Self-regulation of unwanted consumption

317

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Base of text

Psychology & Marketing� 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Vol. 18(4): 317–336 (April 2001)

Top of text

Top of CT

Base of DF

Self-Regulation of UnwantedConsumptionRobert LawsonWilliam Paterson University

ABSTRACT

The issue of consumption control is viewed from the perspective ofself-regulation in which successful attempts at controlling problembehaviors depend upon achieving motivational readiness. It isproposed that consumption control can be understood as a series ofstage-related processes that follow from theoretical accounts of self-regulation contained in the transtheoretical model of change, andthe model of action phases. In order to observe ongoingconsumption-control processes, a diary study, in which participantsdescribed their actions, thoughts, and feelings in attempting apersonal consumption-control project, was conducted. Diary entrieswere interpreted in light of theoretical stage-related processes. �2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

When viewed from the perspective of marketers, the central problemfacing consumers is that of choice. When presented with a wide selectionof alternative product categories and then brands within product cate-gories, we have been asked to consider how consumers form positivebrand attitudes and decide which brand to buy. Given the concerns ofmarketing managers, this question clearly has great importance, but itis not necessarily the one that consumers ask themselves. An equallyvalid perspective to adopt, one that does concern all consumers, is thatof self-regulation: How do consumers control their consumption of prod-ucts for which they may hold positive attitudes, yet which are poten-tially dangerous or harmful? Compared to the traditional issue of con-sumer choice, in which the typical outcome is the selection of some

318 LAWSON

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandard

Top of textBase of text

Base of RF

product or brand, the issue of consumer self-regulation focuses on theoutcome of not consuming. In light of the availability of virtually count-less products, an understanding of the processes involved in the con-sumer determination not to consume is an important, but largely ig-nored, perspective on consumer behavior.The purpose of this article is to explore how consumers tackle the

problem of trying to self-regulate their consumption of products whenthey perceive a need for control. Just what do consumers do when theydeal with such issues as reducing their weight, stopping smoking, orcurtailing their gambling? Although this issue has received some atten-tion by scholars in various fields in the last two decades, no coherentview has emerged.Instead, various strands of more or less isolated research, each touch-

ing upon a different aspect of consumption control, have appeared inrecent years. In one stream, a number of investigators describe the darkside experience of certain consumers who seem to be unable to exerteffective control over problem areas, such as impulse buying (Rook,1987), compulsive buying (O’Guinn & Faber, 1989), gambling (Nataraa-jan & Goff, 1992), or drug addiction (Hirschman, 1992). A second streamthat is relevant to control issues concerns consumer reactions to choicesituations that are inherently conflictual. Here Luce and her colleagues(Luce, 1998; Luce, Bettman, & Payne, 1997) explore the negative emo-tion that comes from those situations and the resulting tendency toavoid choosing as way of dealing with that emotion. In a third approach,Bagozzi and his colleagues (Bagozzi, 1993; Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990)adopt an attitude-formation paradigm to view consumption control asa phased process of first forming an intention to try, and then imple-menting that intention. A fourth strand, which adopts a social cognitionapproach, looks at the details of goal pursuit by investigating varioustopics such as the desirability versus the feasibility of the goal (Liber-man & Trope, 1998), the role of implementation intentions (Gollwitzer& Brandstatter, 1997), and action planning (Mischel, Cantor, & Feld-man, 1996). A fifth approach focuses on self-regulation as a strugglebetween the forces of willpower and desire, both in terms of economicdecision making (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991; Wertenbroch, 1998) andpsychological dynamics (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Finally, once actionis initiated, another set of questions concerns what factors determinewhether the individual continues striving or gives up (Carver & Scheier,1990, 1999).It is proposed that a useful framework for understanding these var-

ious strands of questions and data relating to consumer self-regulationcan be found in the notion that achieving control is a process that occursover time in stages (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987; Prochaska, Di-Clemente, & Norcross, 1992). This approach in the context of what itimplies about consumption control will first be briefly reviewed, andthen the results of a study in which participants kept diaries of their

SELF-REGULATION OF UNWANTED CONSUMPTION 319


shortstandard


Base of RF

experiences in attempting to control a personal problem consumptionbehavior will be described.

Control Stage Theories

According to the transtheoretical model of change (for useful summariessee Grimley, Prochaska, Velicer, Blais, & DiClemente, 1994; Prochaskaet al., 1992), people go through a series of five stages as they attempt topermanently change their behavior. They first operate in the precontem-plation stage, a baseline period in which they are actively engaged inperforming their problem behaviors, and do not intend to change in theforeseeable future. Many consumers become stuck in this stage for pro-longed stretches of time for various reasons; some never do leave. In thisstage, people may be unaware that any problem exists, or may be aware,but unwilling to invest resources in fixing the problem. The contempla-tion stage is marked both by an awareness that a problem exists, andan intention to change in the foreseeable future. However, a definitecommitment in the sense of making the necessary preparations for suc-cessful action has not yet occurred in this stage. As with the previousstage, people can operate with the vague intention to change over ex-tended periods of time. Once definite action-oriented plans have beenmade, the person has entered the preparation stage. According to thetranstheoretical model, once in this stage, progress to the action stageis likely to occur shortly. In the action stage, people are actively pur-suing the elimination of the problem behavior. Of course, active pursuitdoes not in itself guarantee success, so a relapse to a previous stage isa frequent occurrence. Fortunately, regression does not usually take theperson all the way back to the precontemplation stage. Most relapsesare temporary, and lead to subsequent new control attempts. Thus Pro-chaska et al. (1992) describe the transtheoretical model as proceedingin a spiral fashion rather than a linear one. The maintenance stage ismarked by successful changers’ continuing to actively use their actiontechniques in order to prevent a relapse. In this stage the problem stilloccupies a salient, but diminishing, position in the mind of the individ-ual.In addition, research associated with the transtheoretical model has

