Hire Writer

The Acculturation Theory And Models Cultural Studies Essay

Categories: Civilization Immigration Psychology Theory

Download

Essay, Pages 24 (5859 words)

Views

With increasing Numberss of people immigrating into the United States every twelvemonth,

the American population is going more diversified. In 1997 entirely, a sum of 798,378

new immigrants entered the U.S. ( U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 1999 ) .

The states ‘ three largest minority groups, the Blacks, Hispanics, and Asiatic Americans

are turning much faster than Anglo Americans. In 1994, the Black population grew by

1.5 % , the Latino population increased by 3.5 % , the Asiatic population grew by 3.8 % ,

whereas the white, non-Hispanic population grew by a mere 0.4 % ( U.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ The Acculturation Theory And Models Cultural Studies Essay ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

S. Bureau of the

Census 1995 ) . The already considerable size of the minority groups and their fast

growings open up a big possible market to the houses. Anxious to aim these minority

groups, sellers want to cognize how these cultural groups differ from Anglo Americans

and how persons within a group differ from each other.

Surveies have been undertaken to reply these inquiries. Whereas factors such as

socioeconomic and demographic variables can be used to qualify these minority

groups, most research has paid attending to the influence of cultural factors on minority

persons ‘ consumer behaviour.

The two variables most frequently used to correlate with

these minority consumers ‘ behaviour are assimilation into the mainstream civilization ( e.g. ,

D’Rozario and Douglas 1999 ; Lee 1993 ; Ownbey and Horridge 1997 ) and cultural

designation ( e.g. , Stayman and Deshpande 1989 ) . These surveies found that persons

with different assimilation degrees and different cultural designation tend to exhibit

different behaviour in ingestion countries such as information hunt behaviour, shopping

orientation, and nutrient ingestion wonts.

A reappraisal of these extant surveies revealed several jobs.

First, although

constructs such as socialization, assimilation, and cultural designation are often used,

it is frequently ill-defined what these constructs truly intend. Sometimes what is meant by

socialization is really assimilation, whereas other times socialization and cultural

designation are treated as synonymous. Such confusions over the constructs have besides

led to different operationalization of the concepts, which poses inquiries about both the

cogency of these surveies and the comparison of the consequences from different surveies.

Second, socialization in many instances is taken to be tantamount to assimilation and

is treated as a one-dimensional concept ( D’Rozario and Douglas ( 1999 ) is a noteworthy

exclusion ) . However, both psychological and sociological research has shown that

socialization is a multidimensional concept ( Berry, Poortinga, Segall and Dasen 1992 ;

Gordon 1964 ; Johnston 1963 ; Ward and Rana-Deuba 1999 ) . Consumer research workers need

to see these multiple dimensions of socialization, which may hold different

influence upon minority consumers ‘ behaviour.

Third, although empirical research has found that the socialization procedure does

hold an influence on consumer behaviour ( D’Rozario and Douglas 1999 ; Khairullah and

Khairullah 1999 ; Lee 1993 ) , no systematic history exists that explains why and how

socialization influences consumer behaviour. Such a systematic account is imperative

if we desire a true apprehension of the socialization procedure and its influence on consumer behaviour. Consumer research workers should travel beyond the mere observation that

acculturating persons do exhibit different consumer behaviour and should research the

mechanism that leads to such differences ( Costa 1995 ) .

This paper tries to decide the above jobs through a theoretical theoretical account of

socialization and consumer behaviour. In this theoretical account, we present some initial attempt to

explore the underlying relationship between socialization and consumer behaviour. An

acculturating person ‘s ingestion experience is understood from a consumer

resocialization position and from the battle between alteration and continuity of the

person ‘s self-identity. The theoretical account besides incorporates of import environmental factors

and single features and explains how they can act upon the relationship

between socialization and consumer behaviour.

Our theoretical account includes assimilation and cultural designation in a broader construct —

socialization. It is argued that socialization is a multidimensional concept. One

dimension of socialization is the credence of the host civilization or the mainstream civilization.

