BUYING BEHAVIOR AND CONSUMPTION: SOCIAL CLASS ...

BUYING BEHAVIOR AND CONSUMPTION: SOCIAL CLASSVERSUS INCOME

Mirela Mihić1, Gordana Čulina2

Received: 12. 09. 2006. PreliminarycommunicationAccepted: 30. 10. 2006. UDC: 658.8

The theoretical part of the paper examines the significance of social classand income in understanding consumption and purchasing behaviorbased on the previous research results. The empirical part displaysresearch methodology and results. The aim is to determine which of thetwo analyzed concepts - social class or income - has more influence overthe buying behavior, i.e. consumption of certain products/services. Theresearch was conducted on a sample of 270 respondents. Keeping in mindthe research goals, three hypotheses were set. The results confirmed two ofthem entirely and one partly, showing that both social class and incomesignificantly influence buying behavior. Among 19 analyzed cases, socialclass proved to be more significant in eight of them and income in four.The research showed that income better explains purchasing habits andbehavior with less visible products associated with significantexpenditures, while social class matters more with products reflecting life-

1 Mihić Mirela, PhD., Assistant professor, Faculty of EconomicsSplit, Matice hrvatske 31, HR 21000 Split, Phone: ++ 385 21 430664; Fax: ++ 385 21 430 701, E-mail: [email protected]

2 Gordana Čulina, Kemilak d.o.o., Dubrovačka 27, HR 21000 Split,Phone: ++ 385 21 533-862; Fax: ++ 385 21 539-737

77

Management, Vol. 11, 2006, 2, pp. 77-92M. Mihić, G. Čulina: Buying behavior consumption: Social class versus income

style values, i.e. more visible and expensive products associated with classsymbols. Since members of different social classes and income categoriesdiffer significantly in buying preferences with all analyzedproducts/services, it can be concluded that both variables, depending onspecific situations and types of products/services, constitute importantmarket segmentation criteria.

1. INTRODUCTION

The concept of social class was introduced intothe marketing literature in the late 1950s3 (Kemm 1958according to Myers et al., 1971). Since then,marketing scholars and practitioners have paidconsiderable attention to this category. In thetheory of marketing and buyer behavior, the conceptof social class is considered the basic determinantof consumption behavior. In fact, among behavioralscientists, there was a consensus that marketbehavior of individuals is closely related to theirsocial class. In this context, social class was oftenconsidered more important than income in affectingbuying behavior (Slocum and Mathews, 1970).

When looking at numerous theoretical disputes andpostulates (from the early to the contemporary ones),one might argue that the social class concept is morecomplete and comprehensive than the notion of incomewhen considering their relevance in understanding andexplaining consumption and buyer behavior. Thereasoning behind this varies. Although social classis often associated with higher income, income stillpresents only one of many characteristics of social

3 The use of social class as a market variable was firstsuggested by Martineau 1958.78

Management, Vol. 11, 2006, 2, pp. 77-92M. Mihić, G. Čulina: Buying behavior consumption: Social class

versus income

class. Individuals or families of different socialclasses can dispose of similar income4, i.e. those inthe bottom or top income group should not all be inthe bottom or top social class group. Furthermore,income grows higher as we grow older, which has nobearing to social class changes. Also, families withone or more working members and subsequently a higherincome are not automatically members of a highersocial class. Much more so than income, social classis associated with values and life-styles ofconsumers, both of which significantly determine theconsumption structure and behavior for numerousproducts. This point of view is shared by Levy (1966according to Schaninger, 1981), Myers and Guttman(1974 according to Schaninger, 1981). Levy arguedthat «social class variations are variations inlifestyle», while Myers and Guttman consider socialclass to be a valuable segmentation base because itcaptures those lifestyle differences that incomeignores.