identified 10 different processes of change in which individuals engagein order to progress from one stage to the next (Grimley et al., 1994;Prochaska et al., 1992). For example, consciousness raising, which isdefined as increasing the information about oneself and the problem, isa component process that primarily occurs in the transition between theprecontemplative and contemplative stages. Overall, as an individualmakes his or her way through the stages, the degree to which changeprocesses are used increases early on, peaks during action, and declinesduring maintenance. Finally, in terms of a person’s decisional balance,the relative strengths of the pros and cons for engaging in the problem

320 LAWSON


shortstandard


Base of RF

behavior shift dramatically, with the pros being favored in precontem-plation and the cons in the later stages.Closely related to the transtheoretical model is the Heckhausen and

Gollwitzer (1987; see also Gollwitzer &Moskowitz, 1996)model of actionphases, also known as the Rubicon model because of the clear-cutchange in mind-set that is described. In theorizing about the generalnature of goal pursuit, they propose four stages. In the predecisionalphase of the process, people face the problem of choosing which of theirwishes and desires to act upon. In order to make that determination,they must evaluate the desirability and feasibility of various wishes,some of which may compete with one another. If a wish successfullypasses this evaluation process, it becomes a goal, a motivational end-point that implies a certain commitment to achieve. Once a wish be-comes a goal, a second preactional phase dominates. Here the personfaces the task of trying to figure out how to reach the goal. This mayinvolve anything from the execution of a simple, well-practiced actionto an elaborate planning process that should serve as preparation foran unfamiliar action. In the actional phase the person attempts to ac-complish the goal by focusing on the facilitative aspects of the environ-ment while avoiding distraction. In describing these action phases, Goll-witzer and Moskowitz (1996) stress the distinction between the openand deliberative mind-set of the first phase, in which the pros and consof the various options are weighed against one another, and the moreclosed-minded implementational stance of the second and third phases,in which the objective of successful goal completion dominates. In mak-ing this transition, the individual crosses a psychological Rubicon, inwhich resources become committed to goal achievement. Finally, in thepostactional phase, one’s goal-achieving actions are reevaluated interms of their desirability and feasibility in order to determine if oneneeds to revise the goal or to work on a new one.Although bothmodels deal with the issue of goal-oriented actions that

are embedded in a cognitive structure in which various goals competeagainst one another, they differ in their contextual backgrounds. Thetranstheoretical model, which comes from clinical psychology, assumesa starting point in which an undesirable goal system is entrenched andmust be replaced. The model of action phases, which originates in thesocial cognition literature, deals with less embedded goals. As a result,the transtheoretical model includes the stages of precontemplation, inwhich action is ruled by the problem system, andmaintenance, in whichthe person must be vigilant for signs of the return of the problem action;these have no counterparts in the action phases model. Because thefocus of this article, that of the control of consumption, necessarily dealswith instances of overcoming problem actions, the more inclusive per-spective of the transtheoretical model better serves as an organizationalframework. However, the action-phases model is useful in illuminatingvarious component processes.



shortstandard


Base of RF

Precontemplation Stage. In this stage, which marks the beginningpoint of the consumption-control process, the consumer has not yet be-gun to seriously consider controlling the problem behavior. Accordingto the transtheoretical model, the precontemplative person does not an-ticipate undertaking any attempt at control in the foreseeable future,which is operationally defined to be 6 months (Grimley et al., 1994). Assuch, this stage is a preliminary one, which serves as the baselineagainst which any movement toward control is defined. Prochaska et al.(1992) have highlighted three types of measures that set this stage apartfrom subsequent ones. First, people in this stage engage less frequentlyin various change processes than do those in later stages. Second, theirdecisional balance clearly favors the pros. Third, this stage is markedby a pattern of lower self-efficacy and higher temptation scores.It is interesting to note thatmany of the various problem consumption

behaviors that may be described as compulsive, such as drug addiction(Hirschman, 1992) or compulsive buying (O’Guinn & Faber, 1989), canbe understood as behaviors belonging to the precontemplative stage.What makes these dark-side behaviors different is the presence of un-derlying emotional or psychological problems that have the effect of add-ing to the difficulty of going through the control stages. Compared topeople without these underlying problems, dark-siders appear to bemore lacking in the self-efficacy or confidence that is necessary to suc-cessfully complete a control program.

