Advances in Consumer Research Volume Cynics and Sk - PDF document

345Advances in Consumer ResearchVolume 31, © 2004Cynics and Skeptics: Consumer Dispositional TrustAmanda Helm, University of MissouriABSTRACTThis study investigated cynicism in a consumer context, usingqualitative interviews in a grounded theory approach. Analysisrevealed an underlying construct of consumer dispositional trust.Consumers generalize trust violations across various categoriesand see a generalized trust as part of their personality. Explorationsof cynicism in the consumer context reflected a belief that compa-nies lack integrity and a negative affect toward companies, with anemphasis on dishonesty or empty promises. Consumer cynicism isassociated with disparaging and withdrawal behavior, precautionsand retribution-seeking. Perhaps surprisingly, cynical consumersdemonstrated very strong brand loyalty to the few companies theycould trust.Social commentators claim cynicism in America is reachingcrisis proportions, and public opinion polls reflect decreasing faithin politics, media and education systems. Academic and popularliterature about societal or political cynicism often point to Westernconsumer culture, especially advertising, as a major driver of thisshift toward an increasing perception of a cultural hollowness(Goldman 1996; Stivers 1994). This pilot study investigated cyni-cism directed toward consumption itself, using qualitative inter-views in a grounded theory approach. Analysis revealed an under-lying construct of consumer dispositional trust, a relatively stabletendency to trust or distrust across multiple consumption situations.At the extreme distrust end of the continuum, consumer beliefs,affect and behaviors can be called consumer cynicism.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATUREREVIEWConsumer TrustAt a macroconceptual level, conceptualizations of trust arefairly consistent in the vast trust literature, predominantly featuringtwo dimensions, competence (perceived ability to meet customerneeds) and benevolence (perceived willingness to put the customerahead of the self) (Doney 1997; Ganesan and Hess 1997; Singh andSirdeshmukh 2000). Indeed these two dimensions of trust parallelcommunication work in source credibility and have remainedrelatively consistent since the days of Aristotle (McCroskey andTeven 1999; Wanzenried and Powell 1993). Most of the marketingliterature on trust focuses on channels and business-to-businessrelationships. In addition, Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) recently pro-vided an in-depth analysis of the consumer trust concept, focusingon the trust concept itself rather than its consequences. Theydistinguish between trustworthiness (consumersÕ perceptions ofcompany and frontline employee behavior) and trust (consumersÕself-reported belief that the company and employees are depend-able, competent, of high integrity and responsive to consumers).In academic literature and common language use, trust isconsistently represented as a relationship-specific construct. Incontrast, this paper introduces the construct of consumer disposi-tional trust, an individual difference variable which impacts theway consumers interpret consumption interactions and their expec-tations for trustworthy behavior across multiple companies andsituations. In terms of models of specific relationship trust, dispo-sitional trust might be seen as an individual difference variableinfluencing trust, along with such factors as norms and perceptionsof dependence and power.CynicismAlthough cynicism has been a philosophical and literaryconstruct for centuries, it has emerged as a social scientific con-struct only in about the last 50 years. In addition to generalcynicism, social scientists have identified specific cynicisms tar-geted at specific institutions: work (occupational) cynicism, orga-nizational or employee cynicism and organizational change cyni-cism (Abraham 2000; Dean et al. 1998). This paper proposesconsumer cynicism as another specific cynicism worthy of inves-tigation.General or specific, cynicism is described as a learned attitudeformed through the process Kanter and Mirvis describe: unrealisticexpectations lead to disappointment, which leads to disillusion, aÒsense of being let down or of letting oneself down, and moredarkly, the sense of being deceived, betrayed or used by othersÓ(1989, p.3). The first steps of this process correspond to widelyaccepted expectancy disconfirmation theory. Satisfaction is deter-mined more by performance in relation to expectations than byperformance in any objective sense. Scholars have portrayed nega-tive disconfirmation of expectations as the primary mechanism forcustomer dissatisfaction (e.g. Oliver and Bearden 1985). Yet cynicsare not merely dissatisfiedÐthey are bitter, angry and resentful.They adopt the cynical attitude to ensure they