As global populationsbecomeincreasinglydiverseandmarketing efforts span countriesand cultures,academicsand practitionersseekto understandbetterhow social con-text and inthvidual characteristicsjointly influence con-sumerresponseto marketingefforts.Recentwork usingdis-tinctivenesstheory (McGuire 1984) lends insight into thisissue by demonstratingthat the prevalenceof consumers’group membershipwithin a social contextinfluencestheirresponsivenessto marketingefforts that featurespokespeo-pie of thesamegroup (Aaker,Brumbaugh,andGrier 2000;Deshpandéand Stayman 1994; Grier and Brumbaugh1999). In particular,minority consumersin a given socialcontextrespondmore favorably to advertisementstargetedtoward their minority status than majority consumersdo.Theseresults imply that the numericcompositionof con-sumers’social context influences the importanceof theirgroup membershipand their responseto group-targetedadvertising.Deshpand~andStayman(1994,p. 63) conclude

*Sonya A. Crier is Assistant Protessor of Marketing,Graduate School ofBusiness, Stanford University (e-mail: grier_sonya@gsb.stanford.edu).Rohit Deshpand~is Sebastian S. Kresge Professor of Marketing, HarvardBusiness School (e-mail: rdeshpande@hbs.edu). The authors thank the twoanonymous JMR reviewers for their beneficial suggestions, AnneBrumbaugh and Ewart Thomas for statistical advice, and Karin Turner forresearch assistance. The authoi~also appreciate the assistance of BarbiBraude, Sandy Bunjwa, Cheryl de Ia Key, Gilijan Finchelescu, MuziKuzwayo. Sizakele Maratatlule, Amy Marks, Ramsey Molosiwa, and AlfNgalalurno in South Africa.

that the common practiceof usingethnicspokespeopleinadvertisementsworksonly in a socialenvironmentin whichtheethnicgroupis truly in a proportionalminority.

However,a focuson socialcontextalsoraisesthe issueofwhetherproportional minority statusis the only way tointerpretobserveddistinctivenesseffects.Social groupsdif-fer On many dimensionsother than numericprevalenceinsociety. Therefore, it is unlikely that numeric minority!majority status tells marketersall they need to know tounderstandwhatleadsaconsumertofeeldistinctivebecauseof a particulargroup identity. However, the influenceof agroup’s numeric statushas been empirically confoundedwith othersociocontextualfactors,suchasthegroup’ssocialstatusandeconomicpower, in prior research.Thus, whenmarketersanticipatethe effects of distinctivenesson con-sumers’ethnicsalienceandmarketbehavior,theyareunsureof the source of theseeffects. This underspecificationofwhat drives observedeffects constrainsthe ability of dis-tinctivenesstheoryto explainconsumerresponsesin diversemarkets.Scholarshavelong arguedfor clearerdistinctionsbetweena minority groupin a numericalsenseandaminor-ity group in a socioculturalsense(Abrams, Thomas,andHogg 1990; Moscovisi 1975; Oakes 1987; Tajfel 1981).Furtherinsight into therelativeinfluenceof numeric versussocial statuson consumerdistinctivenessimprovesthe useof distinctivenesstheoryand the theoretical understandingof the role of social context on consumerbehavior.From apractical standpoint,such knowledgeappearsnecessaryasmarketersconfrontdynamicmarketswith changingethnic

Journal t~fMarketing ResearchVol. XXXVII1 (May 2001). 216—224

SONYAA. GRIER and ROHJT DESHPANDE*

Consumer research using distinctiveness theory implies that targetedadvertisements are most effective in contexts in which the targeted groupis a numeric minority. The authors investigate the influence of groupsocial status in addition to numeric status in a study of South African con-sumers. Results demonstrate that when social dimensions are incorpo-rated, targeted advertisements can be effective even in contexts in whichthe targeted group is a numeric majority. Results also illustrate how con-sumer distinctiveness may exist at multiple levels of analysis. Theauthorsdiscuss the implications of the results for understanding the influence ofsocial context on consumer distinctiveness and responses to targeted

marketing efforts.

Social Dimensions of ConsumerDistinctiveness: The Influence of SocialStatus on Group Identity and AdvertisingPersuasion

216

Social Dimensions of Consumer Distinctiveness 217

compositions.In the following sections,we describeourtheory, outline theresearchmethod,anddescribeempiricalevidence.In conclusion,wediscussthetheoreticalandprac-tical implicationsof the results for understandingthe influ-enceof social contexton consumers’felt distinctivenessandtheir responsesto marketingefforts.

BACKGROUND

DistinctivenessTheoryandConsumerResearch

The central predictionof distinctivenesstheory is that aperson’sdistinctive traits in relation to otherpeoplein theenvironmentwill be moresalient to the personthan morecommon traits (McGuire 1984; McGuire and McGuire1979, 1981;McGuire, McGuireet al. 1978).Therefore,forexample,a person’sethnicity is more likely to be sponta-neously evokedin social contexts in which othersof thesameethnic group are few.t The distinctivenesspostulaterecentlyhasbeenappliedto consumerbehaviorcontextsandsupportsthe notion that numeric minorities respondmorefavorably to marketingefforts designedto resonatewiththeirdistinctivecharacteristics.Thisresearchhas found thatconsumerdistinctivenessresultsin a heightenedsensitivityto targetingefforts, more identification with and trust of asimilarsource,andincreasedfavorability towardthe adver-tisementand brand (Aaker, Brumbaugh,and Crier 2000;Deshpand~and Stayman 1994; Forehandand Deshpandd2001;Grier andBrumbaugh1999;cf. Wooten 1995).Thisrecentwork is consistentwith a larger body of consumerresearchfocusedon spokespersonethnicity effects,whichhasdemonstratedmorefavorableattitudestowardethnicallycongruentstimuli among numericethnic minorities (for areview,seeWhittier 1991).We proposethat socialdimen-sionsof distinctivenessalso serveas a significant factor inobservedconsumerdistinctivenesseffects,andwe developthis propositionin detail subsequently.