Contemplation Stage. This stage takes the consumer from his or herfirst thoughts about the target consumption behavior as a problem thatmight need to be controlled someday, to the point of actually decidingthat it does indeed need to be controlled. The operational definition ofthis stage is a serious desire to initiate control action within the next 6months (Grimley et al., 1994). In contrast to individuals in other stages,contemplators were especially open to learn about their problemsthrough various consciousness-raising techniques, to experience greateremotion via dramatic relief experiences, and reevaluate their problembehavior in terms of the effects it had on themselves and people closeto them (Grimley et al., 1994; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984). In termsof decisional balance, the gap that favored the pros of the problem be-havior in the previous stage now narrows and then shifts to favor thecons as the consumer begins to seriously consider taking action (Pro-chaska et al., 1992). With regard to efficacy and temptation, the largegap between low efficacy and high temptation becomes somewhat re-duced in this stage (DiClemente, Prochaska, & Gilbertini, 1985).At the beginning of the contemplation stage, consumers face the cog-

nitive task of replacing a potentially harmful but firmly ensconced con-sumption goal and accompanying value system with a system that willreverse that behavior. In addition, the existing behavioral pattern isoften one that is physically addicting (e.g., drug or tobacco consumption)

322 LAWSON


shortstandard


Base of RF

or habitually maintained (e.g., eating junk food between meals). How isthe control goal introduced and what happens to the existing goal inthis process?According to the Rubicon model (Gollwitzer & Moskowitz, 1996), the

main task to be accomplished in the predecisional phase is for people toevaluate their personal wishes with respect to the criteria of desirabilityand feasibility. If a wish meets these criteria, it is elevated to the statusof a goal, which is construed to be binding in the sense that the individ-ual’s mind-set changes from one of thoughtful deliberation on competingdesires to one of action in enacting the selected goal. It is that decisionpoint that marks the end of the predecisional phase. In accordance withthe transtheoretical model (Prochaska et al., 1992), before crossing thispsychological Rubicon, the outcome associated with the control goal iscarefully weighed against the pros and cons of continuing the problembehavior. Presumably, this shift toward the cons is the main factor thattips the scales toward a decision to attempt control rather than to con-tinue the problem consumption behavior.

Preparation Stage. Although the transition to this stage from the pre-vious one is defined by a decision to pursue the control goal, that decisionis still somewhat tentative and subject to revocation. What remains tobe mapped out at this point is a thorough exploration of the means bywhich the control action shall proceed, including the development of anaction plan as well as a realistic anticipation of the emotional conse-quences of attempting control. It is one thing to realize that your desirefor the positive benefits of control outweighs your desire to engage inthe problem behavior, but it is quite another matter to actually begincontrolling it. Many smokers understand the health risks of smoking,have contemplated the pros and cons of smoking, have even concludedthat it is better to not smoke any more, and yet persist in smoking. Thisstage of change focuses on preparing for the difficulties that will almostcertainly accompany any serious attempt at consumption control.Whereas people in the first two stages tend to spend long periods of

time there, this is a transitional stage; one in which action is intendedand is likely to occur in the near future (usually within 30 days), ac-cording to the transtheoretical model (Grimley et al., 1994). During thisstage, consumers develop an action plan, and often make some small ortrial behavioral change, such as reducing the amount of cigarettessmoked or snacks devoured. To further the transition to action, peoplein this stage use the change processes of counterconditioning and stim-ulus control in which they substitute alternatives for the problem con-sumption behaviors, and avoid problem products or situations in whichthey would likely encounter (DiClemente et al., 1991).Necessary for successfully entering the preparation stage is a clear

decisional balance in opposition to the problem behavior. In this stage



shortstandard


Base of RF

the pros begin to decline in importance while the cons remain high(Grimley et al., 1994). As consumers struggle with the imminent pros-pect of attempting control, temptation still outweighs self-efficacy, butthe gap continues to narrow gradually (DiClemente et al., 1991).In line with the Rubicon model, Gollwitzer and Brandstatter (1997)

have developed the concept of implementation intention to describe howsuccessful actions come to be initiated. They distinguish betweenmerelyhaving a goal intention, which is a desire to achieve the end result, andhaving an implementation intention attached to it as well. This meanshaving a commitment to perform a particular action whenever a partic-ular situation occurs. Forming an implementation intention is viewedas an effective strategy not only to spur the initialization of action, butto serve as a situational cue to automatize the action on an ongoing basis(Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994). The effectiveness of this strategy is dem-onstrated by its use being associated with increased completion rates ofself-chosen personal projects and a report-writing assignment (Goll-witzer & Brandstatter, 1997).

Action Stage. Although the focus of the prior stages of contemplationand preparation is on the cognitive and emotional aspects of goal pur-suit, this stage deals with actual behavior. Once action is initiatedmanypotential problems may arise, any one of which can result in the de-railment of the control attempt. Success is most likely to occur when theconsumer has emerged from the two prior stages with a strong desireto exert control, a belief in the feasibility of the goal, and a definite planin mind. Conversely, prematurely embarking upon action decreasesthose chances. In any case, as proponents of the transtheoretical modelpoint out, the path to successful consumption control is bound to be onethat proceeds in a spiral pattern, with repeated failures followed byfresh attempts, rather than in a straight line (Prochaska et al., 1992).Individuals are defined as being in the action stage if they have made

overt behavioral changes within the past 6 months (Grimley et al.,1994). In addition, the change criterion is understood to be one that bestreduces the person’s risk, such as not smoking at all, rather than cuttingback or switching to a safer cigarette. People who are actively engagedin consumption control utilize a fuller range of the processes of change,adding self-liberation and a reliance on helping relationships to theirarsenal. Successful changers also increase their usage of the behavioraltechniques of counterconditioning and stimulus control (Prochaska etal., 1992).As expected, decisional balance in this stage continues to favor the

cons, but the importance of both pros and cons declines as enactmentreplaces deliberation (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1982). The action stagealso marks a strong increase in self-efficacy while, at the same time,temptation gradually abates (DiClemente et al., 1991).