Personal values and attitudes can have a greaterinfluence to buyers' behavior than the amount ofincome they have access to. This means that membersof different social classes that have similarincomes, can, depending on their values andpreferences, spend it on different contents andactivities. In relation to values, one can talk aboutthe significant consumers' segment whose income isnot high enough to be considered wealthy by thecontemporary society. However, in their desire to buy

4 For example, a person with a university degree, a teacher orlawyer may have the same or lower income than a car mechanic.

79


only the best, they buy less often and not as much,but they buy quality goods. Finally, families in eachsocial class can, depending on their income level, bedivided into three subgroups: over-privileged,average and underprivileged. Note that the over-privileged and underprivileged families, despite theconsiderable difference in their purchasing power,retain the buying habits and the behavior of thesegment they belong to. Despite everything that issaid above, it would be irrational and wrong to denythe influence that income has over buying behavior,both on type and prices of products purchased.

2. REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH RESULTS

Since the late ’50s, the question of superiorityof one criterion over another has been a subject ofmany research studies. Early researchers, forexample, argued that social class was a bettervariable than income as a predictor of consumerbehavior (Martineau, 1958; Coleman, 1960 and Wasson,1969 in Keiser and Kuehl, 1972; Schaninger, 1981;Shimp and Yokum, 1981).5 The social class vs. incomedebate initiated a series of research studies dealingwith the same issues (Matthews and Slocum, 1969;Myers et al., 1971; Myers and Mount, 1973; Hirischand Peters, 1974) whose authors reached contraryresults and established superiority over social

5 For example, concerning furniture purchases of consumers indifferent classes, Coleman (1960) found that the correlationbetween prices of goods purchased and social class is relativelyquite high in these product areas, while the correlation betweenprice paid and annual income is lower than one might expect (inKeiser, and Kuehl, 1972).80


versus income

class. Myers and his colleagues provided support forthe predictive power of income over social classes inexplaining expenditure patterns for low-pricedpackaged goods and cosmetics (Myers et al., 1971) andsemi-durable and durable goods, plus selectedservices, such as clothing, furniture, appliances andtravel (Myers and Mount, 1973 in Hughstad, 1981).6

Hirsch and Peters (1974 in Sivadas) and Sivadas(1997) suggested that income is better than socialclass in predicting leisure and recreationalactivities.

However, this conclusion related only to thecriteria of usage/non-usage, while social class wasof more significance when observing frequency ofusage or purchase. Slocum and Matthews (1970 and1972) updated an earlier study and conclude thatincome was at least as important as social class inpredicting type of credit card usage, i.e. thatneither variable was superior. Another study (Keiser,Kuehl 1972) also shows that both variables, incomeand social class, are positively related to brandidentification. Namely, adolescents with highearnings and in the upper class were able to identifymore brands than other adolescents. A verycomprehensive and valuable research was conducted bySchaninger (1981) in the analysis of both usage/non-usage criteria as well as frequency of use data for alarge variety of products. In his study, he came tothe following conclusions: (1) Income is moreimportant than social class in explaining the

6 Both studies only examined the presence of various products onhand.

81


consumption of low social value products and servicesthat are not related to class symbols7, but requiresubstantial expenditures (major kitchen and laundryappliances and recreational vehicles). Income alsobetter determines the purchase frequency for softdrinks, mixers and distilled alcohol, i.e. alcoholicbeverages; (2) Social class8 is a better predictorthan income in areas that do not involve high dollarexpenditures, but reflect an underlying lifestyle,values, (e.g. concern with health and body, drinkingimported and domestic wines) or homemaker roledifferences, not captured by income. Furthermore,social class is superior for understanding thepurchase of highly visible, symbolic, and expensivegoods, such as living room furniture9; and (3) Thecombination of social class and income is generallysuperior for highly visible products that requiremoderate or substantial expenditure and also serve asclass-linked symbols (clothing, automobiles,television sets).10 Contemporary marketing and7 This conclusion is contrary to Coleman's findings (1960 inSchaninger). Zaltman and Wallendorf (1979 in Schaninger) proposedthat income would be superior to social class for inconspicuousproducts bought for in-home use. 8 When classifying individuals into social-class groupings,Schaninger, like most of the other researchers, used theHollingshead Index of Social Position, based on two basicsocioeconomic variables: occupation and education. 9 This is in line with Coleman's (1960 in Schaninger,1981)empirical evidence.10 Peter's (1970) relative occupational class income concept hasenhanced the ability of social class to predict selectconsumption phenomena. Further more, some research studies foundthat relative class income represented an important determinantof buying behavior for coffee (Klippel and Monoky, 1974 premaDawson et al., 1990) and retail store selection (Dawson et al.,82