SocialDimensionsofDistinctiveness

Distinctivenesstheoryimplies that contextinfluencesthesalienceof an individual characteristicsuchasethnicity byinducing differential self-attention to the characteristic.McGuire (1984)arguesthat the social context providesareferencegroup that is usedas the standardagainstwhichpeoplecomparetheir characteristicsto know that they arepeculiaror distinctive. Much of McGuire and colleagues’(1978)original researcl~ondistinctivenessexaminesthe roleof immediate contexts in heightening the spontaneoussalienceof a demographicor physical characteristic.Forexample,McGuireandcolleagues(1978) find thatnumericminority Hispanicandblackstudentsaresignificantly morelikely to mention their ethnicity in describing themselvesthan numericallypredominantwhite studentsin a U.S.gradeschool. The immediate context, the student’s classroom,provideda referent in the form of theotherpeoplepresentand their characteristics.Observedconsumerdistinctivenesseffectsimply that a referencegroup is evokedby an imme-diate referentsuchasthe specificadvertisingmediacontext(ForehandandDeshpandd2001)andbroadersocialcontexts

at the level of thecity (DeshpanddandStayman1994)or thenation (Aaker, Brumbaugh, and Grier 2000; Grier andBrumbaugh 1999).

McGuire andMcGuire (1981)also describechronic dis-tinctivenessand hypothesizethat acharacteristicsuchas eth-nicity becomespersistentlysalient to the self-conceptif theotherpeoplein a person’sreferencegroup are continuouslydifferentfrom thepersonon agivencharacteristic.Forexam-ple,McGuireandMcGuire (1979)demonstratehighergendersalienceamongchildrenwho were in thegenderminority intheirfamily, a habitualreferencegroup.Suchchronicdistinc-tivenessmay underlietheobservedconsumerdistinctivenesseffects that are conceptualizedwith referenceto broadcon-texts such as nation. McGuire and McGuire’s notion ofchronicdistinctivenessalso suggestsenduringpsychologicaleffects for consumersbasedon factors beyond numbers.McGuireand McGuire (1979,p. 518) note that “the salienceofethnicity will beaffectedby manyotherfactorsbesidesdis-tinctivenesssuchas its social desirability,cultural relevanceandso forth:’ Similarly, otherscholarshavearguedhow themeaningattachedto beingin theminority, ratherthanrelativenumbers,createsthe increasedsalienceof a categorythat isassociatedwith distinctivc:~ess(Abrams,Thomas,and Hogg1990; Cakes 1987;Smith 1991;Tajfel 1981). This line ofresearchimplies that theeffectsof numericgroupcomposi-tioncannotbefully understoodif theyareconsideredwithoutreferenceto correspondingbeliefsystems.

Therefore,we formally proposethat social distinctive-ness—thatis, a person’sperceptionof the relativemeaningand value of an individual characteristicin a social con-text—influencestheimportanceof thedimensionto the per-son’s self-concept.The meaningof ethnicgroup member-shipacquiressignificancein relation to othergroups withina givencontext,so ethnicity drivesself-attentionbecauseofcommon group experiences and beliefs. Therefore,increasedethnic salienceshould be evoked not only bynumericdistinctivenessbut also by factorsthatcreatefeel-ings of being socially distinctive.As a result, responsestotargetedadvertisementsbasedon numericminority/majoritystatusshouldvary with differentsociocontextualdynamics.

SocialStatusasa DimensionofSocialDistinctiveness

Social statusis onedimensionof a social contextthat islikely to influence consumers’feelings of distinctivenessand their advertisingresponse.In general,statusrefersto aposition in a social system.For example,socialclassesareconsumersegmentsbasedon statusstructuresina particularsociety(for a review, seeColeman1983).Ourapproachtosocialstatusinvolvesconsumers’perceptionsof therelativeposition of groupsin societybasedon aparticularcharac-teristic—forexample,ethnicity.A characteristicsuchaseth-nicity acquiresrelativestatusvalue throughstructuralchar-acteristicsandconsensualcultural beliefs that indicate thatonestateof thecharacteristicis moreworthy in society thananother state of the characteristic (Ridgeway 1991;RidgewayandBalkwell 1997).We proposethat suchvaria-tions in perceivedsocial statusinfluenceconsumerdistinc-tivenessin two ways: throughstatusdeficit and statusdif-ference.If social statusperceptionsindicate that onegroupis moreworthy, it is likely thatthis group becomesthesoci-etalreferent,and “deviants”(i.e., thosewith a statusdeficit)should have heighteneddistinctiveness.Prior research

tTo follow the work by Deshpandd and Stayrnan (1994) conceptually,throughout this article, we use the terms “ethnic” and “racial” interchange-ably, though they have distinctive meanings. Ethnic group membershipincludes race but is not limited to this factor alone (e.g.. Smith 1991).

218 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2001

demonstratesthat having a characteristicthat differs fromthe norm,especiallyin a less valueddirection, renderspeo-ple more mindful and self-conscious,which increasestheinfluence of that characteristicon their behavior(Frable,Blackstone,andScherbaum1990;Goffman 1963;Wooten1995).Therefore,weexpectto observechronic distinctive-nessamongmembersof groupswho perceivethemselvesaslower in social status.

We also reason that the relative differenceof groups’socialstatusis importantsuchthat larger gapsin perceivedsocial statusbetweengroupsalso promptsthe heightenedsaliencethat is associatedwith consumerdistinctiveness.Statussystemsareinstitutionsthat lessenperceivedsimilar-ity betweengroups (Festinger1954)and thusmay providethesenseof separatenessandclarity thatdifferentiatessocialgroups and is positively relatedto salience(Oakes 1987;Rosch 1978).Specifically,peoplewho perceivelarger rela-tive statusdifferencesbetweengroups should havehighersalienceof their group membershipthan do thosewho seelessof a differencebetweengroups.Takentogether,priorresearchsupportsour contentionthat relativesocial statusdifferencesbetweengroupscontributeto consumerdistinc-tivenessby increasingtheimportanceof groupmembership.

HYPOTHESES

Werepresentour conceptualideasandspecific hypothe-sesasan overall model,which is shown in Figure 1. As inpriorresearch,weproposethat the numericstatusof aneth-nic group in a particularsituation affectsethnic salience.