324 LAWSON


shortstandard


Base of RF

Maintenance Stage. Successful completion of the action stage meansthat the consumer has been able to reach his or her control goal or hasmanaged to refrain from engaging in the problem behavior for a certainminimal (six months, according to the transtheoretical model) period(Grimley et al., 1994). However, having reached the goal does not guar-antee that the consumer will not revert back to former problem behav-iors.Unfortunately, little research other than that performed by the trans-

theoretical group has concerned this stage. Here counterconditioningand stimulus control continue to be the change processes of choice, whilethe precontemplation pattern of high temptation scores and low self-efficacy scores is completely reversed (Prochaska et. al., 1992). Deci-sional balance issues become still less salient during maintenance, butwith the cons clearly dominating the pros (DiClemente & Prochaska,1982).

METHOD

Overview

The purpose of this study is to provide evidence of the psychologicalreality of the stages of control as they apply to issues of problem con-sumption. In addition, it is hoped that many of the stage-related pro-cesses that have been observed in the laboratory will be seen in morenaturally occurring situations. To this end, participants volunteered tokeep diaries of their actions, thoughts, and feelings relating to theirattempts to control some self-chosen unwanted consumption behaviorfor a period of up to 10 weeks. This procedure was utilized in order toset up a situation in which long-term processes that develop over anextended period of time could be observed (Delongis, Hemphill, & Leh-man, 1992). Then the statements in the diary entries were classified tocategories that were relevant to processes and issues associated withthe stages. Interpretations of protocols with respect to control stage, aswell as more quantitative analyses, are presented in the Results section.

Protocol Response Categories

The basic unit of analysis was a diary entry. For each entry, responsecategories were assigned at two levels: the overall control-related be-havior described in the entry, and the various processes referenced bythe statements within the entry. At the overall level, the type of con-sumption behavior described was judged as indicating one of five be-havioral categories: unchanged, small/trial change, changed, partial



shortstandard


Base of RF

Table 1. Assignment of Response Categories to Stages of Control

CategoryArea

Stage

Precontemplation Contemplation Action

Self-efficacy Low (2) Low (2) High (5)Decisionalbalance

Pros (2) Pros (2); cons (4) Cons (4)

Temptation Yield to (2) Yield to (2), resist(4)

Resist (4), low (5)

Controldesirability

— Desirability (3) —

Feasibility Negative (2) Negative (2), posi-tive (4)

Positive (4)

Willpower Negative (2) Negative (2), posi-tive (4)

Positive (4)

Planning — Of action (4), fine-tune (4)

Of action (4), fine-tune (4)

Evaluation — Vague criterion (3) Concrete criterion (5)Attention tocontrol

No attention (1) Attention (4) Attention (4)

Controlreason

Circumstance (2) Circumstance (2) Easy (5), becomingnormal (5)

Problemsituations

Fail to avoid (2) Fail to avoid (2),avoid (4)

Avoid (4)

Note: The numbers in parentheses refer to weights given to the response category in calculating the stageindex.

change/mixed, and relapse/slip. At the level of component statements,response categories were developed and utilized on the bases of a prioriconsiderations (e.g., self-efficacy comments, pros and cons of problembehavior) and actual responses (e.g., ease of action, express hope, avoidproblem situation). A total of 39 response categories were identified andare listed in the Appendix.For purposes of subsequent data analysis, 23 of the categories were

linked to stages of control. Table 1 shows how these categories weremapped into the stages. For example, with regard to indications of de-cisional balance, the precontemplative stage is associated with the ex-pression of pros (of the problem behavior), the contemplation-prepara-tion stage with a mixture of pros and cons, and the action stage withcons. These assignments were then used to create an index numberreflecting the stage of control of each participant. For this purpose,statements were assigned a number from 1 to 5 (shown in parenthesesin Table 1), in which 1 indicated a unique precontemplation statement,2 indicated that the statement was consistent with either of the firsttwo stage categories, 3 indicated a unique contemplative stage state-ment, 4 indicated a contemplation–action combination, and 5 indicateda pure action stage statement.

326 LAWSON


shortstandard


Base of RF

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 15 undergraduate business majors from a midsizedstate university in the Northeast. Diaries from two students were notanalyzed because they focused on issues not related to the control ofconsumption (study habits and automobile racing). The 13 remainingparticipants kept diaries on the control issues of weight loss/healthyeating (4 males), healthy eating/exercise without concern for weight (2females), spending (2 females, 1 male), muscle development (2 males),smoking (1 female), and candy consumption (1 male). Twelve of the par-ticipants were between 21 and 25 years old, full-time students, single,and worked at least 20 hours per week. The other participant (smoking),was a middle-aged female part-time student.The students participated in exchange for extra-credit points, and

were told that keeping the diary would likely be helpful to them in learn-ing self-regulation in real-life situations. They were told that the pur-pose of the study was to explore what people did in actual consumption-control situations and that they needed to identify an importantpersonal consumption control issue that they were willing to work on inorder to participate. They were instructed to make one entry per day,and to write about their thought processes and emotions, in addition todescribing what they did or did not do. They were asked to turn in acopy of their entries no less frequently than once per week, and to con-tinue to keep their diaries until one week before the end of the semester.In addition, the participants were asked to write a brief summary ofwhat they got out of the project.