versus income

consumer behavior literature often refers to theresults of Schaninger's study and generalizes thepresented conclusions.

Since the beginning, that is the mid ’80s, theempirical interest for the issues and debates onsocial class vs. income weakens, with the exceptionof only a few, less comprehensive studies on thissubject (e.g. Tomlinson et al., 199311, Sivadas, 1997and Williams, 200212).

One can conclude that since the phenomena ofsocial class in marketing became a subject of study,most research studies have considered this categoryfar more than income. Despite many doubts andcritical attitudes of certain authors and researcherson the practical usefulness of social class forexplaining and predicting the consumption phenomena,there are many papers and research studies that implythat behavioral patterns, purchasing motives andconsumption of certain products and services differsignificantly in relation to social classaffiliation13.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1990).11 Tomlinson and colleagues (1993) found that class gives a morepowerful prediction of food consumption than income. 12 Social class did relate to a greater number of criteria thanincome. However, a far greater number of significantrelationships were observed when relative class income wasemployed (Williams, 2002). 13 More on this in Mihić (2005).

83


The purpose and goal of this paper is to determinewhich of the two analyzed concepts - social class orincome - has a greater influence on buyers' behaviorin Croatian consumers, i.e. their consumption ofcertain products and services.

3.1. Sample, data collection and research hypothesis

Empirical research was carried out on the sampleof 270 respondents in the two largest Croatian cities- Zagreb and Split. In the selection of sample units,the convenience sample was used, which has taken intoaccount the fundamental characteristics important forthe research. Therefore, the sample includedrespondents of various occupations, education andincome levels. The research was carried out inFebruary 2004. Survey methodology was used to collectdata.

The questionnaire consisted of 22 questions, ofwhich 19 referred to the preferences and behavior ineating, clothing and buying durable or prestige goodsand services (apartments, cars, boats, lifeinsurance, and holidays). The last three questionsreferred to the respondents' (and their household)characteristics. The intent was to encompass thoseproduct and service categories, the consumption ofwhich can establish differences in the buyer behaviorof members of different social classes. Not only werethe usage and possession of a product analyzed, butalso the type of the consumed product, the importanceof certain criteria when choosing and purchasing theproduct, and the usage frequency. The questions used84


versus income

were structured as multiple choice questions. Basedon theoretical postulates, issues researched anddetermined goals, three hypotheses were set:

H1: Social class, in general, has a greater influenceon the consumption of most products than income.

H2: Social class better explains consumer preferencesand buyer behavior with products that reflectlifestyle values (e.g. macrobiotic nutrition,wine, etc.), highly visible and more expensiveproducts associated with class symbols (clothing,automobiles, etc.) and food products, excludingfish.

H3: Income is a better predictor with products of alower social significance, i.e. inconspicuousproducts of higher expenditure, such as alcoholicbeverages (spirits), certain fish types, and life-insurance policies.

3.2. The respondents' segmentation according to social class and income categories

Every respondent, based on his/her socio-economic characteristics, has been assigned to: (1) one of thethree social class groups, and (2) one of the three income groups.