Specifically, becauseof the rarity of their ethnic trait,numericminoritiesshould havehigherethnicsalience.Wealso contend that considering social dimensionswillincreasetheexplanatoryvalueof distinctivenesstheory.2 Inparticular, we hypothesizethat consumerswho seelargersocial statusdifferencesbetweentheir group and anothergroup will havestrongerethnicsalience,regardlessof theirnumeric minority/majority status.Furthermore,consumerswith a statusdeficit shouldalso havehigherethnicsaliencebecauseof chronicdistinctiveness.Finally, the heightenedethnicsalienceof distinctiveconsumersshouldmoderatetheinfluenceofspokespersonethnicityon consumers’attitudestowardthe brand.3Ourspecific hypothesesareas follows:

H1: Consumersliving in a social context in which their ethnicgroupis a numericminority will havehigherethnicsaliencethanmembersof a numericethnicmajority.

Zit is also possible that social and numeric distinctiveness interact.Because no research has empirically explored social dimensions of con-sumner distinctiveness or the relationship ofsocial status to identity and per-suasion, we first investigate the general hypothesis that social status, as anindicator of social distinctiveness, will significantly contribute to a con-sumer’s ethnic salience and advertising response.3Our focus in this article is on assessing the value of adding socialdimensions ofdistinctiveness to the usefulness ofdistinctiveness theory forcdnsumer research. Because the theoretical underpinnings for the basicrelationships between ethnic salience and brand attitudes have been dis-cussed in prior research (e.g., Deshpandd and Stayman 1994), they are notrepeated here.

Figure 1PROPOSED MODEL OF CONSUMER DISTINCTIVENESS ON ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS

4~~

EthnicSalience

Social Dimensionsof ConsumerDistinctiveness 219

H2: Consumers who perceive higher relative social status differ-ences between their ethnic group and anotherethnic groupwill havehigher ethnic saliencethan consumers who per-ceive less of a difference in re~lativegroup status, regardlessof their numeric status.

H3: Consumerswho perceive that their group has lower socialstatus relativeto another group will have higher ethnic iden-tity salience than those who perceive their group as higher insocial status, regardless of their numeric status.

H4: Both numeric and social distinctiveness will significantlypredict consumers’ ethnic salience.

H5: A model that includes both numeric distinctiveness andsocial distinctiveness will predict ethnic salience better thana model that includes solely numeric distinctiveness.

H6: An increase (decrease) in ethnic salience will increase(decrease) the influence of spokesperson ethnicity on brandattitudes—that is, lead to an increase (decrease) in positiveattitudes toward the advertised brand.

ResearchContext

METHOD

SouthAfrica was selectedas a natural context for theempirical investigation becausesocial Statusand numeric°tatusarenegativelycorrelated.In mostsocietieswhereeth-nic differencesemerge,it is usually in thecontext of rela-tions betweena white numericalmajority, which also hasgreaterpower,andethnicminorities that are perceivedto bedifferent and unequal(Schutte 1995). However, in SouthAfrica thewhite minoritywields thebulk of socioeconomicpower.This power, until the currentdecade,had beensafe-guardedwithin the lawsandpoliciesof theconstitutionandcountry. SouthAfrica is composedof amultitude of ethnicgroups;however,as a cornerstoneof theapartheidsystem,four key categoriesdefinedthe populationin termsof race:4

Africans/Blacks(75%), Asians (3%), Coloured (9%), andWhites (13%). The apartheid ideology institutionalizedgroup differences,which circumscribedthe total patternofeveryperson’slife andstill existsin everydayconsciousnessas a historical legacy (Adam 1995;FosterandFinchilescu1986).Furthermore,SouthAfrica representsa microcosmofmajor global trends,and this “laboratory of poly-ethnicgrouprelationsmay teachthe restof the world a lessonofmulti-ethniccoexistence”(Adam 1995,p. 457).

DesignandSubjects

The designof the experimentinvolved a 2 (subjectrace:black or white) x 2 (subject city: Johannesburgor CapeTown) x 2 (ad spokespersonrace:black or white) between-subjects factorial design. For subjects,we recruited 176English-speakingadult womenwho receivedapproximatelyU.S.$8 in return for their participation. Subjects’ agesrangedfrom 18 to 45 years,andall had theequivalentof atleasta U.S. highschooleducation.Furthermore,the demo-graphiccharacteristicsof subjectsfit thoseof the intendedtargetmarketfor thetwo advertisementssubjectsevaluated.Subjects’numericdistinctivenesswasconceptualizedat twolevels of analysis:a national level anda morespecific localcontext.At a national level in SouthAfrica, Blacks are the

numericmajority (75%), andWhites are a minority (13%).To capturesubjects’perceptionsof thesepopulationdiffer-ences,subjectswere asked to estimate the percentageofblack and white peoplein SouthAfrica. We expectthat anyeffectsobservedat this broadlevel of analysisrepresentthemore chronic,enduringsaliencediscussedby McGuireandMcGuire (1981). Furthermore,we varied numericdistinc-tivenessata local level similarly to DeshpanddandStayman(1994) by recruiting half of our subjectsfrom one city,Johannesburg,whereBlacks are in the majority (63%)andWhites in the minority (30%), and half from asecondcity,CapeTown,whereWhitesarea relativemajority to Blacks(Whites = 24% and Blacks = 18%).5 Subjects’ race wasmeasuredby the ernieself-reportmethodof ethnic identifi-cation, consistentwith prior work in consumerbehavior(e.g., Deshpandd,Hoyer, and Donthu 1986; Stayman andDeshpandd1989).This measureallowedsubjectsto checkthe racial group to which they belongedor to write in onethat wasnot listed.

Stimuli

The race of the advertisingspokespersonwas manipu-lated by using identical advertisementsfrom eachof twocurrentprintadvertisingcampaignsthatvariedonly in theiruseof black or white models.Oneadvertisementwas forchildren’sclothes from a local SouthAfrican departmentstore,and the other was for an internationallydistributeddiet soda.The questionnairewas developedin consultationwith psychological,consumer,and marketing researchersand was pretestedamong a separategroupof subjects toensureclarity, comprehensibility,andculturalrelevance.