RESULTS

Overall, the participants made a total of 506 entries (M � 38.9, rangingfrom 19 to 60) which yielded a total of 976 (M � 75.1, ranging from 24to 122) process-tracing statements. In addition, each entry was scoredaccording to the behavior categories described above. This yielded agrand total of 1,482 statements to be categorized. Two independentjudges agreed on the categorization of 82% of them, and differenceswereall resolved by discussion.In terms of stages of control, 12 of the 13 participants appeared to be

operating exclusively in one particular stage with little sign of transi-tional progress. Contrary to instructions, four participants were classi-fied as precontemplative, displaying little behavioral evidence of seri-ously attempting control (92% of their combined behavioral summaryresponses were unchanged compared to 21% for the remainder of thesample). At the other extreme, two participants were operating in theaction stage from the beginning, with 97% of their behavioral responses



shortstandard


Base of RF

categorized as either changed, partially changed, or relapse, comparedto 13% for the remainder of the sample. Six participants showed a com-bination of unchanged and trial change responses throughout the study,and were classified as contemplative–preparation. The nature of theirprotocols did not permit a clear separation of those two stages. Surpris-ingly, only one participant showed progress that cut across stages, ashe moved from contemplation to action.

Response Protocol Analyses

In order to analyze progress toward control, the index variable describedpreviously was used as the overall measure of stage of control. A one-way ANOVA using it as the dependent variable confirms the subjec-tively determined stage assignments, F (2, 9) � 36.42, p � .000, withM � 2.21, 3.04, and 3.76 for the precontemplative (N � 4), contemplative(N � 6), and action (N � 2) participants, respectively. Progress wasassessed by computing each participant’s mean index score separatelyfor the first and second half blocks of their entries. There was a signif-icant main effect of entry block, F (1, 9) � 38.02, p � .000, indicatingoverall progress (from M � 2.66 to 2.98), and a significant stage group� block interaction, F (3, 9) � 4.19, p � .041. The interaction indicatesthat this overall progress was mitigated by reduced forward movementfor the precontemplative participants (M � 2.18 vs. 2.32).Direct analyses involving the frequencies of response categories lends

further support to the control stage view. Considering the frequency ofplanning responses, consumers in the precontemplative stage (M �1.50) made significantly fewer plans, t (9) � 2.58, p � .03, than those inthe later stages (M � 7.25). Precontemplatives (M � 2.00) also showedtheir lack of concern for control by making fewer t(9) � 2.74, p � .023control-related evaluative statements than did other participants (M �14.38). Isolating the statements reflecting success in overcoming temp-tation (resisting temptation � positive willpower vs. yield to temptation� negative willpower), a significant interaction, F(2, 9)� 4.44, p � .046,reflected the fact that precontemplatives were more negative regardingcontrol success (M � 2.0 vs. 6.5), action-stage participants were morepositive (M � 10.0 vs. 0.0), and contemplatives were balanced (M � 9.0vs. 8.5).With regard to behavioral response categories, a clear pattern

emerged, in which the precomtemplatives engaged almost exclusivelyin unchanged behavior, the action-stage participants in changed behav-ior, and the contemplatives moving between the unchanged and small/trial change categories. This outcomewas reflected in a significant group� behavior category interaction, F(4, 18)� 7.41, p � .001, and confirmsthe subjective interpretation of the participants’ protocols with respectto stage determination, described next.

328 LAWSON


shortstandard


Base of RF

Descriptions of Stage-Relevant Processes

Precontemplative Stage Processes. The hallmark of this stage is theabsence of any real, serious consideration of pursuing the control goal.Instead, behavior, thoughts, and feelings are quite unequivocal in lend-ing support to continuing the problem behavior. Mike, who declared aninterest in controlling spending, wrote about how he really took pleasurein spending, “I went out on Tuesday night, and bought a couple of roundsfor my friends. It makes me feel good to buy drinks for people who reallyappreciate it” (Entry 8). A couple of entries later, he writes about buyingRalph Lauren shirts, “Did I need them? No! I wanted to enjoy buyingnice clothes. It makes me feel good.” Then, toward the end (Entry 15,out of 19) of Mike’s diary, he writes, “I did pick up my girlfriend’s dia-mond earrings on Sunday. They set me back a cool $1,900. I really feltgood buying them for her because I feel she deserves them.”The other three precontemplative participants made similar state-

ments expressing a decisional balance tilted in favor of the problembehavior. Crystal, who expressed a goal of eating more nutritious food,wrote about the turkey burgers that her mother prepared for dinner, “Iguess it’s healthier, but it didn’t taste the same as a real burger” (Entry1). Her taste preferences and eating behavior hadn’t changed through-out her diary, “For dinner, I had chicken,macaroni and cheese, and corn.Then I had a good piece of cake and ice cream, delicious” (Entry 19).Heather, who also professed a goal of eating more nutritiously, nevergot serious about control, writing, “I love to eat junky food for breakfast”(Entry 4), and “I felt wild again and ordered blintzes” (Entry 19). Lucy,a problem spender, summarizes her 8 weeks of diary-keeping, “As faras cutting down on spending goes, I’m coming to the realization that I’llalways be a spender, because I enjoy it. It’s like a hobby for me. It ac-tually makes me feel good” (Entry 47).When instances of control do occur, they are fortuitous or due to what-

ever circumstances are associated with the behavior, rather than deriv-ing from self-regulation. In controlling spending, Lucy writes that shehasn’t spent any money because she is having a bad day and hasn’t beenout of the house (Entry 5). Similarly, Mike states, “I am starting to getbusy with work, and have less time to go out and spend” (Entry 12).With regard to controlling her eating, Crystal writes, “I really didn’t likewhat my mother cooked, so I didn’t get that much” (Entry 21).Generally, because these participants are not seriously dealing with

control they are not experiencing any of the conflict associated with thestruggle between the forces of willpower and desire. Only Heatherwrites about willpower, but in a way that suggests that she is under thecontrol of external forces in citing “monthly cravings” (Entries 1, 3, and4), and in her need for chocolate after buying a hot chocolate drink, “Ifelt that I didn’t consume my daily requirement of chocolate and Iwouldn’t be able to unleash my creativity unless I had some chocolate”



shortstandard


Base of RF

(Entry 8). In addition, there is an absence of any reference to the desir-ability of the control goal or the feasibility of attaining it. For the mostpart, they simply paid little or no attention to controlling their con-sumption.