Social Class Groups

For the classification of respondents into socialclasses, we used a modified Index of Social Position

85


(ISP)14 formed by three determinants: occupation,education and income. The largest weight (4) wasgiven to occupation, as the most importantdeterminant of the social class, while education andincome were given the same weight (3). Eachrespondent was accordingly given a certain number ofpoints which classified him/her as a member of one ofthree classes (upper, middle, and lower). Tocalculate the index, we used the following formula: ISP score = (Occupation score x 4) + (Education score x 3) + (Income score x

3)

Table 1 shows the social position determinants andtheir correspondent values, while Table 2 presents the classification system and social class scores.

Income Groups

Income information is obtained by asking therespondent to which of the 10 income groups his/herfamily belongs (see Table 1); this is based upontotal family income for the previous month15.

Table 1. Social Position Determinants (Scales) and Correspondent Values

14 Unlike the original Hollingshead's Index of Social Position,which comprises two determinants (occupation and education),this also includes a third determinant (household income) asthe essential component of social class. The items ofdeterminants were adapted to the circumstances in Croatiansociety.

15 When observing income, the question that arises is which incometo measure. This paper used the category of family income sinceit is the category that most authors and researchers use.Besides, family income reflects the purchasing power and behaviorof individual consumers better than individual income. 86


versus income

Occupation Scale (Weight of 4)Description ScoreUnemployed; housekeepers 10Students 9Pensioners; 8Machine operators and semiskilled employees; employed in marginal semi-skilled and unskilled jobs

7

Skilled employees - workers in manufacturing, retailing, catering and service industries; bus and truck drivers, police and firefighters, etc.

6

Administrative personnel (office workers), technicians and similar occupations

5

Public school teachers, engineers, freelancers 4Middle management, owners of small businesses, governmentofficials, moderately-successful professionals

3

Higher level business executives or managers, owners of middle-sized businesses (10-20 employees), successful professionals

2

Government top officials, top corporate executives, leading-prominent professionals, “rich” business owners (large business owners)

1

Education Scale (Weight of 3)Description ScoreNo education 10Incomplete elementary school

9Elementary school

8Skilled worker

7Secondary education

6Highly skilled worker

5College degree

4University degree

3Specialist

87


2Master, PhD

1

Income Scale (Weight of 3) Description ScoreUp to 1000 KN 10Up to 2000 KN

9Up to 3000 KN

8Up to 4000 KN

7Up to 6000 KN

6Up to 8000 KN

5Up to 10000 KN

4Up to 13000 KN

3Up to 16000 KN

2More than 16000 KN

1

Table 2. Social Class Classification System16 (respondents as members of a social class)

Social Strata Range ofScores

No. ofRespondents

% ofRespondents

Upper andUpper-middle

10-27 51 19.0

Middle 28-60 147 54.0Lower-middle 61-100 72 27.0

16 To make the analysis more operative and simple and for easyreference, three-way classification (upper, middle, and lower) isused by including the upper-middle class to the upper class,while the middle class includes both middle and working class. 88


versus income

and LowerTotal - 270 100.0

Based on points assigned to each group,respondents were classified in one of the three basicincome (Table 3) groups, comparable to previoussocial class groups.

Table 3. Household Income Classification System(respondents as members of income class)Income Groups No. of

Respondents% of

RespondentsUpper (more than 13000 Kn)Middle (up to 13000 Kn)Lower (up to 6000 Kn)

6012585

22.246.331.5

Total 270 100.0

3.3. Data analysis

A statistical package, Statistica 7, was used fordata processing and analysis. To estimate if therelationship between two variables is statisticallysignificant, Chi-square was used. Namely, in order todetermine whether and to which extent the twoanalyzed variables (social class and income) affectthe buying behavior and thus also productconsumption, the chi-square test was calculated foreach one of them. By null-hypothesis, it was assumedthat there is no difference in the behavior orconsumption of the three groups of consumers (membersof a social or income class). However, there is a

89


problem when comparing significance because, strictlyspeaking, the calculated chi-square values cannot bedirectly compared in order to determine whethersocial class or income is most closely related toproduct consumption, or whether the differencebetween the two observed 2 values (above thedetermined significance level) is statisticallyrelevant. On the other hand, the chi-squarecalculations for both social class and income camefrom contingency tables, with the same number ofcategories and almost exactly the same number ofcases in each category. Hence, based on the 2 value,it is, after all, possible to make comparisons anddetermine which category – social class or income –has more bearing on buying behavior, i.e., which ofthem better explains the purchase and consumption ofcertain products.