DependentVariables

We measuredethnic saliencein various ways in thisstudy. First,we usedthe spontaneousself-conceptmeasurefrom work by McGuire and colleagues(l978;McGuire1984;McGuireandMcGuire l979, 1981).Forthis measure,subjectsareaskedto describethemselvesin responseto theopen-endedquestion,“Pleasetell us aboutyourselfin yourown words.” The percentageidentifying their ethnicback-ground representsone measureof ethnic salience:Higherpercentagesindicate higher salience. Second,consistentwith consumerresearch on ethnic identification (e.g.,Deshpandd,Hoyer, and Donthu 1986;Williams andQuails1989),we usedthe strengthof ethnic identity scale,whichinvolved following thequestionthat askedsubjectsto indi-catetheir racewith a questionthat askedthem to indicatehow strongly they identified with the racial group they hadchecked(seven-pointscale ranging from “very weak” to“very strong”). However,althoughDeshpand~andStayman(1994) find an interactionbetween the spontaneousself-conceptmeasureandsubjects’numeric status,they do notfind interactiveeffectsfor the ethnic identity measurewiththe minority/majoritystatusvariable.Furthermore,becauseracial categorizationhasbeensucha definingfeatureof lifefor all SouthAfricans,it is likely that racial identification is

4Similar to other researchers, we recognize that the use of the term“racial” can be problematic, because in South Africa. group classificationrelies on a range of criteria, including factors such as language and ethnic-ity in addition to race. Therefore, we use the term cautiously (see Foster andFinchilescu 1986).

5Werecognize that in Cape Town both groups are a minority, which coin-promises the symmetry of the intergroup situation with that ofJohannesburg. However, because the subject city of origin manipulation isnot balanced, focusing on the relative numeric minority/majority status rep-resents a stronger test of the influence of the city context on consumernumeric distinctiveness.

220 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2001

strongamongall groups.Therefore,to addressthe issueofchronicsalienceandprovidefurtherdiscriminationofethnicSsalience,we also includeda measureof racial importance.This involved threeitems that askedsubjectsto indicateonseven-pointscaleshow much they think about their race(“never”/”often”), its importance (“unimportant”/”inipor-tant”), and its relevance(“irrelevant”/”relevant”) to theirlife(alpha= .915).We showsubsequentlythat this last measureprovidedthegreatestdiagnosticity.

Subjects’ perceptionsof relativesocial statuswerecap-tured usingthe intergroupperceptionladder, an adaptationof Cantril’s (1965) self-anchoringstriving scale used inotherresearchexaminingstatusperceptions(e.g.,AppelgrynandNieuwoudt1987;FinchilescuanddeIa Rey 1991).Forthis measure,respondentswereprovidedwith adrawingofa ladderwith rungslabeledfrom 0 to 10 andwereaskedtoindicate on which step of the ladder the groups stand intermsof social statusat the presenttime. Finally, to testtheadvertising-relatedhypotheses,we measuredbrandattitudeusing four seven-pointsemanticdifferential scales(“unfa-vorable”/”favorable,” “bad”/”good’ “unpleasant”/”pleas-ant,” and “low quality”/”high quality”; alpha = .92).Becauseof theevidenceof high reliability for the multiple-item scales,itemswereaveragedfor analysis.

Procedure

Subjectswererecruiteddoor-to-doorby an interviewerofthe samerace. They wereaskedto participatein severalresearchstudies that examineda variety of topics fromadvertisingto social issues.Subjectsviewedthe advertise-mentsin the comfort of their own homesandat their ownpace,with the interviewerpresentto answeranyquestions.After viewing the first advertisement(children’s clothes),subjectsrespondedto thespontaneousself-conceptmeasureand theadvertisement-relateddependentmeasures.Subjectsnextviewedandthen answeredthesamequestionsaboutthesecondadvertisement(soft drink). Thensubjectsrespondedto the social issuesladder, which included the statusques-tions. Finally, subjectsanswereddemographicquestionsaboutthemselves,includingtheir race.

RESULTS

PerceptionsofNumericandSocialStatus

Numericstatus.Wefirst examinedsubjects’estirñatesofthe percentageof the populationcomposedof black andwhite peoplein SouthAfrica. SubjectsperceivedBlacks tobe a majority and Whites a minority (Mwhit~= 16.97,MBlack 47.4). The estimatesof the percentageof blackSouthAfricansdifferedby subjectrace(Fl, l’72 = 28.5t,p <.001)andsubjectcity (Fl, 172 30.48,p < .001), but nottheir interaction(Fl, 172 = 2.40, p> .10). Estimatesof thepercentageof white South Africans also differed signifi-cantly by subjectcity (Fl, 172 = 22.12,p <.001)and mar-ginally by subjectrace(Fl, 172 = 2.90, p < .10), but nottheir interaction(Fl, 172 = .34,p>.10). Examinationof theracemain effects showsthat white subjectsestimatedthatthereweremore Blacks in society,and black subjectsesti-matedthat thereweremoreWhites.A reviewof the meansfor the subjects’ city effect suggeststhat subjects inJohannesburgestimatedhigher numbersof black SouthAfricans than subjectsin CapeTown, and conversely,sub-jects in CapeTown estimatedhighernumbersof whites.An

analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted using within-subject ratings of the perceivedpopulation differencebetweenwhite and blacksubjectsfounda similar patternofdifferences.Findingssuggestthat Whitesareaccuratelyper-ceived as a numeric minority and Blacks as a numericmajorityat the national level.Furthermore,peoples’percep-tionsof thenumericprevalenceofspecificgroupsdependontheir local context: Blacks are perceivedas a majority inJohannesburg,and Whitesas a majority in CapeTown, con-sistentwith local populationstatistics.

Social status. To assesssocial status perceptions,anANOVA wasconductedon subjects’ratingson the intergroupperceptionladder. SubjectsratedWhites as having signifi-cahtly higher social statusthan Blacks (Mwh~t~sS= 7.70andMBlackSs = 5.60, Fl, 174 —8.026,p < .001).Next weexam-ined the within-subject difference in subjects’ ratings ofBlacks’and Whites’social statusto assessrelativesocial sta-tus.Thedifferencebetweensubjects’perceptionsof black andwhite SouthAfricans’ socialstatusdid notdiffer by subjectcity(Fl, 172= l.54,p>.10),subjectrace(Fl,l’72=2.40,p> .10),or theinteractionof thesetwo variables(Fl, 172 = .44!,p>.10), whichsuggestsaconsensualsocialstatusbeliefsystem.

