{"id":2458,"date":"2023-10-17T14:19:44","date_gmt":"2023-10-17T14:19:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/?p=2458"},"modified":"2024-11-03T13:56:05","modified_gmt":"2024-11-03T13:56:05","slug":"reference-groups","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/reference-groups\/","title":{"rendered":"Reference Groups"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

(image credit<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let’s start with some mysteries. Because fun, that’s why:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mystery #1, those students wearing the same types of clothes <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

You remember, the ones from our chapter intro page:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"two
(credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Are they really just sheep blindly copying each other? And if they are, why would any sane person want to do that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mystery #2: The girl in the wellies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Here’s a personal story from your author:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One day many years ago I was walking across the campus of a large midwestern American university I nearly laughed out loud when a girl in boots crossed my path. She had done nothing wrong, nobody else on the street had any reason to laugh, and I had never met her before in my life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What’s funny about that? It was a juxtaposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She was dressed stylishly for a day out in the city.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"girl
A crude approximation of the rough vibe of her clothes (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

And the boots? These:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A
Wellington Boots (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Maybe that seems pretty sensible to you. But I grew up in the UK at a time when Wellington boots were practical footware for visiting your cousins in the countryside. It was unromantic 100% waterproof solid rubber footwear for stomping around in muddy fields.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"close
“Get your wellies on, we’re going for a walk” (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

It wasn’t that the boots didn’t look nice on her (she had clearly spent many hours orchestrating her entire look to the tiniest detail), but it did feel a bit like visiting a New York City fashion show and watching the catwalk models carry small haybales with pitchforks. It felt hilariously incongruent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the mystery is how this ever could have come to pass. How did a middle-America fashion plate end up dolled to the nines in deeply practical rural footwear from another continent?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reference group theory<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This idea is an old one <\/span>, and in its barest form is extremely simple: we use other people as reference points, deriving information from them about how the world is, and how it is supposed to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bearden and Etzel <\/span> prominently define reference groups as “a person or group of people that significantly influences an individual’s behaviour”. The dictionary largely agrees<\/a>. We see this definition as a little too broad, though. If your boss screams at you to finish your report by Friday (“or don’t come back to work on Monday, you’ll be fired!”), then it doesn’t seem fair to describe this as reference group influence. You aren’t referring to anything here, you are receiving direct (and rather coercive) orders. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reference groups are far more about people that we use as measuring sticks, to determine something useful about the world. We would suggest a definition like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Reference groups<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Individuals or groups whom we use as observation points to inform our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviours<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

That might sound a little strange, but this is something people do all the time, and often without realizing it. We frequently refer to others around us to help work out what we are seeing, or whether a thing is worthwhile, or to feel more confident about our choices and actions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mini examples: Are those cookies on the office counter too old to be edible? If your colleagues are all helping themselves then they must be fine! Will people judge you for wearing a suit at work without a tie? Probably not if you can see many co-workers going tie-less already! Other people are really useful sources of information to help us more confidently interpret the world around us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There we go. We’ve figured it out. Job done! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, that was a quick chapter!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ok, maybe there are a few loose ends left to tie up. Details like: What information people get, and from whom. But that shouldn’t take long, surely#up?<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
#down.  With all due appologies to fans of long pages, it should be fairly quick, yes<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
The what<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What information do we get? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Free prizes to everyone who said “lots of kinds”. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fortunately, it seems to fall into a few types. It has been divided up different ways by different people, but there is an old distinction that has proven somewhat useful over the years (even if the types do seem to get a bit tangled in real-world type applications): Informational <\/strong>and normative<\/strong> influence#up <\/span>.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. To be fair, normative comes in several flavours - humans are just messy like that<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
Informational influence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This is information about how the world is. We use it for what scholars call “uncertainty reduction” and people who speak normal English call “figuring things out”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A quick example should make this clear (if it wasn’t already). Let’s say you are in an unfamiliar neighbourhood, it is dinner time, and you come across this cafe:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"Many
“How about that one?”
(credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
Your problem is that you don’t have enough information: It could be the best food you’ve ever tasted, or it could give you food poisoning. There is no obvious way to know for sure…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But there is one clue that might help: The tables seem pretty crowded. Lots of other people are eating here, and they probably have information that we don’t – surely at least some of them have eaten here before, and been moved to come back. Now it’s possible that they are all tourists off a bus, and can’t even read the menu… but that seems unlikely#up.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. Consumption is always at least a little bit of a gamble. Even the McBurger you have bought a hundred times befere has a non-zero possibility of being defective. Random life advice: if this worries you excessively, the real trick is not to avoid all new experiences, it is to find some confidence that you can handle things if they do, occasionally, go wrong<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
In other words, we are using these people as a reference point to give us information: Observing them provides us with a solid clue that this cafe is more likely to be a win for our tastebuds than a loss for our digestive tract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We can almost hear some of you shouting at your screen saying: “No no no! I’d just look up reviews of the cafe on a social media app”. And we believe you, but is that really so different? You are still just finding a reference group of consumers to get information from. The only difference is where <\/strong>you are looking, not what the basic type of information that you are seeking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So… informational influence is about reviews?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Yes… but in the same way that “exercise” is “about running”: That happens a lot, but it plays out in lots of other ways too<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps you see your neighbours coming into your apartment building looking soggy, and use that information to decide to take your umbrella when you go out. Maybe you look down your street to see if anyone else has their recycling bins out, to see if you are supposed to do it too (what are the odds that your neighbours are all wrong too).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Informational Influence<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Learning about the external world by observing cues from others<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Social proof<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
When we use reference groups to decide how true or good something is, this is a specific type of informational influence called social proof <\/span>. This form is important for marketing practitioners – especially in e-commerce#up.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. But it also shows up many places. If you aren't sure if a joke was funny, then hearing others laughing might offer social proof that it was. This explains why TV shows use pre-recorded 'laugh tracks' and studio audiences, why stand-up comedians have warm-up acts, and why hilarious in-jokes suddenly sound lame when you tell someone else (\"... I guess you had to be there...\")<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
When you see a product which has a 4.5 star average review, that is social proof. When you see a wall of logos of the big firms that use a website, that is social proof. When you see that someone has 12 million followers, or that software has been downloaded 500,000+ times, or a celebrity or ‘influencer’ plugging some product, those are all social proof too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
E-marketers are so convinced<\/a> that social proof is important that they build special widgets to make it easier. The page you are reading right now is built using WordPress (which is used to build over 40%<\/a> of the world’s websites#up), and comes with its own built-in “testimonial” pattern you can insert. Here is what it looks like (with the default content – nothing changed): <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
“Contributing makes me feel like I’m being useful to the planet”.<\/p>\n\u2013 Anna Wong, Volunteer<\/em><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
#down More social proof, ka-ching!<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
If you don’t like that one, there are plenty of others<\/a> you can quickly install too (also, if you remember our goals page<\/a> they have a lot of “call to action” options too).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Normative influence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The other type of thing we can learn from observing reference groups is information about what they believe, what they like or are doing, and what they think is important. That kind of information can be useful for managing our relationships#up with them: Do we want to be friendly? Close friends? Good neighbours? Enemies? These are easier to manage if you can find out things about them.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. Any kind of relationship, not just the romantic kind. If you have a 30 second friendly chat with someone in the hallway, that's a micro relationship<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
Sounds complicated<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
It is… and it isn’t. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Think about how a ferral cat catches its dinner (we know, we know! But stay with us here a minute).<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"A
Cat with ex-fish (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
It’s pretty simple: See fish, be sneaky, grab fish#up<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. Lick self clean adorably<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
Now same question about wolves:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"A
“stop goofing off back there, we’re going this way” (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