Contemplative/Preparation Stage Processes. The overriding con-cern in this combined stage of control is weighing the pros and cons ofcontinuing to engage in the problem behavior in terms of the desirabilityand feasibility of the control goal. For example, Felicia, whose controlgoal is to quit smoking, writes about its desirability, “I need to do this(quit smoking). I sometimes have trouble walking up the hills at school”(Entry 4). Similarly, Ira, who wants to lose weight and exercise more,states, “I was a little sore from Saturday’s workout, and probably woremyself out a little with a run today, but I feel better that I was tryingto accomplish something good for myself ” (Entry 7). Feasibility concernsare also in evidence. Felicia begins her diary by writing, “I think thatcold turkey might be the best way even though it’s the hardest.” Jen-nifer, who is trying to save money by controlling spending, connects herpotential successful control attempt to how busy she will be (Entry 24).For two of the six participants who were judged to be operating in

this stage, the balance of pros and cons was nearly even. For example,at one point Jennifer writes, “ . . . this is the last semester I’ll be ableto do all of these things (go out with her friends) before I enter the realworld” (Entry 36). Later, she considers one of the cons of spending toomuch, “My main goal right now is to be out of debt. This debt is a seriousthing that can affect my future” (Entry 44).Following a positive determination that control is both desirable and

feasible, action-planning activities should be observed as well. Thus,according to the transtheoretical model, the important work to be ac-complished in this stage is to prepare for action. However, this descrip-tion did not hold for these participants in the sense that much of theirconsumption behavior was categorized as trial/small change (54.5%) asopposed to unchanged (33.6%). Instead of weighing the pros and cons,considering how feasible it is to enact control, and planning their actionsbefore actual control behavior, these “contemplative” participants werenot at all reluctant to act. However, their actions seem to lack commit-ment. Much of their behavior was cast in terms of temptation, eithersuccessfully resisting it or unsuccessfully yielding to it. Thus Glen, whois striving to lose weight, yielded on one occasion, “I was constantlylooking in the refrigerator for food . . . but didn’t really see anything.Around 9:30 or so I gave in to my appetite. I ordered a cheese steak withthe works . . . ” (Entry 2). But on another occasion, he was able toresist the brownies that his roommate had baked, “They were fresh andstaring me straight in the eyes. But, I didn’t give in” (Entry 11).Although careful planning of their actions was not the focus of their

diary entries, all of the contemplativesmade at least one such statement

330 LAWSON


shortstandard


Base of RF

(M � 5.3). However, the planning that took place was not the type thatwould see them through a difficult period of long-term consumption con-trol. Instead, their plans had limited time horizons. Felicia restricts herplanning to the effects of using nicotine patches, “only 4 more days untilI start the next set of patches” (Entry 25). Plans may not be particularlyeffective, either. Ben, who is trying to lose weight and get into bettershape, writes, “I allow myself a little extra food (if I really do want it)as well as I will do no exercises on Sunday” (Entry 7). For Jennifer, herearly entries describing her plans to control spending really served asa subgoal for saving money that would then be used for financing avacation. She writes, “I need to save some money to spend while I’maway. I already explained to my family that the only souvenirs they’llreceive, are the pictures I take” (Entry 12). In general, their controlplans lacked the specificity and the introspective insight that could pre-pare them for successful action. For instance, none of the four contem-plative participants who wanted to lose weight made plans for a dietthat involved counting calories or grams of fat, or even set goals on howmuch weight to lose. Without setting up such a program, their actionslacked focus.Such premature actions lead to unwanted consequences in terms of

successful control. Without having established firm motivational read-iness, instances of changed behavior are subject to frequent reversals.Allen, who wants to lose weight and exercise more, writes about whathe ate during his busy day and concludes with, “I didn’t have any timeto go to the gym” (Entry 20). Jennifer justifies her unnecessary pur-chases of clothing by referring to the discounts she got, “ . . . thismeans I got a total of 45% off my purchases. So of course I bought somethings” (Entry 14). Felicia’s goal to quit smoking is sometimes over-whelmed by life’s pressures, “I feel like my life is falling apart. Pressureis coming from all directions. I need to smoke. It helps me relax. I’mtaking the patch off for the weekend” (Entry 29).