EffectsofStatusaridNumericDistinctivenesson EthnicSalience

Ethnicsaliencemeasures.An examinationof thesponta-neousself-conceptmeasurefound limited mentionsof race(5.7%,n = 10) whensubjectswereaskedto describethem-selves. Subjects instead overwhelmingly noted gender-related self-aspects,especially mother (60%) and wife(24%). It appearsthat thefirst advertisement,which wasforfemalechildren’sclothes,evokedgender-relatedidentities,which subsumedreferencesto race.Whenweexaminedrat-ingsof the strengthof ethnic identity measure,as expectedwefoundsimilarly highratingsamongall consumers,whichdid notvaryby race,city, or the interactionbetweenthetwo.This was not the casewith the racial importancemeasure,which we includedtogain a senseof thechronicimportanceof race. As a result,we conductedthe following analysesusing racial importance(aggregateof a three-item scaleincluding relevance,importance,andfrequencyof thinkingaboutrace)asthe measureof ethnic salience.

To testtheeffectsof numericandsocial distinctivenessonethnicsalience,weconductedunivariateregressions,whichincluded racial importanceas the dependentvariable andeachof the distinctivenessvariablesas predictorvariables.Thenwe conductedmultipleregressionto assesstherelativecontributionof eachof the distinctivenessvariablesto pre-dictingethnicsalience.In theseanalyses,raceis codedas Ifor black subjectsand 0 for white subjects.Relative socialstatusis calculatedas Blacks’ minusWhites’statusratings;therefore,negativenumbersimply that consumersperceiveBlacks’ statusaslower thanWhites’status,positivenumbersrepresenttheconverse,and0 reflectsthat subjectsperceivedno differencesbetweenBlacks’ and Whites’ status.

Numericdistinctivenessandethnicsalience..H1 predictsthat consumersliving in a situation in which their ethnicgroupis in a numericminority havehigher ethnicsaliencethan membersof a groupthat is in the numericalmajority.Regressionwas conductedwith racial importanceas thedependentvariableand subject race, subject city, and thesubjectracex subjectcity interactionas predictorvariables.

Social Dimensions of ConsumerDistinctiveness 221

Table 1SUBJECTS’ RATINGS OF ETHNIC IMPORTANCE BY RACE

AND CITY

SubjectRace

Subject city

Johannesburg Gape Town Total

Black 4.61 5.45 5.03White 5.25 3.83 4.54Total 4.93 4.64 4.79

This analysis found that the model was significant (P3,172 = 16,82, p < .001; R2

= .111), as werethe coefficientsfor race(.426, p < .001), subjectcity (.426,p < .001), andthesubjectracex subjectcity interaction(—.5 14, p < .001).The race main effect indicates that racial importanceishigheramongblack subjects,and thecity main effectshowshigher importanceattachedto race in Johannesburg.Thetwo-waysubjectracex subjectcity interactiondemonstratesthat raceis more importantfor Blacks in CapeTown andWhites in Johannesburg,suggestinghigherethnicsaliencefor the relativeminority in a givencontext.Table I showssubjects’meanratingsof racial importanceby raceandcity.Resultsalso identified asignificant changein the R2 withtheadditionof thesubjectracex subjectcity interaction(R2

change= .088,p < .001), which implies moreexplanatoryvaluefrom the local context.Finally, an ANOVA wascon-ductedinwhich thedatawerepooledacrossraceintomajor-ity~and minority groups.The resultsshoweda significantmaineffectof minorityfmajoritystatus(Fl, 174 = 16.82,p <.001).A t-testdemonstratesthat racial importanceis signif-icantly higherfor minorities(M = 5.35)than majorities(M4.22;t = —4.101,p < .001).The resultsthussupportH~andthe ideathat race tends to be more salient for the relativenumericminority.

Statusdistinctivenessandethnicsalience.To testH2, rel-ativesocial status(i.e., thedifferencebetweensubjects’per-ceptionsof black and white SouthAfricans’ social status)wasusedas the predictorvariablein asimpleregressiononracial importance.6Resultsshowedthat the model wassig-nificant (Fl, 174 = 4.96,p = .027; R2

= .028), as was thecoefficient for relative social status(—.166, p = .027). Thisresultsuggeststhatsocialstatusis a significantpredictorofethnic salience,and in particular, the negativecoefficientssuggestthatethnicsalienceincreasesasconsumersperceivelarger differences in social status betweenWhites andBlacks, in supportof H2. H3 predictsthat consumerswhoperceivethat their grouphaslowersocialstatusthananothergrouphavehigherethnicsaliencethan thosewho perceivctheir group as higher in social status, regardlessof theirnumericstatus.Givenour finding that all subjectsperceiveBlacks as lower in status,initial supportfor this hypothesisis providedby our finding of significantly higherlevels ofracial importanceamong Blacks versusWhites. We alsoconductedregressionson racial importance,which includedsubjects’rating of the relativestatusof Blacks and Whites,alongwith subjectraceandthesubjectracex relativesocialstatusinteraction.In this regression,the modelwas signiti-

cant(R2= .062,p < .05), but the interactioncoefficientwas

not (.150,p> .10), thoughthereweresignificanteffectsofboth relativesocial status(—.291, p < .01) andsubjectrace(.216, p < .0I). Thesemain effects demonstratethat racialimportanceis higher for Blacks and for those who viewBlacks as having lower social status than Whites. Theseresultssuggestthat ethnic salienceincreasesamongBlackswho perceivetheirgroupto havelowerrelativesocialstatus,which furthersupportsH3.

The EffectsofConsumerDistinctivenesson AdvertisingResponse

H4, H5, andH6 involve testsof the influenceof consumerdistinctivenesson responsesto advertisementstargetedtoward consumers’distinctive traits. Path analysiscan beusedin assessinga model witha moderator,that is, themod-erationof spokespersonethnicity by ethnicsalience(Cohenand Cohen 1983).Therefore,to testthe model proposedinFigure 1, weconducteda two-regressionpath analysis.Assuggestedin Figure I, the path model hadone regressionthat includedstatusandnumericdistinctivenessaspredic-tors of racial importance and another regression thatincludedthera~dlimportancex spokespersonraceinterac-tion asa predictorof brandattitude.