And the other dimension is the person ‘s care of his or her original or cultural

civilization, which is closely related to the construct of cultural designation. A individual

following many facets of the chief civilization does non needfully has a low grade of cultural

designation, and frailty versa. Different patterns emerge as persons vary along these

two dimensions. Having given a wide image of our model, we now turn to the

construct of socialization and the difference between socialization and assimilation.

ACCULTURATION AND ASSIMILATION: CONCEPTS AND DIFFERENCES

Specifying Socialization

Formal surveies of socialization can be traced back to the work of Herskovits

( 1938 ) . Since so research on socialization has greatly prospered. This research has

been chiefly carried out by anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists. Surveies of

socialization in consumer research country started much later ( Hair and Andersen 1973 ;

Pruden and Longman 1972 ) .

Socialization has been defined otherwise in these countries. One widely cited

definition of socialization was given by the Social Science Research Council ( 1954,

p.974 ) : “ aˆ¦acculturation may be defined as civilization alteration that is initiated by the

concurrence of two or more independent cultural systems. ” O’Guinn, Imperia and

MacAdams ( 1987 ) defined socialization as “ the procedure by which those new to a society

follow the attitudes, values and behaviours of the dominant host civilization. ” Berry et Al.

( 1992 ) interpreted socialization as the cultural transmittal experienced by an person

due to his or her direct contact with another civilization. Within the country of consumer

research, socialization has been defined as immigrants ‘ “ acquisition of traits of the host

civilization ” and “ care of traits of the civilization of beginning ” ( Laroche et al. 1997, p.34 ) .

All of the above definitions are concerned with the alterations an person

undergoes when in direct contact with a new civilization. This is termed “ psychological

socialization ” by Graves ( 1967 ) . The term is used in contrast with group-level socialization, which refers to a whole group ‘s structural, economic and other alterations due

to the group ‘s contact with a new civilization. Although an person ‘s socialization

contributes to and is influenced by group-level socialization, the two do non ever

evolve in the same way or in the same manner. An person may be extremely

acculturated, whereas the group he or she belongs to may be non acculturated at all. The

contrary may besides be true. As our focal point here is on each single consumer, we shall

merely discuss the individual-level socialization. We shall non restrain ourselves to merely

psychological factors, as research has indicated that both sociocultural and psychological

accommodations occur in the socialization procedure ( Ward and Rana-Deuba 1999 ) .

Here we define socialization as the alterations in an person ‘s value, attitude, and

behaviour due to his or her direct contact with a civilization other than his or her original

civilization. This socialization is a long procedure and can travel on for several old ages or even

throughout a individual ‘s full life. Different persons may take different gaits in this

socialization procedure. Some persons may be wholly assimilated into the host

civilization and lost their original cultural individuality, while other persons may incorporate the

host civilization into their original civilization. Therefore this socialization procedure is extremely

individualized and is influenced by an person ‘s psychological traits every bit good as

environmental and other external factors.

Having defined socialization, it is utile to farther distinguish socialization from

assimilation. Acculturation and assimilation are similar since they all refer to a procedure

that happens when an person is in direct contact with a new civilization. But assimilation

takes on a much narrower significance than socialization. Assimilation refers to the

acceptance of the host civilization and the loss of the original civilization. It is a unidirectional

procedure that goes from the person ‘s original civilization to the new host civilization. As one

moves on in the assimilation procedure, he loses portion of his original civilization and acquires the

host civilization so that he or she will be identical from people in the host civilization.

Acculturation, on the other manus, does non needfully assume the loss of one ‘s original

civilization and does non ever lead to the acceptance of the host civilization. It is a

multidimensional concept, which is discussed following.

Multidimensional Nature of Socialization

In most surveies of socialization by consumer research workers, socialization is

measured by some graduated table on assorted points refering to the respondents ‘ socialization

procedure, such as linguistic communication penchant and cognition about the host civilization. A

respondent ‘s tonss on all points are so summed up ( or farther averaged ) to give a

individual mark of the respondent ‘s socialization degree. This pattern presumes socialization

to be one-dimensional and hence can be expressed by a individual mark. However,

research in psychological science and sociology has shown that socialization is a more complex

multidimensional construct.