4. RESEARCH RESULTS

Table 4 shows the chi-square values for socialclass and income groups for certainproducts/services. Tables that contain respondents'answers for every individual product-case, in termsof the variables observed, are too voluminous topresent here and are not necessary for the aim ofthis paper or the issue it deals with.

Results presented in Table 4 show that both socialclass and income have a considerable influence onbuyers' behavior. Namely, the values of the chi-square test show that respondents' answers, in termsof the consumption or usage of all product/servicecategories we tested, significantly differ based on90


versus income

their social class affiliation. The same goes forincome, with the exception of the «connection»between income and consumption of macrobiotic food,which at a 0.01 significance level appears to be ofno relevance.

Out of 19 analyzed product/service cases, socialclass is superior in seven of them: macrobiotic food,types of consumed meat, choice of buying criteria forclothing, automobile ownership, frequency of theatervisits, housing arrangements and importance offurniture design. In these cases, there are majordifferences in chi-square values or relevancies basedon significance levels.

It could also be said that social class, comparedto income, also better explains the consumption offast food since the difference in respondents'opinions related to their social class is significantat a level of p<0,005, while there is no suchdifference related to income. On the other hand,income better explains the consumption and buyingbehavior with four items out of the analyzed 19 (typeof consumed fish, consumption of alcoholic drinks,frequency of restaurant visits, life and otherinsurance payments). In the remaining seven cases(quantity of meat or fish in daily nutrition, type ofconsumed wine, importance of clothing brands inpurchasing decisions, fashion style, boat ownership,skiing and summer holidays), there are no majordifferences in chi-square values related to socialclass and income categories.

91


Table 4. Chi-square values for social class andincome groups

Category Social Class 2

IncomeClass 2

Food and beveragesConsumption of macrobiotic foodConsumption of fast food Meat and fish in daily dietMost frequently consumed sort of meatMost frequently consumed sort of fishMost frequently consumed sorts ofwineConsumption of alcoholic drinks

ClothingMost important criteria in purchasing clothing Importance of clothing brand in purchasing decisionsFashion style

Durable goodsCar ownershipBoat ownership

Various types of services ( catering,entertainment, finance)

Visits to restaurantsFrequency of theatre visitsPayment of life insurance and other kinds of additional insurance

15,764** 12,964* 48,693** 69,713** 93,559** 125,274** 20,470*

123,159** 166,719**

163,756**

8,764

10,138*

56,574**

47,083**

135,568**

122,563**

33,011**

87,527**

167,129**

92


versus income

OtherHousing status Importance of furniture design when setting up house or apartment Skiing holidays Summer holiday accommodation

61,311** 52,601**

106,027** 102,628** 35,803**

43,607** 161,850**

124,989** 171,195**

167,584**

21,647**

58,268**

157,384**

86,562**

55,591**

22,328**

135,914**

116,225**

182,33

93


0**

* significant at p<0.01** significant at p<0,0005

In cases where the differences in respondents'answers were greater in relation to social class orincome group affiliation, it would be interesting tospecify the source of these differences. For example,members of a higher social class consume moremacrobiotic food than the respondents of the upperincome groups. With fast-food, it is quite theopposite; lower income families consume more fastfood than lower social class families. When lookingat types of meat, members of a higher social classcompared to higher income groups, eat more lamb andless chicken. When choosing and purchasing clothes,lower social class groups give more consideration toprice and less to quality, compared to lower incomegroups. While all the respondents of the highersocial class are car owners, that is the case withonly 13.33% of the respondents of a higher incomegroup. Contrary to this, there are more car owners inlower income groups than is the case with the lowersocial class.