Ou~first equationassessesthe influence of the distinc-tivenessvariableson racial importance.H4 and H5 predictthat both factors,numeric and social status, will signifi-cantly predictconsumers’ethnic salience(H4) and that amodel that includesbothpredictorswill explainmoreof thevariancein ethnicsaliencethan a model that includessolelynumeric distinctiveness(H5). A multiple-regressionmodelincluding subjectrace,subjectcity, the subjectrace x sub-ject city interaction (local distinctiveness),and relativesocialstatusaspredictorvariablesfor racial importancewassignificant(R2

= .142;F4, 171 = 7.05,p < .001), in supportof H4. Furthermore,addingeachsubsequentdistinctivenessvariableincreasedthe explanatorypowerof the model sig-nificantly, as is reflected in the significant changein R2

(.1II to .142;p < .05), which providessupportfor H5.Next,weassessedthepathwherebysubjects’ethnicsalience

interactswith spokespersonethnicity to influencebrandatti-tude.In particular,H6 predictsthat an increase(decrease)inethnicsaliencedueto minority (majority) statuswill leadto anincrease(decrease)in positiveattitudestowardthe advertisedbrand.Asanticipated,theregressionmodelissignificant(R2

=

.376, p < .001), as is the coefficientfor the path leading.tobrandattitude(—.370,p < .05).Figure2 showsthestandardizedpathcoefficientsandp-valuesfor eachequation.

DiscussionofResults

Theresultssupporthypothesesregardingtheinfluenceofnumeric and social distinctivenesson consumers’ethnicsalienceandresponseto targetedadvertisements.We reph-catedprior consumerresearchusingnumericminority statusas a measureof distinctiveness(Aaker, Brumbaugh,andCrier 2000; Deshpanddand Stayman 1994). We demon-stratedthatethnicity is moresalient for numericminorities(i.e., Blacks in CapeTown and Whites in Johannesburg)than for numeric majorities (i.e., Blacks in Johannesburgand Whites in CapeTown), in support of H1. Next, weshowed that relative social statusalso influences ethnicsalience.Specifically, we found that relative social status

6Wealsoran a model that includedthe interactionsofsubjects’raceand

subjects’city with socialstatus.Neitherof theseinteractionswassigniti-cant,so thesevariablesareomitted from subsequentmodels.

222 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2001

Figure 2OBSERVED EFFECTS OF CONSUMER DISTINCTIVENESS ON ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS (PATH ANALYSIS RESULTS)

ConsumerDistinctiveness

/_I

I~—

I (I Numeric

Status

Lstct~&~ess

~‘~SocialStatus

L~sti~tiveness ~,

‘~\‘

%IIIIII

~:‘

~

III

I

I

—.499(.000)

—.178 (.000)

/~

~

EthnicSalience

-~‘

~,

‘

\.‘.—

csonSpokespe

BId~.370c.o38~L Attitude

significantly predictedthe importanceof ethnicity, becausethosewho perceiveda larger statusgap had higherethnicsalience,which supports H2. Furthermore,ethnic impor-tancewas higheramongsubjectswith a statusdeficit (i.e.,Blackscomparedwith Whites),in supportof H3.

We alsofoundthatbothnumericandsocialstatusdistinc-tivenesspredict ethnic,salienceand that this combinedmodel explains signifiôantly more variance than numericstatusalone, in supportof H4 andH5. Furthermore,the R2

for themodel of the influenceof socialandnumericdistinc-tivenesson ethnicsalience(.142)comparesfavorably withthe valueof .03 found by DeshpanddandStayman(1994).This is particularlynoteworthygiventhat thepresentmanip-ulation of numeric minority/majority statusis weakerthanin Deshpanddand Stayman’sstudy, becausethe relativepopulation differencebetweenBlacksandWhites in CapeTown is onLy 6% versus33%in Johannesburg.

Resultsalso revealedinterestingdifferencesamongthethreeethnic saliencemeasureswe used.The spontaneousself-conceptmeasureappearsto have evoked gendersaliencein relation to theadvertisements,which blockedthegenerationof ethnic-basedsalience. Alternatively, asMcGuireandMcGuire (1981,p. 160) note, in an ethnicallyhomogeneousenvironment,racedoes not contain enough

informationto beworth noting,whichexplainswhy subjectswho were interviewedin their own homesby same-raceinterviewersmight not mentionraceasasalientcharacteris-tic. Similar to DeshpanddandStayman(1994),we did notfind an influenceof numericdistinctivenesson thestrengthof consumers’ethnic identity, and we observedsimilarlyhigh levelsacrossour sample.Nonetheless,distinctivenesseffects were consistentlyobservedwith the ethnic impor-tance variable. Thus, even though gendermay have beenprimed by theadvertisements,westill observedindependenteffectsof the importanceof ethnicity.

GENERALDISCUSSION

Theresultscontributeto ourunderstandingof therelevantsocialenvironmentforconsumerdistinctivenesseffects.TheobservedinteractionsbetweensubjectraceandsubjectcitysupportDeshpandéandStayman’s(1994) assertionthatthelocal city context influencesfeelingsof distinctiveness.Atthe sametime,main effectsof subjectraceandcity of originsuggestthatotherfactorsbeyondcity serveasrelevantcon-texts that induce more chronic feelingsof distinctiveness.Theethnicitymain effect, in particular,suggestsheightenedimportanceof ethnic identity amongblack SouthAfricans,thoughthey are anumericmajority on.anationallevel. We

Social Dimensionsof ConsumerDistinctiveness 223

demonstratethat social statusis one factor that influencesconsumerdistinctiveness.Furthermore,weshow that socialstatuseffectsoccur in two differentways,suchthatnotonlylower statusbut also the extentof perceivedstatusdiffer-ences contributes to heightened ethnic salience. Theseresultsshow how statuseffectscan occuramongpeopleatvariouslevels within a statushierarchy.

The resultsalsoimply thatconsumerdistinctivenessexistsat multiple levels of analysis,rangingfrom a spontaneouslyevokedphenomenonto one that is morechronicandendur-ing. Findingsthushighlight the importanceof acknowledg-ing therelevantsocialcontextfor understandinghow acon-sumerwill respondto marketingefforts on the basisof agroup membership—relatedtrait. Furthermore,the chronicuseof a constructhasbeenshown to facilitateits accessibil-ity acrosscontexts,evenwhenit hasnotbeenprimed (Barghet al. 1986).For consumerbehaviorresearch,this suggestshow raceandethnicity continually influencejudgmentsby,aswell as about,numericandsocialminorities.

