments, because they may
568 Hill and Sharma
think and behave differently than consumers with

References
greater marketplace opportunities. Indeed, Martin
and Hill (2012) found that important psychological Adkins, N. R., & Ozanne, J. L. (2005). The low literate
mechanisms do not operate in the same way among consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 93–105.
consumers facing a severe lack of resources and Andreasen, A. R. (1975). The disadvantaged consumer. New
control as they do among other consumers with York, NY: Free Press.
Andreasen, A. R. (1978). The ghetto marketing life cycle:
more resources and control. The field’s limited
A case of underachievement. Journal of Marketing
understanding of extremely vulnerable consumers
Research, 15, 20–28.
may have to do with what Rapp and Hill (2015) Andreasen, A. R. (1993). Revisiting the disadvantaged:
described as a reliance on western, educated, indus- Old lessons and new problems. Journal of Public Policy
trialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies in & Marketing, 12, 270–275.
research aimed at discovering how cognitive and Baker, S. M. (2006). Consumer normalcy: Understanding
emotional reactions occur. As a result, they recom- the value of shopping through narratives of consumers
mended that consumer researchers move away with visual impairments. Journal of Retailing, 82, 37–50.
from the exclusive study of WEIRD societies and Baker, S. M., Gentry, J. W., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2005).
focus their attention on other parts of the world, Building understanding of the domain of consumer
such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where vulnerability. Journal of Macromarketing, 25, 128–139.
Baker, S. M., Hunt, D. M., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2007).
populations of less affluent consumers are trying to
Consumer vulnerability as a shared experience: Tor-
meet consumption adequacy Such research could
nado recovery process in Wright, Wyoming. Journal of
expand the field’s understanding of why and how Public Policy & Marketing, 26, 6–19.
coping mechanisms emerge, as well as their conse- Bennett, A. R., Hill, R. P., & Oleksiuk, D. (2013). The
quences for consumers’ quality of life. impact of disparate levels of marketplace inclusion on
Of course, consumer vulnerability does not re- consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Public Policy &
quire such severely restricted conditions, and we Marketing, 32(Suppl. 1), 16–31.
urge consumer researchers to study other more Bone, S. A., Christensen, G. L., & Williams, J. D. (2014).
nuanced circumstances as well. Yet, extreme cases Rejected, shackled, and alone: The impact of systemic
of consumer vulnerability occur in a number of restricted choice on minority consumers’ construction
ways that are not fully captured by the field and of self. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 451–474.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G.
are only partially explored in the existing literature.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for
The United Nations Development Programme
the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York,
(2016) reports that no country in the world experi- NY: Greenwood.
ences social and economic parity between women Brenkert, G. G. (1998). Marketing and the vulnerable.
and men, and the difference in gross national Business Ethics Quarterly, Special Issue: Ruffin Series: New
income between consumers living in countries with Approaches to Business Ethics, 7–20.
very high human development versus their counter- Briers, B., Pandelaere, M., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L.
parts in countries with low human development is (2006). Hungry for money: The desire for caloric
a factor of about 15. Over one billion people world- resources increases the desire for financial resources
wide suffer from disabilities that impact their daily and vice versa. Psychological Science, 17, 939–943.
functioning (World Bank, 2019), with one in four Cannon, C., Goldsmith, K., & Roux, C. (2019). A self-reg-
ulatory model of resource scarcity. Journal of Consumer
adults in the United States living under such cir-
Psychology, 29, 104–127.
cumstances (Okoro, Hollis, Cyrus, & Griffin-Blake,
Cartwright, P. (2015). Understanding and protecting vul-
2018). Literacy may be on the rise around the globe nerable financial consumers. Journal of Consumer Policy,
(approximately 85% of adults), but it lags substan- 38, 119–138.
tially in countries with low human development, at Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2010). Interpersonal influ-
60% for both men and women (UNICEF, 2019). ences on adolescent materialism: A new look at the role
These statistics are a sampling of mind-numbing of parents and peers. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20,
conditions that can lead ultimately to resource defi- 176–184.
cits and consumer vulnerability, as discussed in this Childers, T. L., & Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2009).
article. It is our hope that researchers will view Expanding opportunities for online shoppers with dis-
these conditions as catalysts for studying how mul- abilities. Journal of Business Research, 62, 572–578.
Cohen, D. (1969). The Federal Trade Commission and the
tiple resource–control combinations play out, and
regulation of advertising in the consumer interest. Jour-
that they will seek ways to support expanded con-
nal of Marketing, 33, 40–44.
sumer options.
Commuri, S., & Ekici, A. (2008). An enlargement of the Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources
notion of consumer vulnerability. Journal of Macromar- and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–
keting, 28, 183–186. 324.
Consumer Affairs Victoria (2004). Discussion paper: What Kang, Y.-S., & Ridgway, N. M. (1996). The importance of
do we mean by “vulnerable” and “disadvantaged” con- consumer market interactions as a form of social sup-
sumers? Melbourne, Australia: Consumer Affairs Victo- port for elderly consumers. Journal of Public Policy &
ria. Marketing, 15, 108–117.
Cutright, K. M., Bettman, J. R., & Fitzsimons, G. (2013). Klein, J. G., & Hill, R. P. (2008). Rethinking macro-level
Putting brands in their place: How a lack of control theories of consumption: Research findings from Nazi
keeps brands contained. Journal of Marketing Research, concentration camps. Journal of Macromarketing, 28, 228–
50, 365–377. 242.
Dahir, A. L. (2020, January 28). Kenya’s new digital IDs Langenderfer, J., & Shimp, T. A. (2001). Consumer vul-
may exclude millions of minorities. The New York Times. nerability to scams, swindles, and fraud: A new theory
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/ of visceral influences on persuasion. Psychology & Mar-
28/world/africa/kenya-biometric-id.html keting, 18, 763–783.
Dorsch, M. J., T€ ornblom, K. Y., & Kazemi, A. (2017). A Legal Services Consumer Panel (2014). Recognising and
review of resource theories and their implications for responding to consumer vulnerability: A guide for legal ser-
understanding consumer behavior. Journal of the Associ- vices regulators. Retrieved from https://www.legalser
ation for Consumer Research, 2, 5–25. vicesconsumerpanel.org.uk/ourwork/vulnerablecon
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. sumers/Guide%20to%20consumer%20vulnerability%
New York, NY: Random House. 202014%20final.pdf
Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2009). Perspective taking: Lisjak, M., & Lee, A. Y. (2014). The bright side of
Misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D. Markman, & impulse: Depletion heightens self-protective behavior in
W. M. P. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and men- the face of danger. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 55–
tal simulation (pp. 295–309). New York, NY: Psychology 70.
Press, 10(9781412958479), n397. Luce, M. F., & Kahn, B. E. (1999). Avoidance or vigilance?
Farrell, J. R., & Hill, R. P. (2018). Poverty research and The psychology of false-positive test results. Journal of
measurement: The case for consumption adequacy. Consumer Research, 26, 242–259.
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 52, 770–791. Martin, K. D., & Hill, R. P. (2012). Life satisfaction, self-
Garaus, M., & Wagner, U. (2016). Retail shopper confu- determination, and consumption adequacy at the bot-
sion: Conceptualization, scale development, and tom of the pyramid. Journal of Consumer Research, 38,
consequences. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3459– 1155–1168.
3467. Menon, G., Block, L. G., & Ramanathan, S. (2002). We’re
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the at as much risk as we are led to believe: Effects of mes-
theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. sage cues on judgments of health risk. Journal of Con-
Hamilton, R., Thompson, D., Bone, S., Chaplin, L. N., sumer Research, 28, 533–549.
Griskevicius, V., Goldsmith, K., . . . Zhu, M. (2019). Mick, D. G., S. Pettigrew, C. Pechmann, & J. L. Ozanne
The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. (Eds.) (2012). Transformative consumer research for per-
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 532–550. sonal and collective well-being. New York, NY: Taylor &
Hill, R. P. (1991). Homeless women, special possessions, Francis/Routledge.
and the meaning of “home”: An ethnographic case Moore, E. S., Wilkie, W. L., & Desrochers, D. M. (2017).
study. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 298–310. All in the family? Parental roles in the epidemic of
Hill, R. P. (2010). A naturological approach to marketing childhood obesity. Journal of Consumer Research, 43,
exchange: Implications for the bottom of the pyramid. 824–859.
Journal of Business Research, 63, 602–607. Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having
Hill, R. P., Cunningham, D., & Gentlemen, G. (2016). too little means so much. New York, NY: Times Books/
Dehumanization and restriction inside a maximum Henry Holt.
security prison: Novel insights about consumer acquisi- Okoro, C. A., Hollis, N. D., Cyrus, A. C., & Griffin-Blake,
tion and ownership. Journal of the Association for Con- S. (2018). Prevalence of disabilities and health care
sumer Research, 1, 295–313. access by disability status and type among adults—
Hill, R. P., Martin, K. D., & Chaplin, L. N. (2012). A tale United States, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
of two marketplaces: Consumption restriction, social Report, 67, 882–887.
comparison, and life satisfaction. Marketing Letters, 23, Olson, J. C., & Dover, P. A. (1978). Cognitive effects of
731–744. deceptive advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 15,
Hill, R. P., & Stamey, M. (1990). The homeless in Amer- 29–38.
ica: An examination of possessions and consumption Overton, L., & O’Mahony, L. F. (2018). Stakeholder con-
behaviors. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 303–321. ceptions of later-life consumer vulnerability in the
570 Hill and Sharma
financial services industry: Beyond financial capability? and compromises moral decisions. Organizational Behav-
Journal of Consumer Policy, 41, 273–295. ior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 90–100.