will not be Òtaken forsuckersÓ again (Kanter and Mirvis 1989, p.3). In academic terms,the cynicism attitude is characterized by Ònegative affectÓ (Dean etal. 1998).The notion of empty promises or false appearances is a criticalelement common to all conceptualizations of cynicism. Althoughthe deliberate creation of unrealistic expectations is not alwaysincluded in formal definitions of cynicism, references to a funda-mental disconnect between a publicly presented image and realitycharacterize all discussions of cynicism. The fundamental discon-nect between the presented image and reality is necessary but notsufficient for cynicism. Cynicism also incorporates a feeling ofmanipulation or ethical violation, exploiting others for oneÕs owninterest (Chaloupka 1999). The pretense of unselfishness to maskselfish goals lies at the heart of the cynicism concept. It also lies atthe heart of criticisms about advertising and other marketingmessages.Cynicism in the consumption context: Relevant consumer be-havior researchCynicism has not been studied in the consumption context perse, but research in other areas of consumer behavior suggestsconsumers may in fact be feeling cynical. The consumer alienationconstruct incorporates attitudes of distrust toward businesses and afeeling of being manipulated (Allison 1978; Durand and Lambertas confidence in purchasing skills. Scholars have also found evi-dence of considerable consumer skepticism toward advertisingclaims (i.e. Koslow 2000), which relates to the disbelief componentof cynicism but does not encompass the perception of deliberatemanipulation or the negative affect of cynicism. A growing body ofresearch on anti-consumption attitudes, exemplified by the 2002Psychology and Marketing special issue on the topic and theCulture Jamming film presented at ACR 2002, suggests at leastsome consumers are feeling enough discontent to rebel throughbehaviors ranging from voluntary simplicity to defacing advertise-ments. 346 / Cynics and Skeptics: Consumer Dispositional TrustThus, existing literature supports the notion that a cynicism-like construct has the potential to explain consumer attitudes andbehavior, but the precise nature of this construct is not clear. Theapproach to this study was exploratory, with research questions inmind such as: Do consumers have attitudes resembling cynicismabout the consumption process? What should a cynicism constructlook like in the consumption context? How does it develop? Whataspects or level of the consumption process is targetedÐindividualcompanies? Consumption culture?METHODOLOGYThe conceptual framework outlined here is based on eightsemi-structured interviews conducted February 28-March 7, 2003.These eight interviews are a pilot study for a larger interview projectnow in progress. Interview methodology is appropriate for thesubject because cynicism is a conscious, even deliberate attitude.Cynicism is depicted in art and discussed in the public forum andeveryday conversation. Although they may use other terms, peoplereflect on and attempt to manage their own cynicism. Thus, peopleare well qualified to report on their own cynicism, and theirunderstanding and na•ve theories are an essential part of theconstruct.Sample and ProcedureThe purpose of the study was initial conceptual groundworkon consumer cynicism construct, not to ascertain what proportionof the population is cynical about consumption, a question left forlater research. Consumption-related cynicism could impact anyconsumer. For this pilot study, a convenience sample of membersof the Hickman High School Music Boosters association (parentsof high school students) was recruited. As a token of appreciation,the association was paid $15 for each interview. For the full study,interviews will draw from a variety of community organizationsselected to represent a broad spectrum of the population.Volunteers from the boosters association scheduled individualappointments. After each subject had reviewed and signed a writtenconsent form, interviews were conducted based loosely on aninterview guide (McCracken 1988). Interviews typically lastedabout an hour. The interviews were recorded on audio cassettes andprofessionally transcribed.QuestionnaireLeading respondents was of particular concern because ofpossible social desirability and social contagion effects. Oncecynical ideas are presented, participants may jump on the band-wagon in order not to appear na•ve. Scholars refer to a culture ofcynicism (Chaloupka 1999; Goldfarb 1991; Stivers 1994).To avoidleading respondents, interview questions began with positivelyvalenced prompts such as asking about trust in a brand or companyand used a balance of positive and negative prompts throughout.