Theseresultsnotonly provideinsight into theapplicationof the distinctivenesspostulateto consumerresearchbutalso suggestpractical implications.Consideran advertiserselectingcues to target distinctive consumerswho willrespondmorepositively to the distinctiveadvertisements.Amarketermight wantto tap into a level of consumerdistinc-tivenessthat is heavilycontingenton thelocal surroundings.For example, to encouragemore African Americans todonate blood at the local blood bank, an advertisementmight cuetheir rarity in the local population;Alternatively,the marketing objective may be more global, such asencouragingAmerican Whites to buy European-AmericanHeritage Month products.To resonatewith this broaderlevel of consumerdistinctiveness,a marketermight refer-encenationaldemographicpopulationchangesin its direct-mail brochure.Furtherresearchmight beprofitably directedtowardidentifyingspecificconditionsthatprovokeeffectsatdifferent levels of analysis.

Resultsalsodemonstratethe importanceof social statusto understandingthe influenceof groupmembershiponcon-sumerbehavior. Consideringsocial status in conjunctionwith numeric statussuggestsresponsedifferencesnot justbetweenminority andmajoritygroupsbutalsobetweenandwithin minority groups.For example,in the United States,Asian Americansare typically considereda “model minor-ity” and might be perceivedas having higher social statusbecauseof suchpositivestereotyping(seeTaylor and Stern1997).As a result,Asian Americansmay respondrelativelyless favorably to ethnically targeted advertisementsthanother minority groups that are perceivedas having lowersocial status.Also, responsesof the nontargetmarket(i.e.,non—Asian Americans; seeAaker, Brumbaugh,and Grier2000) may differ in theoreticallyor practically significantways. This is an importantareafor moreresearch,becauseit involves a pragmaticissue for advertisers in justifyingexpenditureson numericallyminority markets.

More broadly, findings suggestthat perceptionsof rela-tive social statusmay be a generalizingsocial dimensionthatenablesmarketersto examinetheinfluenceof enduringstructural issuesacrosscountriesand cultureson consumerbehavior.At the sametime,consumerdistinctiveness,oper-ationalizedasa combinationof numericandsocial factors,may serveas a mediator for understandingthemore distal

contextualeffectsof structuralandculturalfactors.Onelim-itationof thethis researchis that by usinga field contexttostudyatheoreticalissue,we losesomeof the internalvalid-ity providedby a more controlledexperiment.However,webelievethat becausethe crux of our argumentrestson thepropositionthatrealgroupcategorizationscarry a historyofinteractionandinterdependencethat bolsterstheir impactonconsumerresponseto marketingactivities, this weaknesscanbe viewedasa designstrength.

The presentresearchfits into a broader psychologicalconvergenceon efforts to further specify tiesbetweentheperson, the situation, and the environment (Markus,Kitayama, andHeiman 1996;Price1998),particularly howsociocultural and structural factors influence intra- andintergroupperceptions,attitudes,andbehaviors(e.g.,Eaglyand Steffen 1984; Jost2001; Messick and Mackie 1989;Sachdevand Bourhis 1987). Considerationof the socio-contextual, motivational,and ideological aspectsof basiccognitive processescanfurtherenrichthe understandingofconsumerbehavior.Suchemphasesshedtheoreticalinsightinto what Fullerton (1987) describesas the “ahistoricalnature”of marketingthought.History is rife with examplesof majority groups assumingstrong ethnic identities forsocial,economic,andpolitical reasons,and mostsocietiesarecharacterizedby socialstratificationbasedon powerandstatusinequalitiesbetweengroups(e.g.,Giles,Bourhis, andTaylor 1977).However,limited consumerbehaviorresearchexplicitly addressestheinfluenceof thesesocioculturalfac-tors on consumeridentity, attitudes,beliefs,and behavior.We hope the presentresearchsparksincreasedattentiontowardthis area, so that marketerscan betterunderstand,predict,andexplain consumerbehaviorwithin andacrossdiversemarketplaces.

REFERENCES

Aaker, Jennifer,Anne Brumbaugh,and Sonya A. Grier (2000),“Non-target Market Effects and Viewer Distinctiveness:TheImpactof TargetMarketingon Attitudes,”Journalof ConsumerPsychology,9 (3), 127—40,

Abrams, Dominic, JoanneThomas,and MichaelA. Hogg (1990),“Numeric Distinctiveness,SocialIdentity andGenderSalience,”British JournalofSocialPsychology,29 (1), 87—92.

Adam,Herbert(1995),“ThePolitics of Ethnic Identity:ComparingSouthAfrica,” Ethnic andEthnicStudies,18 (3), 457—75.

Appeigryn, Ans E. and Johan M. Nieuwoudt (1987), “RelativeDeprivationandthe Ethnic Attitudes of Blacksand Afrikaans-SpeakingWhitesinSouthAfrica,” JournalofSocialPsychology,128 (3), 311—23.

Bargh,JohnA., RonaldN. Bond, WendyJ.Lombardi,andMary E.Tota (1986), “The Additive Natureof Chronic andTemporarySourcesof ConstructAccessibility,” Journalof PersonalilyandSocialPsychology,50 (5), 869—78.

Cantril, Hadley (1965), The Pattern of I-funzan Concerns.NewBrunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversity Press.

Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen (1983), Applied MultipleRegression/CorrelationAnalysisfor the Behavioral Sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Coleman,Richard P. (1983), “The Continuing Significance ofSocialClassto Marketing,” Journalof consumerResearch,10(3), 265—80.

Deshpandé,Rohit,Wayne D. Hoyer,and NaneenDonthu (1986),“TheIntensityof EthnicAffiliation: A Studyof the SociologyofHispanic Consumption,”Journal of ConsumerResearch,13(September),214—20.

and Doug Stayman (1994), “A Tale of Two Cities:

224 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2001

DistinctivenessThemyandAdvertisingEffectiveness,”JournalofMarketingResearch,31 (January),57-44.

Bagly, Alice 1-I. andValerie.1. Steffen(1984), “GenderStereotypesStem from the Distribution of Women and Men Into SocialRoles,”Jot~ritalofPersonality~nd Social Psychology,46 (4),735—54-

Festinger, Leon (1~54),“~ ‘Theorj of Social ComparisonProcesses,”JiwnanRelations,7, 117—40.