Ozanne, J. L., Hill, R. P., & Wright, N. D. (1998). Juvenile Sharma, E., Tully, S. M., & Wang, X. (2020). Scarcity and
delinquents’ use of consumption as cultural resistance: intertemporal choice reversals. Manuscript submitted for
Implications for juvenile reform programs and public publication.
policy. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17, 185–196. Shultz, C. J., & Holbrook, M. B. (2009). The paradoxical
Paley, A., Tully, S. M., & Sharma, E. (2019). Too con- relationship between marketing and vulnerability. Jour-
strained to converse: The effect of financial constraints nal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28, 124–127.
on word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 889– Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Con-
905. trol, means-ends, and agency beliefs: A new conceptu-
Pechmann, C., Levine, L., Loughlin, S., & Leslie, F. (2005). alization and its measurement during childhood.
Impulsive and self-conscious: Adolescents’ vulnerability Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 117–133.
to advertising and promotion. Journal of Public Policy Smith, N. C., & Cooper-Martin, E. (1997). Ethics and tar-
and Marketing, 24, 202–221. get marketing: The role of product harm and consumer
Pechmann, C., & Shih, C.-F. (1999). Smoking scenes in vulnerability. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1–20.
movies and antismoking advertisements before movies: Spotswood, F., & Nairn, A. (2016). Children as vulnerable
Effects on youth. Journal of Marketing, 63, 1–13. consumers: A first conceptualization. Journal of Market-
Rapp, J. M., & Hill, R. P. (2015). “Lordy, lordy, look ing Management, 32(3–4), 211–229.
who’s forty!” The Journal of Consumer Research reaches Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Fifty shades of manipulation. Jour-
a milestone. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 19–29. nal of Marketing Behavior, 1(3–4), 213–244.
Rapp-Ferrell, J., & Hill, R. P. (2018). Poverty research and Tully, S. M., Hershfield, H. E., & Meyvis, T. (2015). Seek-
measurement: Making the case for consumption ade- ing lasting enjoyment with limited money: Financial
quacy. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 52, 770–791. constraints increase preference for material goods over
Ringold, D. J. (2005). Vulnerability in the marketplace: experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 59–75.
Concepts, caveats, and possible solutions. Journal of UNICEF (2019). Literacy. Retrieved from https://data.uni
Marcromarketing, 25, 202–214. cef.org/topic/education/literacy/
Roux, C., Goldsmith, K., & Bonezzi, A. (2015). On the United Nations Development Programme (2016). Human
psychology of scarcity: When reminders of resource development report 2016: Human development for everyone.
scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Jour- Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/file
nal of Consumer Research, 42, 615–631. s/2016_human_development_report.pdf
Saatcioglu, B., & Ozanne, J. L. (2013). Moral habitus and Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Empathy gaps
status negotiation in a marginalized working-class in emotional perspective taking. In S. Hodges, & B.
neighborhood. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 692– Malle (Eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide
710. between self and others (pp. 284–297). New York, NY:
Sexton, D. E. (1971). Comparing the cost of food to blacks Guilford Press.
and whites—A survey. Journal of Marketing, 35, 40–46. Viswanathan, M., Rosa, J. A., & Harris, J. E. (2005). Deci-
Sexton, D. E. (1972). Black buyer behavior. Journal of Mar- sion making and coping of functionally illiterate con-
keting, 36, 36–39. sumers and some implications for marketing
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some management. Journal of Marketing, 69, 15–31.
consequences of having too little. Science, 338, 682–685. Viswanathan, M., Rosa, J. A., & Ruth, J. A. (2010).
Sharma, E., & Alter, A. (2012). Financial deprivation Exchanges in marketing systems: The case of subsis-
prompts consumers to seek scarce goods. Journal of tence consumer–merchants in Chennai. India. Journal of
Consumer Research, 39, 545–560. Marketing, 74, 1–17.
Sharma, E., & Keller, P. A. (2017). A penny saved is not a Wilkie, W. L., & Gardner, D. M. (1974). The role of mar-
penny earned: When decisions to earn and save com- keting research in public policy decision making: How
pete for consumer resources. Journal of the Association can marketing research aid the public policy maker?
for Consumer Research, 2, 64–77. Journal of Marketing, 38, 36–47.
Sharma, E., Mazar, N., Alter, A. L., & Ariely, D. (2014). World Bank (2019). Disability inclusion. Retrieved from
Financial deprivation selectively shifts moral standards https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability

J Consum Psychol - 2020 - Hill - Consumer Vulnerability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Consum Psychol - 2020 - Hill - Consumer Vulnerability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Vulnerability

Ronald Paul Hill Eesha Sharma

Accepted by Anirban Mukhopadhyay, Editor; Associate Editor, Stefano Puntoni

Source Vulnerability deﬁnition Contexts

Limits to resources and/

that may occur at various points along this contin-

Limits to resources and/

Limits to resources and/

Table 4 The structural level encompasses such inﬂuences

Antecedents Contexts Consequences

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of consumer vulnerability—experienced or observed.

think and behave differently than consumers with

You might also like