Action and Maintenance Stage Processes. The key difference be-tween the attempts at control described as belonging to the contempla-tive/preparation stages, and those associated with the action stage iswhether or not they are supported by a sense of commitment to thecontrol goal. Three of the participants attained this stage of control.David and Kyle, who had goals of muscle development through weight-lifting, each began their diaries with definite workout schedules inmind, and largely followed them throughout the project. Ellis, whosegoal was to control eating sweets, progressed from contemplation to ac-tion, with indications of having begun maintenance.David appeared to be motivated by the desire to look attractive for



shortstandard


Base of RF

the upcoming summer season. He writes, “Even though I have a lot ofwork to do, lifting is still my number 1 priority. I know it shouldn’t be,but it is. I want to be in great shape for the summer, which is rightaround the corner” (Entry 15). He regularly goes to the gym with anexercise plan in mind, “I switched my routine around and did back andbiceps today, and will do shoulders and triceps tomorrow. I am going tokeep my workout like this for at least 5 weeks, then switch it back tothe way it was” (Entry 11). Kyle’s diary does not go into his motivationfor lifting apart from referencing his athletic background. However, hedoes present his action plan, in the form of a daily chart, describing eachexercise, the weights to be lifted, and the number of repetitions for each.With this degree of readiness, both David and Kyle were able to followtheir plans, with few relapses (one and five, respectively). They wereboth able to resist the temptation of not doing their workouts when theydidn’t feel like it. David writes, “I felt like shit all day today. Last night,I partied too much until 5 this morning. I lifted at noon, and didn’t evenfeel like going today” (Entry 10). Kyle describes the difficulty of doinghis daily 500 stomach crunches, “I really had to convince myself to dothem because I was very tired” (Entry 21).Ellis perceived his control project as one of willpower triumphing over

desire. Early on, he sometimes yielded to temptation, “Needed a choc-olate fix around 10:30. I had one and it was so good that I could not stopfrom having another” (Entry 3), but on other occasions, he successfullyresisted, “I did find myself looking at the snack machine at work. That’sall I did though, just look” (Entry 4). Often, when he was able to resist,he sought to put his triumph on display, “Today I am very proud ofmyself. My mom bought me a box of salt-water taffy and I have not evenmoved it. It is still sealed in my room. I was going to bring it to worktoday to let the other employees see them” (Entry 11). Planning a courseof action was not necessary; Ellis simply had to resist the urge to eatsweets whenever that urge arose. Over the course of his diary, his suc-cesses outnumbered his failures 13 to 7, but he increasingly reporteddays in which he was not even tempted, “No problems today. All wentwell. I had no urges to eat or drink any sweets so I do not feel like Ireally accomplished anything” (Entry 29). In his later entries, whichshow changed behavior with occasional relapses, Ellis changes his viewon not experiencing urges, “I think I’m getting too good (at) this. It isalmost scary to think, I could, if I wanted to, really do something I donot want to do. This could change me for life . . . . I like it. It makesme feel good and in control. It is as though it is not even a challengeany longer” (Entry 36). Not only has Ellis been successful in curtailinghis actual consumption of sweets, but also his efforts at control haveresulted in reducing his desire for the product. He is no longer con-stantly fighting his urge for sweets because the urge is not arising asmuch.

332 LAWSON


shortstandard


Base of RF

DISCUSSION

In general the results support the notion that there are different stagesof motivational readiness in consumption control. Within the con-straints of the current diary study, there were clear indications of con-sumers operating according to the theoretical accounts of the precon-templation and action stages. However, although many of thecomponent processes defining the intermediate contemplation (prede-cisional) and preparation (preaction) stages were present, they were notrevealed as being separate and distinct from one another. These partic-ipants, who had not yet completed dealing with desirability and feasi-bility issues, nor made concrete action plans, nonetheless frequentlyattempted control behaviors. As the stage models would predict, theseattempts at control were premature, and did not result in success forsix of the seven participants who were contemplating control.By contrast, the two participants who had planned out their control

behavior program in concrete detail by establishing schedules for work-ing out, were able to utilize these schedules to overcome frequent in-stances of temptation to not go to the gym. By having these plans inplace, they were able to evaluate their progress, make fine-tunedchanges in their workout schedules, and continue with their exerciseprograms. Only one participant who started in the contemplation stagewas able to consistently perform the control action (curtailing his con-sumption of sweets) by dint of willpower alone.At the same time as the diary entries were confirming that some of

the stage-related processes were actually occurring, other proposed pro-cesses were not observed. For example, there was no mention of usingimplementation intentions (Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997) as a wayto launch oneself from preparation to action. This is not surprising,given that only one participant was operating at the stage where itwould be expected. Other processes that have been put forth as beinginvolved in self-regulation, but rarely or not observed here, include en-listing social support and consciousness-raising (Prochaska et al., 1992),suppressing thoughts of the desired object (Metcalfe & Mishcel, 1999,but see Wegner, 1994), and assessing the rate of progress (Carver &Scheier, 1990). However, the absence of indications that these processesare occurring may only reflect the limitations of the diary method.Two obvious shortcomings of this study were the restriction of diary

duration and selection of participants. The college-student populationis not known for its motivation to engage in consumption control, andtheir overall lack of progress confirms their reluctance. Surely, the useof a different population would tell a different story. Also, according tothe transtheoretical model, people often spend a long time (measuredin months or years) within a stage, and the 10-week time limit on thediaries is too short a duration to capture potential stage changes. De-spite all this, the study was able to reveal very different experiences



shortstandard


Base of RF

among the participants, which could all be understood in terms of stage-related processes.The processes of self-regulation in consumer behavior go hand in

hand with those of product choice. It is important for researchers andpractitioners alike to understand both. For marketers interested in thethwarting consumers’ attempts at controlling their consumption of un-wanted products, an understanding of normal stage-related processescould lead to more successful marketing programs, outcomes that wouldbe regarded as immoral or amoral.Increased success could also come to marketers who want to help

consumers to exert control. In this regard, one approach is to market aproduct that serves as an aide to control, such as a diet pill or a nicotinepatch. The heart of the notion of motivational readiness implies thatsuch products will not, by themselves, result in permanent change be-cause the necessary decisional balance, desirability and feasibility, andaction-planning tasks will not have been accomplished. A central ques-tion for these marketers is whether the physical product can replacemotivational readiness. The experience of Felicia with the nicotinepatch suggests that the contemplation and preparation stages cannotbe bypassed.Finally, one prominent approach to social marketing, that of An-