Laroche et Al. ( 1997 ) argued that socialization consists of three dimensions:

media exposure, societal interaction and engagement, and English linguistic communication usage with

household members. The construction was supported by their trial on Italian-Canadians.

Although the survey confirmed that socialization is a multidimensional concept, their exclusion of inquiries other than those related to these three factors makes their

decision on the exact construction of socialization merely probationary.

Gordon ( 1964 ) defined seven interdependent yet distinguishable dimensions of

assimilation: cultural assimilation, which he defines as socialization, structural

assimilation, matrimonial assimilation, identificational assimilation, attitude receptional

assimilation, behavior receptional assimilation, and civic assimilation. Although he

focused on assimilation instead than socialization, these constituents or dimensions can

besides be validly used to depict socialization. When we talk about individual-level

socialization, nevertheless, some of the dimensions above can be excluded. Factors such as

matrimonial assimilation, attitude receptional assimilation, behavior receptional assimilation,

and civic assimilation are more relevant group-level socialization procedure and are non

under an person ‘s control ( D’Rozario and Douglas 1999 ) .

Johnston ( 1963 ) distinguished between two facets of socialization, the

behavioural portion he called external assimilation and the attitudinal portion named internal

assimilation. Under this construction, the person may take on the behaviours expected by

the host civilization, including talking the linguistic communication of the civilization, dressing like most people

in the civilization do, and eating what these people eat. However, these actions may be done

under certain duties and the person may non place with the host civilization at all.

Johnson ‘s internal assimilation is some manner similar to the construct of cultural designation

we frequently use in consumer research, but it is the designation with the host civilization instead

than with the original civilization as defined by cultural designation.

Another widely used multidimensional construction of socialization was proposed by

Berry ( 1980 ) . This model pays more attending to the attitude an single holds

towards the host civilization and the original civilization. The two dimensions are the deemed

importance of keeping one ‘s original civilization and individuality and the importance of

keeping relationship with other groups. The values persons take on these

dimensions vary continuously. Taking the extremes of the two dimensions, we get four

different socialization schemes. When it is considered of import to keep one ‘s ain

civilization every bit good as maintain relationship with other groups, an integrating scheme will be

adopted. When such a scheme is besides accepted by the bulk group, the result will

be a pluralism society. When it is considered of value to keep relationship with other

groups but non of import to keep the original civilization, an assimilation scheme will be

used. The acculturating person will bit by bit lose his or her original civilization and

individuality and blend him or herself into the host society. When keeping the original

civilization and individuality is considered of import but non so for keeping relationship with

other groups, the acculturating person will follow a separation scheme and will insulate

him or herself from the influence of the host civilization. When neither keeping the

original civilization nor keeping relationship with other groups is considered of import, a

marginalisation state of affairs will ensue. Often a 3rd civilization will look. Based on the

above model, an acculturating person ‘s behaviour will be based on the attitudes he

or she has, which besides predicts the emphasis the person may see in the

socialization procedure.

An obvious observation from the above is that different research workers have

proposed different constructions for the socialization concept. Some expression at strictly

behavioural variables ( Laroche et al. 1997 ) , some use purely attitudinal variables ( Berry

1980 ) , yet others combine both behavioural and attitudinal variables in the construction

( Johnston 1963 ) . Although these constructions differ from each other, they all province that

socialization is non a one-dimensional concept, but a multidimensional concept.

Therefore, when a research worker states degree of socialization with a individual mark, the consequence

may be biased and may non reflect the existent influence of the different facets of

socialization.

Therefore, it is really of import for consumer research workers to specify a clear

multidimensional concept of socialization and step the concept consequently.