It’s more complicated because they have to work together. Their hunt will go badly if one stops chasing a bison and the other doesn’t, or if one scatters a herd of deer when the others aren’t ready. Unlike cats, wolves have to coordinate with each other. That means observing each other to learn about the outside world (“big elk over there”), and also about each other’s actions: Are we still running now? Who is in charge of this hunt?  Is there a chance to change who is in charge?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Humans do this too#up, and have for hundreds of thousands of years (if not longer). We cooperate to find food and shelter, look after children, survive predators, and other basic needs. We’ve had to get good at reading who is in charge, who is good at different jobs, how to get enough of the help we need,, and avoid getting hurt.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. So do some fish, it turns out<\/a>: some of them seem to do better at searching for food by suppressing their individual personalities to follow group norms<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n
Normative Influence<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Learning what will help us be accepted or approved, by observing cues from others<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
And that affects consumer behaviour, does it? <\/h4>\n\n\n\n
It sure does. Think of those students:<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"two
This is not what you thought was coming next, was it?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
The jeans aren’t part of a plan to overthrow leaders (or so professors hope), but students do often want friends to hang out with or, at the least, not to be ostracized by the others. Like wolves, they need to observe what types of behaviours will tend to help or block those goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wolves signal to each other with body language (such as staring or whining). People do that too, but also with our clothes and other possessions (recall, we had a whole page about how possessions can be symbolic<\/a>). Students know that if they wear a business suit to class, then others are likely to assume a lot of things about them, and these assumptions may (or may not) be helpful to their goal of making friends#up.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. These assumptions could be totally wrong, of course. You never really know what a person thinks until you talk to them where they are feeling very comfortable<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
For most students jeans and t-shirts don’t send strong signals. They are often seen as ‘normal’ – a fairly neutral baseline which won’t cause people to start with strong assumptions about you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Or, to put it another way, they signal belonging to a loose reference group of “fellow students whom I’m generally open to getting along with”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Note: We are talking in very general terms here. Any one individual student might see some other reference groups as more relevant or useful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So you are saying we evolved to be jean-wearing students?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
If you were alive in 14th-century Europe you may have observed that shoe length<\/a> signals how important you are. You probably weren’t much of anyone if your shoes were so short that you didn’t even have to stuff the ends with moss, and you could kneel down without them getting in the way.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"A
This person was so lame they didn’t even have to tie their shoe-tip to their leg to be able to walk (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
If you were a Hausa emir from northern Nigeria you would have observed that you could display your status by having ostrich feathers built into the instep of your shoe (which sounds a lot more practical than overly long ones to us, but what do we know).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Evolution has equipped us to spot signals, but the exact specifics of the signals vary wildly depending on where (and when) you are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
FAQs<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Do we know we are sending signals like this?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Sometimes it is very conscious and deliberate (“I can’t wear that! They’ll hate me!”). Other times we haven’t thought about it much (“I just like these ones, they feel normal”). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you are uncomfortable with the idea that your jeans are symbolic (why are academics so obsessed with turning everything into symbols?) Imagine showing up to a class one day wearing your normal clothes and finding every other student in the room wearing a kimono. We’re guessing you would feel surprised and uneasy. But why? You haven’t changed!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Did you miss something though? Did they not tell you on purpose? Do they all think there is something wrong with you now? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
You have been dislocated from your usual normative reference group understanding here. You are suddenly questioning your comfortable familiarity with classroom dress signals. That feels terrible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Are there different kinds of normative signals?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Bearden and Etzel <\/span>, who first named ‘reference groups’ into the CB academic literature described two kinds of normative functions for reference groups#up: “utilitarian” and “value-expressive”<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. And also an 'informational function', by which they mean the same thing as we do<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
They describe, ‘utilitarian’ influence as what happens when you comply with a group purely to fit in – You wear the suit because you have to, not because you like it, or it means anything deeper. it’s just a thing you are supposed to do. They call it ‘utilitarian<\/strong>‘ to imply that you are just “using<\/strong>” the thing in a disinterested way; you don’t care much about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They describe ‘value-expressive’ as meaning that you use this product to connect with others by communicating about what is important in life (e.g., pictures of my kids communicate that I value family, listening to certain music communicates rebelliousness, etc). This suggests that you do care about it, and you use it to connect with other people because they might care too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sometimes value expressive signalling is done on purpose (“that’s such a preppie colour”) other times it is more of a side-benefit. For example, if you wear rock climbing gear because you want to climb rocks that may still signal to others that you may have a common interest in outdoor activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So we use normative signals to make people like us?<\/h5>