dreasen (1995), is based on the transtheoretical model. He claims thatthe role of social marketing is to help people change their harmful be-haviors by identifying what stage of change they are in and then de-signing and implementing a marketing program that will assist theirtransition to the next stage. This approach is clearly appropriate atsome stages. For example, in moving people from precontemplation tocontemplation, messages that present the cons of a problem behaviorshould help kick start people into thinking about changing. This is likeleading the horse to water. According to the transtheoretical model, thejourney through the stages of contemplation and preparation are in-tensely personal in the sense that individuals must commit themselvesto going down a difficult path. Getting the horse to drink is a muchmoredifficult marketing task—especially if the water is the Rubicon.

334 LAWSON


shortstandard


Base of RF

APPENDIX 1: PROTOCOL RESPONSE CATEGORIES

Category Frequency

1. High self-efficacy 2.2%2. Low self-efficacy 1.43. Pros (of problem behavior) 5.44. Cons (of problem behavior) 1.25. Yield to temptation 6.66. Resist temptation 8.77. Express desirability (of control goal) 1.78. Feasibility—positive 2.49. Feasibility—negative 2.210. Insight (into mechanisms of control or nature of problem) 2.511. Planning of action (including adjustments to existing plans) 6.912. Evaluate action (according to vague standard) 13.113. Evaluate action (according to concrete standard) 1.514. Avoid problem situation 1.515. Reason (for action taken) 4.016. Willpower—positive 2.817. Willpower—negative 2.218. Resolve to do better 1.219. Cognitive load (as distraction from goal action) 1.420. Fail to avoid problem situation 3.521. Successful action due to accident or circumstances 8.422. No attention paid to control 4.723. Express hope (for eventual control) 1.524. Slip due to circumstances 1.325. Anticipate consequences of future action 1.226. Express ease of control action 1.027. Substitute action (for control action) 1.328. Express positive affect following evaluation 1.729. Attention paid to control 1.130. Miscellaneous categories (10 categories accounting for �1% each:

Set vague goal, Enlist social support, Adjust goal, Implementa-tion intention, Slip as temporary deviation, Slip as self-reward,Negative emotion from control attempt, Delay attempt, Problembehavior as social obligation) 6.1Total 99.4%

REFERENCES

Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bagozzi, R. P. (1993). On the neglect of volition in consumer research: A critiqueand proposal. Psychology & Marketing, 10, 215–237.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 17, 127–140.

Bargh, J. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1994). Environmental control of goal-directedaction. In W. Spaulding (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Inte-



shortstandard


Base of RF

grated views of motivation, cognition, and emotion (Vol. 41, pp. 71–124).Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive andnegative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Delongis, A., Hemphill, K. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1992). A structured diarymeth-odology for the study of daily events. In F. B. Bryant et al. (Eds.), Methodo-logical issues in applied social psychology (pp. 83–109). New York: PlenumPress.

DiClemente, C. C., & Prochaska, J. O. (1982). Self-change and therapy changeof smoking behavior: A comparison of processes of change of cessation andmaintenance. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 133–142.

DiClemente, C. C., Prochaska, J. O., & Gilbertini, M. (1985). Self-efficacy andthe stages of self-change of smoking. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9,181–200.

DiClemente, C. C., Prochaska, J. O., Velicer, W. F., Fairhurst, S. K., Rossi,J. S., & Velasquez, M. M. (1991). The process of smoking cessation: An anal-ysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stages of change.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 295–304.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions andeffective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 , 186–199.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). Goal effects on action and cog-nition. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbookof basic principles (pp. 361–399). New York: Guilford Press.

Grimley, D., Prochaska, J. O., Velicer, W. F., Blais, L. M., & DiClemente, C. C.(1994). The transtheoretical model of change. In T. M. Brinthaupt & R. P.Lipka (Eds.), Changing the self: Philosophies, techniques, and experiences(pp. 201–227). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitivefunctioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation andEmotion, 11, 101–120.

Hirschman, E. C. (1992). The consciousness of addiction: Toward a generaltheory of compulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 155–179.

Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences andconsumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 492–507.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability con-siderations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construaltheory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.

Luce, M. F. (1998). Choosing to avoid: Coping with negatively emotion-ladenconsumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 409–433.

Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Choice processing in emo-tionally difficult decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory and Cognition, 23, 384–405.

Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of grat-ification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19.

Mischel, W., Cantor, N., & Feldman, S. (1996). Principles of self-regulation:

336 LAWSON


shortstandard


Base of RF

The nature of willpower and self-control. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 329–360). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Nataraajan, R., & Goff, B. G. (1992). Manifestations of compulsiveness in theconsumer marketplace domain. Psychology & Marketing, 9, 31–44.

O’Guinn, T. C., & Faber, R. J. (1989). Compulsive buying: A phenomemologicalexploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 147–157.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach:Crossing traditional boundaries of change. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search ofhow people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychol-ogist, 47, 1102–1114.

Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14,189–199.

Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review,101, 34–52.

Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quan-tities of virtue and vice. Marketing Science, 17, 317–337.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Robert Lawson, De-partment of Marketing and Management, William Paterson University,Wayne, NJ 07470

Self-regulation of unwanted consumption

Documents

Transcript of Self-regulation of unwanted consumption