Higher social class members more frequently attendthe theater than do members of the lower socialclass, which can be attributed to the influence ofeducation and level of interest for this type ofservice. Looking at housing and comparing socialclass to income, there are more apartment owners

94


versus income

among those who belong to the higher social classthan there are subtenants or those still living withtheir parents. Finally, consumers belonging to thehigher social class pay more importance to furnituredesign than do those coming from higher incomegroups.

In cases where income is more dominant compared tosocial class, the different sources can be foundwhile observing the behavior and consumption of lowerand middle class members. For example, members of themiddle income group eat pilchard less than those ofthe middle social class. Contrary to this,respondents belonging to the higher and lowercategories of income consume more of this fish thanthose of the higher and lower social classes.Furthermore, members of the lower income groupcompared to those from a lower social class, consumeless of the national and well-known brands ofalcoholic drinks and more of the less familiarbrands. Contrary to this is the behavior of middleincome group consumers compared to middle socialclass consumers. Respondents from a lower incomecategory do not go to restaurants as much or as oftenas those from a lower social class. Similarly, middleincome category members compared to members of theirrespective social class group go to restaurants lessfrequently. Finally, there are more consumersbelonging to the middle income category compared tothe middle social class group buying life insurancepolicies or other types of insurance policies. Whencomparing lower income to lower social class groups,those who get insurance policies are fewer in thelower income group.

95


5. CONCLUSION AND MARKETING IMPLICATIONS

The results of the research confirm the H1 and H3

starting hypotheses. Since social class was proven tobe more significant in eight of the analyzedproducts/cases, and income in four products/cases, wecan accept hypothesis H1 which says that social classcompared to income has a greater influence over theconsumption and purchase of a greater number ofproducts. Furthermore, the research has shown thatincome better explains buying habits and behavior,with less visible (inconspicuous) products associatedwith significant expenditures (alcoholic drinks,life and other insurance policies, type of fishconsumed17), based on which hypothesis H3 is accepted.

It is necessary to point out that the differencesare more emphasized in members belonging to lower andmiddle social classes than those from the higherclass. Out of the 16 purchasing situations/cases,where the superiority of social class over income wasexpected, social class did prove to be a moreimportant indicator in eight of them (e.g., theaterattendance, macrobiotic nutrition, importance offurniture design, etc.). It is interesting to notethat with some "prestigious" products/services suchas skiing trips or summer vacations, social class andincome had a similar influence over the purchasing17 The greater influence of income in fish consumption can beexplained by considerably higher prices of better quality fish,like gilthead. On the other hand, pilchard is accessible to awider circle of society considering their price. 96


versus income

decisions, while the frequency of restaurant visitsis more influenced by income. Considering thementioned examples, hypothesis H2 can be partlyaccepted.

Reasons for the similar influence of social classand income, with a great number of products/servicesand results that differ from previous researches andexpectations in terms of frequency of restaurantvisits, wine consumption, etc., lay in theparticularities of Croatian society, where socialclass is mostly identified by income and incomesignificantly determines the purchasing structure andhabits and is, thus, in the case of the lower socialclass, quite a limiting factor.

Since members of different social classes inincome categories differ significantly in theirbuying preferences and behavior with all analyzedtypes of products/services18 (even the consumption ofmacrobiotic food considering income level, differs ata significance of p<0,05), it is reasonable toconclude that both variables present valuablecriteria for market segmentation. Namely, consumersbelonging to a particular social class and incomecategory undoubtedly significantly determine theirbuying habits, preferences, and eventual buyingbehavior and consumption structure. Which will bemore influential and, in the analysis of buyerbehavior, more valuable depends on a specificsituation, i.e. type of product or service.18 With the "rise" of social class and income, the demand forquality and more expensive food and wines, restaurant visits,theatre attendance, skiing trips, etc. also rises.