\n
Wearing the right clothes won’t “make” anyone like you, any more than the right joke or smile will. Friendship is not a magic spell, conjured by any exact set of gestures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But friendship grows out of a lot of small moments (do you stop and chat?) many of which are based on quick judgments (“will we have anything in common?”). Any signals that help those to happen could be helpful.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
Did Bearden and Etzel invent the idea of reference groups? And why do they have different terms for it than us?<\/h5>
\n
The idea of reference groups was already 40 years old when Bearden and Etzel’s article was published and was widely used by marketing practitioners (they point this out in their own first two pages). They were drawing on these older traditions when they made their distinction between “informational”, “utilitarian”, and “value expressive” functions of reference groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But yes, sometimes different groups of scientists will divide similar things using different labels: some people look at a leg and say “ah ha, it’s 3 bones and a joint in the middle”, and others say “it’s a running and kicking device”, and others say “a dynamic environment modification appendage” (we don’t like those last people either).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mildly amusing side note: this paper classifies a “man’s suit” as a necessity (rather than a luxury). Perhaps this was the case in 1982, but we suspect a lot of people would see this one differently if they were to repeat their study today!<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
Neurodiversity alert: Is everyone good at this?<\/h5>
\n
It is unwise to make universal declarations about “what autistic people are like”, because it is a spectrum that encompasses a wide variety<\/a> of social, behavioural, and sensory factors.  That said, one of the features that is relatively common in autistic people#up is difficulty in detecting social cues and reading the thoughts and feelings of others.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. A survey of over 600 English-speaking autistic adults from around the world <\/span> identified \"autistic person\" as a term that is generally preferred over \"person with autism\", but there was considerable variation in this, and there were no universally accepted terms<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
This can make social life even more complicated than it might already have been because signals that may seem obvious to ‘neurotypical’ people may not be clear to autistic ones. It’s perhaps a little like colourblindness: If you are colourblind then it must be baffling that others around you keep treating the same colour as if it sometimes means completely different things, just as it baffles them when you appear to be ignoring (what they see as) extremely obvious red vs. green signals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People are adaptable, though. Colourblind people can learn that the red traffic light is the one at the top, and green at the bottom (or on the right and left for horizontal lights). Autistic people can “mask”, by attempting to simulate how neurotypical people behave. Some autistic people are very successful at masking but they usually find it exhausting and stressful. It requires constant guesswork and vigilance for whether one is succeeding or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For any adaptation, it is worth being aware of when it is most likely to struggle. In the case of colourblindness, It can be hard to see which position a traffic light is in at nighttime. Similarly, autistic people can be thrown by sudden changes in social situations. These can be easy for them to miss. Indeed, one way of thinking about autism is as a form of social context-blindness <\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
The whom<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Nearly anybody can be treated as a reference group – fellow students we haven’t met, celebrities on TV (it can be one person, not an actual group), influencers of the internet, the kids who hang around on the corner of our street, accountants, anyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Recall our example of the cafe. If you are looking at that crowded patio then you are using a bunch of strangers you have never met before as a reference group because they seem to offer a place to make a useful inference in that particular situation (and if you look closer to see if they look like tourists vs. locals, then you are being even more nuanced about how you choose the group). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As usual, there are some patterns though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Primary vs. secondary<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Some people are more relevant to us as reference groups than others: we notice things about them faster and put more weight on what we observe. The ones that influence us the most, on a daily basis are “primary” groups, where others are more “secondary”. In reality, of course, it’s probably more of a sliding scale. Some people we see every day, some every week, and some people make a big impression on us in just a few meetings. But it’s useful to have a shorthand set of labels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The people on the cafe patio are very much a secondary reference group – we notice them only in this one transitory situation, and use them to draw only a very narrow inference about whether to eat in one particular cafe. We may also draw some broad behavioural clues from them, too, about how to behave on that patio (is this a place where you can be loud and rowdy, or where you will annoy everyone if you don’t sit and talk quietly), but this is likely as far as it will go. We probably wouldn’t feel any pressure to dress like they do, or to talk about the same things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fellow students probably hold more weight as a group for judging how to be. You really might want to dress and act in ways that broadly fit in with them – or, at least, that don’t stand out in ways that you think they will obviously disapprove of (“OMG, you’re wearing that<\/strong>?”). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Your strongest (most primary) reference groups, though, can be much more specific. It can be your absolute favourite celebrity, a smaller circle of friends, a ‘scene’ or group you are into, or your family. Maybe it is more important for you to dress, talk, walk, and sound like them than it is to fit in with the wider student group (though if there are big conflicts between what they want, this can be stressful to navigate).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All else equal, as a general rule, there does seem to be a pattern where we tend to trust people more if they are similar to us; This is called “homophily”<\/strong> (from the Greek root words for ‘same’ and ‘love’). It can be somewhat nuanced because we can be idiosyncratic about who we see as truly similar to us – one might assume that all students see other students as similar and relevant to themselves, but some will do this much more than others will. Overall, though, it is often useful as a way of taking an educated guess at who is more likely to perceive as a relevant reference group <\/span>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Aspirational \/ Associative Reference groups<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
So far our normative reference group examples have all been about fitting in: Wearing the right clothes to be accepted, or the right pointy or feathered shoes to show how important you are, etc. These are all cases where people are drawing information about how to fit in with a group with which they associate <\/strong>themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are other options too, though. You can draw information about groups with which you are not associated, but with which you would like to be! These are aspirational<\/strong> reference groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sometimes this takes the form of “conspicuous consumption”: buying expensive goods (or expensive-seeming ones) in order to try to fit in with wealthier groups that we would like to be part of <\/span>. Other times it might be about seeing the ‘cool’ kids at school dressing a certain way, and wanting to fit in with them. It could be a team at work that you want to join, or celebrities or influencers whom you admire. You might style yourselves or your surroundings to be more like these people, or you might adopt their phrases and ways of speaking, because it makes you feel better about who you are (perhaps even if you will never meet these people personally).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\"A<\/figure>
\n
Common Student Mistake!<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
Aspirational vs. <\/strong>Associative<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What is the difference?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to dictionary.com:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
Aspire<\/a>: to long, aim, or seek ambitiously; be eagerly desirous, especially for something great or of high value<\/p>\nto aspire after literary immortality; to aspire to be a doctor.<\/em><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n
Associate<\/a>: to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally<\/p>\nHe was accused of associating with known criminals<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
So think: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is this a person that they already associate <\/strong>with, or someone they aspire to <\/strong>be like?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
A study (elegantly titled: “You are what they eat”) shows that people who are motivated to self-enhance can start forming mental connections between their self and brands that they see aspirational reference groups using. Conversely, consumers who are motivated to verify their selves form those connections to brands when they see them being used by associative reference groups <\/span>. It’s beautiful when the different parts of our understanding can come together to form a big picture like this, is it not!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dissociative reference groups<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Reference groups aren’t only about trying to be like others, though! We sometimes have groups that we define ourselves against (“dissociative<\/strong>” groups), and we will try to avoid products that we feel would tie us to these groups. A classic stereotype of this is jocks vs. nerds: neither group would want to use things that they associate with the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This doesn’t necessarily mean hating the outgroup: In one study Canadian students wanted products less when they were tagged as ‘American’ (vs. other countries that they didn’t care so much about like Belgium, or non-country tags like “vintage”) – particularly when they were reminded of their Canadianness (activating it as a working identity). Why? Do Canadians hate Americans? Not really, but countries often have complicated relationships with their much larger neighbours (in terms of population and economic size), They can experience feelings that vacillate between being overrun, ignored, and quietly superior (ask the Welsh about the English, New Zealanders about Australians, Austrians about Germans, etc). Call it a “little sibling complex” if you like. So it wasn’t that these Canadian consumers reacted against all outgroups – it wasn’t “us vs. everyone else”. They were picky about the outgroups that they could be triggered to feel gently resentful towards <\/span>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How about one last quick example: In the early 2000’s the British high-fashion brand Burberry started seeing its iconic checkered pattern adopted by a lower-class group famed for slightly antisocial manners called Chavs. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"Man
Not Burberry’s consumer of choice (and he doesn’t care – credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
Good for the brand because they had more sales? No, bad. They felt their brand had been hijacked<\/a>, because once the chavs were a highly dissociative group for their normal clientele – the ones who shelled out big money for their items#up.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. Here<\/a> is a very different and rather nuanced take from someone who is clearly deeply initimate with the increasingly confusing class politics of the British fashion scene - fair warning: they are so initimate that it gets a little hard to follow for those who aren't<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