~nch~tescu,GiUian and Cheryl de Ia Rey (1991), “Understandingtntra-groupVariations in Prejudice: The Role of PerceivedLegitimacyandStability,”SouthAfrican JournalofPsychology,21(4),225—32.

Forehand,Mark R. andRohit Deshpandé(2D0~),“What We SeeMakes Us Who We Are: Priming Ethnic Self-AwarenessandAdvertising Response,”Journal of Marketing Research,38(August), forthcoming.

Foster, Don and Gilliari Finchilescu(1986), “Contact in a Non-contactSociety~The Caseof South Africa,” in Contact andConflict in Inter-groupEncounters,M. HewstoneandR. Brown,eds.Oxford, UK: Basil 6(ackwell, P 19—36.

Frable,Deborah,TamelaBlackstone,andCarol Scherbaum(1990),“Marginal andMindftl: Deciantsin Socialinteraction,”JournalofPersonalityand SocialPsychology,49 (1), 140.-.49.

Fullerton, Ronald (1987), ‘~ThePoverty of Ahistorical Analysis:PresentWeaknessandFututeCurein U.S.MarketingThought,”in Philosophicaland RadicalThought in Marketing,A. F~uatFirat, Njkhilesh Dhotakia, and Richard P. Bagozzi, eds.Lexington,MA: LexingtonBooks,97—116.

(3iles, Howard, Richard 1’. Bourhis, and Donald Thylor (1977),“TowardsaTheoryof Languagein Ethnic Group Relations,”inLanguage.Ethnicity and Inter-groupRelations,H. Gites,ed.London:AcademicPress.,3()1—44.

tjoffman, Erving (1963), Stigma: Notes on the ManagementofSpoiledIderztit-j. EnglewoodCliffs, NI: PrenticeHall.

Crier, SonyaA. andAnneHwmbaugli (1999),“Noticing CulturalDifferences:Ad MeaningsCreatedby Target and Non-targetMarkets,”JournalofAdvertising,28 (Spring),79—93.

.tost, John1’. (2001), “Out-Group Favoritism and the TheoryofSystemJustification,”in FutureDirectionsin SocialCognitton,G. Moskowitz,ed. HiUsdale,NJ: LawrenceErthaumAssociates,forthcoming.

Markus, Hazel,Shinobu Kitayania, and Rachel Heiman (1996),“Culture and t3asic Psychological Principles,” in SocialPsychology:HandbookofBasicPrinciples, E.Tory HigginsandArieW. Kruglanski,eds.NewYork: Guilford PresS,857—913.

McGuire,William (1984), “Searchfor the Self: Going BeyondSelf-Esteemand the Reactive Self,” in Personalityand thePredictionofBehavior,R.A. Zucker,J.Aronoft,andA.!. Rabin,eds.NewYork: AcademicPress.,73—120.

andClaireV. Mc9uuj-e(1979),“Effectsof HouseholdSexComposition on the Salience of One’s Gender in theSpontaneousSelf-Concept,”Journal of ExperimentalSocialPsychology,15 (1),77—90.

— and —.-—— (1981), “The SpontaneousSelf-ConceptasAffected by Personal Distinctiveness.,” in Self-Concept:Advancesin Theoryand ~esearch,M.D. Lynchand K. Gergeneds. NewYork: Ballinger, 147—71.

—, PamelaChild,andTerry Fujioka(197g),“Salienceof Ethnicity in theSpontaneousSelf-Conceptas a FunctionofOne’sEthuic Distinctivenessin the SocialEnvironment,”JournalofPersonalityand SocialPsychology,36 (5), 511—20.

t~4es~ick,David M. and Diane M. Mackie (1989), “lntergsoupRelations’MtnualReviewofPsychology,40,45—81.

Moscovisi, Serge (1975), Social Influence and Social Change.London:AcademicPress.

Oakes,Penelope.1. (1 987),“The Salienceof SocialCategories,”inRediscoveringshe SocialGroup: A Self-CategorizationTheory.NewYork: Basil Blackwell, 117—41.

Price,Lydia 5. (1998),“CognitiveantSEmotiveEffects ot’ Culture,”sessiondiscussant,Association for Consumer ResearchAsiaPaciticConference,Hong Kong (June25—28).

Ridgeway, CecIlia (1991), “The Social Construction of StatusValue: Gender and Other Nominal Characteristics,”SocialFaroes, 70 (2), 367—86.

and.1. Balkwefl (1997),“GroupProcessesandtheDiffusionof St~tu~Beflefs’ SocialPsychologyQuarterly,60(1), (4—31.

Rosch, Eleanor (W8), “~ñnt%~esof Cate~odzation,”inCognition and C’ategorization, E. Rosch and B. ~(oyd,eds.Hiltstlale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,27—48.

Sachdev,IteshandRIchartlY. Bourhis(198’l), “StatusOif~e~s~tiats.and Inter-group Behavior,” European Journal of SocialPsychology,17(3),277-94.

Schutte,Gerhard(1995),WhatRacistsBelieve:RaceRelationsinSouthAfrica and the UnitedStates,SageSerieson Raceand£th~jcRelations,Vet. 8 NewburyPack,CA: SagePublications.

Smith, Elsie 1. (1991), “Ethnic Identity Development:TowardtheDevelopment of a Theory Within the Context •ofMajority/Minority Status,” Journal of Counseling andDevelopment,70 (September/October),1 SJ—88.

Stayman, Doug and Rohit Deshpand~(1989). “SituationalEthnicity and ConsunterBehavior,” Journal of ConswuerResearch,(6 (December),361—7I.

Tajfel, Henry (1981), Humcvz Groups and Social Categories.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUi*4ersity ~cess..

Taylor, CharlesR. andBarbara B. Stern(1997),“Asian-Americans:Television Advertising and the Model Minority Stereotype,”Journal ofAdvertising,26 (2), 4~—60.

Whittier, Tommy E. (1991), “The Effects of Actors’ RaceinCommercialAdvertising: Review and Extension,”Journal ofAdvertising,20(1),54—60.

Williams, JeromeD. andWilliam). QuaIls(1959),“Middle-ClassBlack Consumersand Intensity of Ethnic Identification,”PsychologyandMarketing,6 (4), 263—86.

Wooten, David (1995), “One of a Kind in a Full House: SomeConsequencesofEthnic andGenderDistinctiveness,”JournalofConsumerPsychology,4 (3), 205—24.