While different definitions of the dimensions of socialization may be suited for

different research jobs, at present, we will follow Berry ‘s ( 1980 ) planar

construction of socialization. This model has been widely applied in socialization

research and has been supported by empirical surveies ( e.g. , Berry, Kim, Power, Young,

and Bujaki 1989 ; Berry, Wintrob, Sindell, and Mawhinney 1982 ) . The two dimensions

are besides closely related to bing socialization research in consumer surveies. The

deemed importance of keeping one ‘s ain cultural individuality can be easy associated

with the often used construct of cultural designation. Cultural designation refers to

which cultural group an single identifies with and how strong the designation is. Angstrom

positive correlativity can instantly be seen between cultural designation and the

importance of keeping one ‘s ain cultural individuality. An single sing keeping his or her cultural individuality of import is likely to be more strongly identified

with his or her cultural or cultural group, while an single strongly identified with his

cultural group besides tends to believe it of import to keep this group ‘s individuality. Therefore,

research on cultural designation can be drawn upon to give a better apprehension of this

dimension of socialization.

Similarly, the 2nd dimension, whether it is considered of value to keep

relationship with the bulk group, is closely related to assimilation research. Although

assimilation involves a loss of one ‘s original cultural individuality, which is non implied by

this dimension of socialization, the portion of assimilation sing the acceptance of the host

civilization doubtless offers a good chance for understanding the relationship between

the acculturating single and the host civilization. The whole organic structure of research on

assimilation and its effects on consumer behaviour can be tactically integrated to the survey

of this dimension of socialization, that is, the deemed importance of keeping

relationship with the bulk group for the acculturating person.

Although one may reason that other multidimensional constructions may besides be

appropriate or may be more appropriate for understanding socialization, we do non believe

the usage of Berry ‘s ( 1980 ) model will bring forth much difference in our theoretical

theoretical account compared with theoretical accounts following these other constructions of socialization. Our focal point

here is on the multidimensional nature of socialization and its relationship with

consumer behaviour, which is the nucleus of our theoretical theoretical account.

Learn to Consume in a New Culture: Consumer Socialization Perspective

Upon immigrating into a new state, an single starts a long journey of

larning. Part of this journey is larning to devour in the new civilization. In the new

state, the person may meet merchandises or services that are non available in his or

her original state, or may happen merchandises or services been bestowed wholly different

significance. Some of the consumption-related cognition or skills the person have

acquired in the original state are no longer applicable here. For illustration, due to his or

her strangeness with the host state ‘s currency and pricing system, the immigrant may

happen it hard to judge the monetary value of a merchandise to be high or low. The immigrant may besides

happen it difficult to take from an array of different trade names, as he or she may hold non heard

about the trade names at all, non to advert any experience with these trade names. His or her past

experiences with other trade names are no longer utile because those trade names he or she is

familiar with are merely non available here. Therefore, an immigrant has to prosecute him

or herself in larning to devour right and sagely in the new state. It is this

larning procedure that renders the construct of consumer socialisation of import in

accounting for acculturating persons ‘ ingestion experience.

Consumer socialisation has been defined as “ the procedure by which immature people

get accomplishments, cognition, and attitudes relevant to their effectual operation as

consumers in the market place ” ( Ward 1974 ) . Although this definition every bit good as earlier

consumer research workers has been preponderantly focused on the socialisation of kids

and striplings as consumers, some research workers have already looked at grownup consumers ‘

socialisation ( e.g. , Goodwin and Sewall 1992 ) , or sometimes called consumer

resocialization. Because a bulk of immigrants are already grownups when they come

into the new state or at least hold had some socialisation that tend to be different from

that in the host civilization, they are really likely to undergo this resocialization.

Three attacks, cognitive developmental attack, interpersonal

communicating attack, and societal acquisition attack, have dominated consumer

socialisation research ( O’Guinn and Faber 1987 ) . Among these the societal acquisition

attack is peculiarly relevant to an immigrant ‘s socialisation, since it emphasizes the

influence of societal interactions on the socialisation procedure. A cardinal construct in the societal

larning attack is socialization agents, the media through which values, attitudes, and

cognition are transmitted to the socialising single. Four most of import

socialisation agents, household, equals, mass media, and establishments, have been identified.

Consumer socialisation returns under the influence of these socialisation agents

through mold, support and societal interaction.