97


Therefore, one might argue that, instead of debatingover the superiority of one of the two variablesobserved, it would be more useful to determine typesof products/services, the purchase of which is moreinfluenced by income, i.e. social class.

The established class distinctions suggest thatconsumers of different social classes and incomegroups require separate marketing programs andstrategies in terms of product and servicedevelopment as well as advertising and communication.This enables producers to create different productlines meant for different social classes. The samecan be said for the type of product or service. Thus,for instance, upper class is a good market for realestate, prestigious cars, designer clothes, foreignwines, unusual holidays, expensive hobbies, poshrestaurants, etc. Furthermore, advertising messagescould be designed to appeal to various social andincome classes. For example, the promotional messagesdirected to the upper class and income groupconsumers have to stress status, style, taste,sophistication and what one can do with the productto express him/herself.

Class differences can also be useful whendetermining company positioning strategies. To bepositioned in the best possible way, manufacturersand retailers need to be informed about the classmembership of their target market and its needs,wants, purchasing motives and requirements in termsof product features and benefits.

98


versus income

REFERENCES

1. Blackwell, D. R. Miniard, P. W. Engel, J. F.(2001): Consumer Behavior, Forth Worth,Philadelphia: Harcourt College Publishers

2. Comor, E. (2000): Household consumption on theInternet: Income, time and institutionalcontradictions, Journal of Economic Issues, 34;pp. 105-111.

3. Curtis, W. H. (1972): Social Class or Income?,Journal of Marketing, 36, No 1; pp. 67-68.

4. Dawson, S., Wallendorf, M. (1985): AssociationalInvolvement: An Intervening Concept Between SocialClass and Patronage Behavior, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol 12; pp. 586-591.

5. Dawson, S., Stern, B., Gillpatrick, T. (1990):An Empirical Update and Extension of PatronageBehaviors Across the Social Class Hierarchy,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 17; pp. 833-838.

6. Dubois, B., Duquesne, P. (1993): The Market ofLuxury Goods: Income versus Culture, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 1; pp. 35-44.

7. Fisher, J. E. (1987): Social Class and ConsumerBehavior: The Relevance of Class and Status,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 14; pp. 492-496.

8. Hawkins, D. I., Best R. J., Kenneth A. C. (1992):Consumer Behavior: Implications for MarketingStrategy, Homewood, Boston: Irwin

9. Holt, B. D. (1998): Social Class and Consumption:Challenging Postmodern Images, Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 25; pp. 219-220.

99


10. Hoyer, W. D., Maclnnis D. J. (2001): ConsumerBehavior, Boston, New York: Houghton MifflinCompany

11. Hugstad, P. S. (1981): A Reexamination of theConcept of Privilege Groups, Academy of MarketingScience, 9, No 4; pp. 399-408.

12. Keiser, K. S. and Kuehl, P. G. (1972): SocialClass and Income Influences on External SearchProcesses of Adolescents, Proceedings of the ThirdAnnual Conference of the Association for ConsumerResearch, 1972; pp. 602-631.

13. Kesić, T. (1999): Ponašanje potrošača, Zagreb:ADECO

14. Mathews, H. L. Slocum, J. S. Jr. (1972): ARejoinder to Social Class or Income?, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 36, No 1; pp. 69-70.

15. May, F. E. (1971): The Effect of Social Class onBrand Loyalty, California Management Review, 14;pp. 81-87.

16. Mihić, M. (2005): Consumers' Social Class as theStarting Point for Creation of EnterpriseMarketing Strategy – Empirical Research, in: 6thInternational Conference on Enterprise inTransition, Proceedings, University of Split,Faculty of Economics, Split-Bol, May 26-28, 2005,pp. 108-110.

17. Myers, J. H. Stanton, R. R. and Haug, A. F.(1971): Correlates of Buying Behavior: SocialClass vs. Income, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35,No 4; pp. 8–16.