ÒCynicismÓ or ÒcynicalÓ are highly charged words laden withinconsistent but strong negative connotations of pessimism as wellas the more positive connotations of sophistication. Therefore, thewords ÒcynicismÓ and ÒskepticismÓ were not introduced by theinterviewer until near the close of the session, unless subjectsthemselves spontaneously introduced those terms. Instead, theemphasis of the interview prompts was on terms associated withpotential cynicism elements such as trust-mistrust, ethics, or over-promising.The transcripts were analyzed following the grounded theoryprocedures for open and axial coding outlined by Strauss andCorbin (1998). Although the process was fluid, with multiple typesof coding going on simultaneously, coding was loosely organizedinto phases focusing on increasingly high levels of analysis, similarto the process recommended by McCracken (1988). Initially,transcripts were read carefully line by line and labeled or catego-rized using open codes. Next, the transcript was read again, with agreater emphasis on code description and consistency. Third, thecodes and associated quotations from the text were reviewed(moving up a level of abstraction from the whole text to just thecoded quotations), and notes and comments were made on emerg-ing conceptual issues. The concept of the dispositional trust con-tinuum began to emerge about half-way through the coding pro-cess; after that point a profile memo was written for each interviewsubject addressing his or her trust/cynicism outlook. Finally, theanalysis moved up yet another level of abstraction to focus prima-rily on clustering the codes, describing their properties and dimen-sions and defining relationships among them using axial coding.Throughout the process, the cynicism literature was used as a pointof constant comparison (Strauss and Corbin 1998), drawing on notonly the definitions specified in social scientific journals, but alsothe varying perspectives on cynicism in social commentary.Although a formal audit was not completed, a researcher notinvolved in the project did conduct an independent open and axialcoding analysis on a subset of three interviews. His conclusionswere fairly similar, noting similar elements of the trust and cyni-cism definitions, a trust-cynicism continuum, and a dichotomybetween a relationship-specific trust and a more general trusttendency.EMERGENT CONSTRUCT: CONSUMERDISPOSITIONAL TRUSTThe construct of consumer dispositional trust emerged fromthe data. As noted in the literature review, trust is typically de-scribed as partnersÕ attitudes and expectations in a specific relation-ship. Insight from the interviews suggests the existence of anadditional type of trust, one that is generalized across multiplecontexts. This paper proposes consumer dispositional trust as arelatively stable tendency to expect (un)trustworthy behavior acrossa variety of contexts.In traditional models of relationship specific trust, disposi-tional trust would join the ranks of the many factors contributing tothe development of trust in a specific relationship. Its influencewould likely be particularly strong at the beginning of a relationshipin the face of a lack of more specific information. Yet the influenceof dispositional trust is not limited to trust in specific relationships.In the consumption context, dispositional trust appears to alsoinfluence consumer search and decision-making behavior andconsumersÕ interpretation of or response to myriad consumptioninteractions. Furthermore, distrustful consumers try to spread theirdistrust by socializing others.Trust in the Consumer ContextAs previously mentioned, the trust literature typically identi-fies two dimensions: competence and benevolence. Although con-sumers in this study mentioned product quality and skill of thecompany when talking about trust in particular companies orbrands, the benevolence dimension seems to be much more salientwhen talking about generalized trust. When asked to define whatthe idea of trust in a company meant to them, interview participantsemphasized fair treatment and living up to promises:ÒIn the sense of the company I think that they would treat mefairly, they would have a good product, a good service behind ÒIf they back up their product, I have full confidence that ifÒIf they back up their product, I have full confidence that ifpeople and make them do what they say they were going to do.Ó(I7)Interview participants seemed fairly tolerant of problems withthe actual products, but saw mishandling of their concerns as centralto their concept of trusting in a company.[Because so many of the components are not under themanufacturerÕs control] ÒyouÕre going to have people andplaces and things and equipment that do not perform. Now, itÕshow you handle its effect on your consumer, that is to me whatspeaks to ethics of doing business.