Notes on Ordabayeva and Chandon (2011) – Getting Ahead of the Joneses

Main Topic or Phenomenon

This paper examines the counterintuitive effects of increasing material equality on conspicuous consumption among bottom-tier consumers. The research challenges the conventional wisdom that greater equality in income or possessions necessarily reduces consumption among those at the bottom of the distribution.

Key Insight

Equality can backfire: Making society more equal doesn’t automatically reduce conspicuous consumption among the poor - it can actually increase it when status matters.

Theoretical Construct

The paper introduces and tests two competing mechanisms:

Possession Gap: The difference between what one person has and what other people have. Traditional research suggests that reducing this gap (through greater equality) should decrease consumption motivation among bottom-tier consumers.

Position Gain: The increase in social rank or percentile position that consumption provides within a distribution. The authors argue this mechanism can override possession gap effects when status matters.

The framework posits that equality simultaneously reduces possession gaps (decreasing consumption motivation) while increasing position gains available from conspicuous consumption (increasing consumption motivation).

Key Findings

1. Greater equality increases conspicuous consumption among bottom-tier consumers when social position matters (when consumption is conspicuous, social competition goals are primed, or the environment is competitive).

2. Greater equality reduces consumption when consumers focus on the narrower possession gap rather than position gains.

3. The effect depends on product type: equality increases conspicuous consumption but decreases inconspicuous (status-neutral) consumption.

4. Greater equality increases satisfaction among bottom-tier consumers due to reduced possession gaps, but this satisfaction effect is overridden by position gain motivations when status is important.

5. Effects are robust across different operationalizations of status (income vs. specific possessions) and decision contexts (spending vs. saving, gift-giving vs. self-consumption).

Boundary Conditions and Moderators

Product Conspicuousness: Effects only occur for status-enhancing products, not status-neutral products.

Social Goals:

• Social competition goals amplify the equality → increased consumption effect
• Social indifference goals reverse the effect (equality reduces consumption)

Social Context:

• Competitive environments strengthen the main effect
• Cooperative environments reverse the effect

Focus Manipulation: When attention is directed to possession gaps vs. position gains, the effects reverse accordingly.

Building on Previous Work

The paper challenges the dominant “keeping up with the Joneses” framework that focuses solely on possession gaps. Previous research (Frank, Duesenberry, Christen & Morgan) predicted that equality should reduce consumption by narrowing possession gaps and reducing envy.

This work extends social comparison theory by incorporating forward-looking position gains alongside backward-looking possession comparisons. It also builds on Veblen’s original conspicuous consumption theory by emphasizing the desire to “excel everyone else” rather than merely match others.

The research connects to range-frequency theory by showing that percentile position changes matter beyond initial position, and relates to optimal distinctiveness theory by demonstrating that differentiation motivation depends on the size of groups that can be surpassed.

Major Theoretical Contribution

The paper’s primary contribution is revealing the dual nature of equality’s effects through two distinct psychological mechanisms. This advances consumer behavior theory by:

1. Showing that equality effects depend on which comparison mechanism is more salient
2. Demonstrating that status motivations can override satisfaction-based consumption decisions
3. Providing a more nuanced framework for understanding when social comparisons drive consumption up versus down
4. Bridging micro-level consumer psychology with macro-level policy implications

Major Managerial Implication

For Marketers: Rather than emphasizing product exclusivity alone, marketers should highlight status improvement benefits and position gains. Companies can structure loyalty programs to maximize position gains (concentrating customers in middle tiers) and provide rank/percentile information to customers.

For Policy Makers: Redistribution policies may backfire in competitive social environments by actually increasing conspicuous consumption among those they aim to help. However, policies promoting cooperation and social indifference may enhance equality’s intended effects.

Unexplored Theoretical Factors

Several potential moderators were not examined:

Temporal Factors:

• Effects of anticipated vs. current equality changes
• Duration of exposure to equality conditions
• Timing of consumption decisions relative to status information

Individual Differences:

• Self-esteem and self-concept clarity
• Social comparison orientation
• Materialism and status consciousness
• Cultural background (individualism vs. collectivism)

Reference Group Characteristics:

• Group size and composition
• Strength of ties within the social group
• Visibility and observability of consumption within the group
• Geographic proximity of reference others

Product/Category Factors:

• Durability of status signals
• Ease of status verification
• Category involvement and expertise
• Price sensitivity and budget constraints

Cognitive Factors:

• Cognitive load and processing capacity
• Numerical literacy and statistical reasoning ability
• Attention and mindfulness during consumption decisions

Social Network Structure:

• Multiple, potentially conflicting reference groups
• Cross-cutting social identities
• Network density and redundancy of social information

Reference

Ordabayeva, Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011), “Getting Ahead of the Joneses: When Equality Increases Conspicuous Consumption among Bottom-Tier Consumers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (1), 27–41.