How did they ‘fix’ it?<\/h5>
\n
By bringing in a new boss called Angela Ahrendts, who bought back<\/a> 23 licenses that they had sold for other firms to produce goods with Burberry’s check pattern (including nappies\/diapers and dog clothes). She also made every single design decision run through the new design chief designer she brought in, who, it turns out, was a pretty talented guy<\/a>. They raised their prices and started hosting fun and glamorous events for the London fashion scene, at which they sold clothes directly off the catwalk (thus cutting out time for imitators to copy them). Another success was starting a trend for releasing limited-run ‘it’ bags each year, which cost over \u00a310,000 and turned out to be very popular with A-list celebrities while remaining safely out of the reach of their non-target market. Within a few years, the glamour started to return, and they were even able to come back to being bold with their use of their check pattern again.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
We use reference groups to help us take a measure of the world. They help inform our choices of what to eat, wear, do, have, be, and more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lets pause for a second and put this into the context of what we have already learned. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"Image<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
People perceive what is in front of them, and this is (to some extent) shaped by motivations and beliefs. Those things are all, to some extent, embedded in our identity – the way we think of ourself. But they are embedded, too, within our social world. The observations we make of those around us provide information and help set the context for how we understand our selves, our goals, and what we perceive. Does that checked jacket look good on me? It depends, to some extent, on who else is wearing it!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What about the mystery of the boots?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
How did our midwestern US city girl end up wearing uber-practical British agricultural footwear as part of her fashion ensemble?<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"A
Yes, those ones (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
It took us a while to work out the backstory, but we got there in the end. In a word, the answer is probably “festivals”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For those who aren’t familiar, the British host dozens of music festivals each year, in which hundreds and thousands of fans will gather for a weekend to see dozens of acts. The biggest ones (like Glastonbury and Reading#up) draw the most well-known and popular artists from around the world.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. Pronounced, in the inexplicable British tradition, as \"GLAST-on-brie\" and \"RED-ing\"<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
\n
\"An
Such fun (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
Among the things the UK is most famous for is its rain#up, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone to learn that these fields tend to get muddy. Very very<\/strong> muddy. And at some point, some bright spark of a person had the idea of selling brightly coloured and decorated festival wellies to attendees.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
#down. It does rain here often, but usually fairly lightly. Combined with the mild climate, you can be active outdoors pretty much year-round. This is an under-appreciated part of living here (especially by the Brits themselves)<\/pre>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
\n
\"A
Festival wellies! (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
And just like that, utilitarian footware became party clothes. Some famous singers will inevitably have had their pictures taken by paparazzi, and, because they are so widely admired as aspirational reference groups, the next thing you know, people all around the world take a normative cue, and now want to wear solid lumps of rubber that have been moulded into the shape of a lower leg and foot. And they want this not to make their way through deep mud, but as a fashion accessory.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"A
The British fashion industry thanks you for your contributions, mud (credit<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
Review<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
{pods_post_review}<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\r\n\t\t{4193465:I5EFZNZT},{4193465:QRRXF2IZ};{4193465:QRRXF2IZ};{4193465:NV5CKMHQ};{4193465:E8PVT4DX};{4193465:QRRXF2IZ};{4193465:V9Y259G5};{4193465:YNGXCK3K};{4193465:Q6VJBMVD};{4193465:IM29D88J},{4193465:R4RD6R8A};{4193465:H3ZPUYX3};{4193465:IA9RAYNT}<\/span>\r\n\t\tapa<\/span>\r\n\t\tcreator<\/span>\r\n\t\tasc<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t0<\/span>\r\n\t\t<\/span>\r\n\t\t2458<\/span>
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Do we do what everyone else does? Sometimes. But others inform what we do quite often.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2538,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"chapter":[18],"exclude_from_index":[16],"class_list":["post-2458","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","chapter-6-cultures-consumers-in","exclude_from_index-include"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2458","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2458"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2458\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3991,"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2458\/revisions\/3991"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2538"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2458"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2458"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2458"},{"taxonomy":"chapter","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/chapter?post=2458"},{"taxonomy":"exclude_from_index","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/illuminated-text.com\/cb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/exclude_from_index?post=2458"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}