Ó(I7)Self-CharacterizationInterview participants clearly perceived themselves to havesome kind of generalized trusting/distrustful perspective and seethis as a personality trait. Interview questions were phrased in termsof asking consumers to think of specific examples and then askingthem to assess whether such an incident was typical of theirexperience. Other prompts asked their opinions of Òmost compa-nies.Ó Instead of responding in terms of perceived frequency ofcompany behavior, participants often responded with statements ofself-characterization such as:ÒI think I put trust into a company until itÕs proven otherwise.ÓI8ÒI wonÕt use companies or I wonÕt work with people who Idistrust and for me IÕve developed sort of a sense that I canÐI know when you are putting me on, or when you are real flaky,and I donÕt like to do business with people like that. ÔIÕm justa sales call away from being your best friend,ÕÐNo, I donÕt likepeople like that.ÓÒNow IÕm certainly not a na•ve consumer, but I thought thatwas pretty interesting yesterday.Ó I1GeneralizationGeneralization is critical in the formation of dispositionaldistrust. Interview participants saw negative incidents as learningexperiences which changed their behavior in the future. OnecompanyÕs failure was generalized to shape expectations for othercompaniesÕ behavior. Even trusting consumers generalized from anincident to a product category, and consumers in this study typicallydescribed negative incidents using category terms rather thanspecific brands.For example, Interview 3 described an incident shopping withher sister for a computer in which the salesperson recommended avoice recognition package. Later they discovered Òin the fine printÓthat the package did not include all the required hardware; the lowI: What about things other than software? Do you think it you ever see your money? Well, I donÕt know, do you have a Cynics in this study perceive a pervasive dishonesty or shamCynics in this study perceive a pervasive dishonesty or shameverything in the store is just Ôoh this is perfect for youÕ, Ôoh IÕllbe sure that I can find it for you,Õ ÔIÕll hold it for you.Õ It is justa motivation to move the merchandise out of the store É Likeyesterday, I tried on something that is really too small on meand it was really awful. And the clerk said, ÔOh this looks reallygreat on you!ÕÉI felt very strongly that they have theirmeetings an hour before the store opens, and they have theirmotivational talks, and they have sales incentives. And that isthe way the world works. Now IÕm certainly not a na•veconsumer, but I thought that was pretty interesting yester-day.Ó (I1)All interview participants indicated that the underlying motivefor most, if not all, companies was the bottom line profit. But cynicsin this study expressed concern or irritation that businessesÕ over-eager pursuit of profit would trample other important consider-ations such as consumer safety, and that emphasis on short-termprofits undermines company motivation to really build quality andcustomer satisfaction.ÒIÕm saying that profit means that I retain you over time as acustomer that means I treat you good, I give you good service,I give you good products, I donÕt over-promise anythingÐ andif I do make a mistake, I do apologize for it and I try to correctthat. ThatÕs long term, that is profit. To me. And what IÕmtelling you is what I see today in the market place is thatcompanies have a very short term approach to profit from thestandpoint that they will not retain you because they will over-promise you and they will not deliver on service and they willtreat you like you are not importantÉ.I know I keep going backto the same thing, which is a long term look but you donÕt geta customer today and then you blow them off tomorrow.Ó (I7)For cynical consumers in this study, their dispositional trustwas very salient. Descriptions of themselves as consumers empha-sized beliefs that companies are untrustworthy and their owntendency to take extra precautions. In other contexts, two categoriesof behavior are typically associated with cynicism, disparaging andwithdrawal behaviors. These categories can also be seen in theconsumer context. Cynical participants described efforts to social-ize others by bringing children up to be critical consumers, gettingfriends on board for boycotts, and spreading negative word-of-mouth. They also described, of course, avoiding buying fromdistrusted companies, but also mentioned trying to reduce con-sumption in general, avoiding impulse buys, avoiding negotiationand avoiding shopping. Two other types of behaviors were men-tioned: precautions and retribution.Like skeptical participants, they saw the risk of being ÒrippedoffÓ as something they could minimize through caution, but to agreater degree. The following story from Interview 7 shows hisinclination to take precautions. The quote also shows the salienceof the dispositional or generalized aspect of trustÐhe interrupts hisown specific story to generalize to a perceived tendency of lower-level personnel to go back on verbal promises, a recurring theme forhim:ÒSomebody stole my credit card numbers so I had to cancel Éand in the course of handling itÐor any kind of daily choresÐyouÕre going to have a conversation with somebody over thephone, some sort of personnel, and theyÕll tell you ÔSir, youÕreabsolutely right somebody made those charges and weÕregoing to take those off your card, blah, blah, blah.