18. Page, Ch., Ridgway, N. (2001): The impact ofconsumer environments on consumption patterns ofchildren from disparate socioeconomic backgrounds,

100


versus income

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No 1; pp.21-40.

19. Peter, J. P., Olson, J. C. (1999): ConsumerBehavior, Homewood: Irwin

20. Peters, W. H. (1970): Relative OccupationalClass income: A Significant Variable in theMarketing of Automobiles, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 34, No 2; pp. 74–77.

21. Schaninger, C. M. (1981): Social Class VersusIncome Revisited: An Empirical Investigation,Journal of Marketing Research, May 1981; 18; pp.192-208.

22. Schiffman, L. G., Kanuk L. L. (2004): ConsumerBehavior, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: PearsonPrentice Hall

23. Shimp, T. A., Yokum, J. T. (1981): Extensions ofthe Basic Social Class Model Employed in ConsumerResearch. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 8;pp. 702-707.

24. Sivadas, E. A. (1997): A preliminary examinationof the continuing significance of social class tomarketing: a geodemographic replication, Journalof Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14, No 6; pp. 463-479.

25. Slocum, Jr. John W., Mathews, H. L. (1970):Social Class and Income as Indicators of ConsumerCredit Behavior, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, No2; pp. 69–74.

26. Tomlinson, M., Warde, A. (1993): Social classand change in eating habits, British Food Journal,95; pp. 3-7.

27. Tomlinson, M. (1994): Do Distinct ClassPreferences for Foods Exist?: An Analysis ofClass-based Tastes, British Food Journal, Vol. 96,No 7; pp. 11-17.

101


28. Williams, C. C. (2001): Acquiring goods andservices in lower income populations: anevaluation of consumer behaviour and preferences,International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement, Vol. 29, No 1; pp. 16 – 24.

29. Williams, T. G. (2002): Social class influenceson purchase evaluation criteria, Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 19, No 3; pp. 249 – 276.

PONAŠANJE U KUPNJI I POTROŠNJA: DRUŠTVENA GRUPA NASPRAMDOHOTKA

Sažetak

Teorijski dio rada razmatra značaj društvene grupe idohotka u razumijevanju potrošnje i kupovnog ponašanja,zasnovan na prethodnim istraživanjima. Empirijski dioprikazuje metodologiju istraživanja i rezultate. Cilj jeutvrditi koji od dva analizirana koncepta – društvena grupaili dohodak – ima više utjecaja na ponašanje u kupnji ipotrošnji određenih proizvoda/usluga. Istraživanje jeprovedeno na uzorku od 270 ispitanika. Držeći na umuciljeve istraživanja, postavljene su tri hipoteze.Rezultati su potvrdili dvije u potpunosti i jednudjelomično, pokazujući kako društvena grupa i dohodakznačajno utječu na ponašanje u kupnji. Među 19 analiziranihslučajeva, društvena grupa pokazala se značajnijom u njihosam, a dohodak u četiri. Istraživanje je pokazalo dadohodak bolje objašnjava kupovne navike i ponašanje kodmanje vidljivih proizvoda sa značajnim izdatcima, dok jedruštvena grupa značajnija kod proizvoda koji odražavajuživotni stil, vidljivijim i skupim proizvodima povezanim sdruštvenim statusom. Budući da se članovi različitihdruštvenih grupa i kategorija dohotka značajno razlikuju u

102


versus income

kupovnim preferencijama kod svih analiziranihproizvoda/usluga, može se zaključiti da obje varijable,ovisno o specifičnoj situaciji i vrsti proizvoda/usluge,čine važan kriterij tržišne segmentacije.

103

BUYING BEHAVIOR AND CONSUMPTION: SOCIAL CLASS ...

Documents

Transcript of BUYING BEHAVIOR AND CONSUMPTION: SOCIAL CLASS ...