Õ Well whowas it? When did they say it? What was É you know what IÕm 350 / Cynics and Skeptics: Consumer Dispositional TrustCynical interview participants perceive a competitive businessenvironment which discourages integrity in companies. They alsosaw consumersÕ own behavior as a major component of thatbusiness environment through consumer overemphasis on price(over quality), abuse of exchange and return policies, and failure toresearch. Perhaps the cynical consumers feel a need to try tocounterbalance these other consumers, or perhaps they just feel aneed to try to ÒhelpÓ their companies succeed in a competitiveworld; clearly they feel some responsibility to demonstrate theirsupport of trustworthy companies.Development of CynicismThe cynicism literature describes a process of disillusionmentleading to the development of the learned attitude of cynicism(e.g.Kanter and Mirvis 1989), but studies do not report individualsÕaccounts of their experience of this process. Cynical interviewparticipants did point to specific personal incidents that causedthem to increase their feelings of skepticism and could describe ageneralization process.ÒMy dad died of cancer in 76; and I started reading all of thematerial about pollution of our food supply and I realized thatchances were that our food supply was not as pure as it usedto be because of the intensive farming, chemicals, pesticides,everything that was increasingly being used to produce more,better yields, and so up to that point I never gave any kind ofthought to trusting the food but when that happened awarenessfinally that probably your foods are not as good as youthought. That was certainly a breakthrough, it was a differentera for me.Ó (I1)ÒI looked at a used vehicle and before I got home they werecalling me and telling me they were taking that vehicle to theauction. ÔWeÕve got to sell it, weÕve got to make up the amount,Õhigh pressure, high pressure, high pressureÉ[a few weekslater] I was talking to this friend of mine at [another dealer]and I told him the high pressure tactics used and he said, ÔTheydidnÕt take it to the auction, thatÕs just a technique.Õ I said,ÔYou think they actually lied to me face to face,Õ and he said,ÔYeah, I bet it is.Õ I went back over to the lot and it was stillsitting on the lot. I caught them in that lie and thatÐit is buyerbeware. IÕm fully aware of that.Ó (I7)CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCHDIRECTIONSUsing a grounded theory approach, this pilot study uncoversthe concept of dispositional trust, and the meaning and structure ofcynicism in the consumer context is explored.Interview participantsÕ comments clearly demonstrated thatthey perceived a trusting or distrustful outlook as a personalitycharacteristic. Consumers in this study generalized violations oftrust from one company across varying levels such as productcategory or promotion technique (i.e. rebates). This has significantimplications for managers because the actions of a competitorclearly influence consumersÕ disposition to trust in the same prod-uct categoryÐeven for the most trusting consumers. InterviewparticipantsÕ observations in this study suggest that trust violationsanywhere in the product category have implications for anyone inthe product category, suggesting perceptions of industry standardsas a possible area of future research.Explorations of the meaning and structure of cynicism in theconsumer context reflect the same elements characteristic of othertypes of cynicism: a belief that the target lacks integrity and anegative affect, with an emphasis on dishonesty or empty promises.Behaviors typically associated with cynicism in other contexts fallinto two major categories: disparaging behaviors and withdrawalbehaviors. In the consumer context, the study suggests two othercategories of behaviors are relevant: precautions and retribution.The cynical consumersÕ discussion of specific moments whichshaped their cynical outlook offers a potential contribution to thecynicism literature as well as to consumer research and should beexplored in future research. Perhaps the most interesting finding ofthis study is the committed, enthusiastic brand loyalty shown bycynical consumers.Based on this pilot study, a full-scale interview study is inprogress to further develop the theoretical constructs. Some of theresearch questions being pursued so far investigate the link betweenconsumer dispositional trust and anti-consumption attitudes andconsumer self-confidence and consumer notions of societal andeconomic forces behind their generalizations about companies.After further qualitative work to shape this construct, future re-search may include development of a quantitative measure.WORKS CITEDAbraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases andconsequences. Genetic, Social, & General PsychologyMonographs, 126(3).Allen, M., and Stiff, J. B. (1989). Testing three models for thesleeper effect. Western Journal of Speech Communication,53(4), 411-426.Allison, N. K. (1978). A psychometric development of a test forconsumer alienation from the marketplace. Journal ofMarketing Research, 15(November), 565-575.Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., and Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescentskepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge ofadvertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1),165-175.Chaloupka, W. (1999). Everybody knows: Cynicism in America.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Dean, J. W., Brandes, P. M., and Dhwardkar, R. (1998).Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review,23, 341-352.Doney, P. M. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust inbuyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35.Durand, R. M., and Lambert, Z. V. (1985). Alienation andcriticisms of advertising. Journal of Advertising, 14(3), 9-17.Foxman, E. R., Berger, P. W., and Cote, J. A. (1992). Consumerbrand confusion: A conceptual framework. Psychology &Marketing, 9(2), 123-141.Ganesan, S., and Hess, R. (1997). Dimensions and levels oftrust: Implications for commitment to a relationship.Marketing Letters, 8(4), 439-448.Goldfarb, J. C. (1991). The Cynical Society. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.Goldman, R. (1996). Sign wars: The cluttered landscape ofadvertising. New York: Guildford Press.Govier, T. (1997). Cynicism, pessimism, optimism and hope,Social trust in human communities. Buffalo, NY: McGill-QueenÕs University Press.Gruder, C. L., and et al. (1978). Empirical tests of the absolutesleeper effect predicted from the discounting cue hypothesis.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36(10), 1061-1074.Kanter, D. L., and Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans:Living and working in an age of discontent and disillusion.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 31) / 351Kapferer, J.-N. (1995). Brand confusion: Empirical study of alegal concept. Psychology & Marketing, 12(6), 551-568.Kent, R. J., and Allen, C. T. (1994). Competitive interferenceeffects in consumer memory for advertising: The role ofbrand familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 97-105.Koslow, S. (2000). Can the truth hurt? How honest and persua-sive advertising can unintentionally lead to increasedconsumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34(2).Leippe, M. R., Greenwald, A. G., and Baumgardner, M. H.(1982). Delayed persuasion as a consequence of associativeinterference: A context confusion effect. Personality &Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(4), 644-650.Mangleburg, T. F., and Bristol, T. (1998). Socialization andadolescentsÕ skepticism toward advertising. Journal ofAdvertising, 27(3), 11-21.McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park,Calif.: SAGE Publications.McCroskey, J. C., and Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: Areexamination of the construct and its measurement.Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90-103.Oliver, R. L., and Bearden, W. O. (1985). Disconfirmationprocesses and consumer evaluations in product usage.Journal of Business Research, 13, 235-246.Pratkanis, A. R., Greenwald, A. G., Leippe, M. R., andBaumgardner, M. H. (1988). In search of reliable persuasioneffects: III. The sleeper effect is dead: Long live the sleepereffect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54(2),203-218.Singh, J., and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trustmechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 150-167.Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., and Sabol, B. (2002). Consumertrust, value and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal ofMarketing, 66(1), 15-37.Stivers, R. (1994). The culture of cynicism: American morality indecline. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative re-search: Techniques and procedures for developing groundedtheory. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.Wanzenried, J. W., and Powell, F. C. (1993). Source credibilityand dimensional stability: A test of the Leathers PersonalCredibility Scale using perceptions of three presidentialcandidates. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 77(2), 403-406.WebsterÕs Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. (1990). Springfield,MA: Merriam-Webster.