As the four socialisation agents carry different purposes when they influence the

socialising single, the information and the influence an single receives from them

tends to be different. Family tends to hold a profound influence on an person.

During an immigrant ‘s resocialization, household can either discourage the procedure by transporting

with it the traditional consumption-related values from the original civilization, or speed up

the socialisation by incorporating the socialisation experiences of all household members,

hence bring forthing a bigger image an person may non be able to see by him or

herself. In the instance of matrimony between an acculturating single and a member of the

host civilization, household enables the acculturating single to hold intimate contact with the

host civilization in assorted facets and accelerates the resocialization procedure.

Peer groups can be divided into equals from the original civilization and equals from the

host civilization. Peers from the original civilization portion the same cultural background with the

acculturating single. Associating with them tend to continue the person ‘s original

civilization, attitudes, and values. Excessive interaction with these equals may even do it

possible for the person to be isolated from the host civilization, as may be the instance for

persons populating in a ghetto of his native people and have small contact with the exterior

universe. Peers from the host civilization, nevertheless, supply rich information related to

ingestion in the new civilization. This information can be transmitted by conversation

with these equals on ingestion related issues, or can merely be obtained by the

acculturating person ‘s observation of how these equals consume. Such interactions

supply the person with existent and first-hand information on ingestion in the new

state and ease his or her version into the new ingestion environment.

Different from equal groups, mass media frequently depicts a deformed societal world.

Media seldom provide cognition related to direct ingestion accomplishments such as monetary value and

specific merchandise information. On the contrary, aggregate media tend to picture conspicuous ingestion and life of the rich people ( O’Guinn and Faber 1987 ) . Harmonizing to

cultivation theory, people do take in the world represented by the mass media despite the

obvious prejudice in the presentation ( O’Guinn and Faber 1991 ) . For people who watch

telecasting a batch, they tend to organize a perceptual experience of societal world biased towards that

presented in telecasting plans. As an acculturating single deficiencies experience with

the host civilization, he or she may be particularly vulnerable to the messages from mass media.

Research has shown that acculturating persons ‘ perceived societal world of the host

state is so colored towards that of richer life as frequently depicted in telecasting

plans ( Lee 1989 ) .

No such definite decisions can be drawn on establishments, nevertheless, because of

the diverse nature of different establishments. Institutions such as consumer protection

organisations can assist an acculturating single to organize a correct and efficient manner of

devouring in the host state. On the other manus, establishments associated with sellers,

such as retail merchants, may at the same clip misdirect the person.

The societal acquisition attack to consumer socialisation can assist us understand

how acculturating persons learn to devour in a new state and why the result of

this acquisition procedure frequently turns out to be different for different persons. This

difference in result is a consequence of the different impact each socialisation agent has on an

person, which can come from the person ‘s voluntary every bit good as nonvoluntary pick

of the socialisation agents.

Environmental factors pose limitations on the socialisation agents an

acculturating person is likely to be in contact with. An illustration of such environmental factors is the acculturating single on the job environment. Working in a

company whose employees are chiefly from the host civilization and working in a company

who employs people from the same cultural beginning as the acculturating single certainly

bring forth different sets of equals the single straight contacts. Persons without

equal entree to host civilization through the host state ‘s people may hold to trust

to a great extent on other information beginnings such as mass media and household for advice on

ingestion.

The two dimensions of socialization, the acculturating person ‘s attitudes

towards the host civilization and the original civilization lead to his or her voluntary choice of

socialisation agents. An single with a positive attitude towards the host civilization tends

to be more willing to confer with information beginnings from the host civilization, such as the host

state ‘s mass media, equals from the host state. An person who sticks to his or

her original civilization and does non accept the host civilization, nevertheless, may turn to household or

equals from the original civilization for advice. Empirical research has shown that persons

who are more structurally assimilated tend to confer with friends, coworkers, sales representative and

mere observation before purchase, whereas persons less assimilated tend to turn to

household for advice ( D’Rozario and Douglas 1999 ) .

These voluntary every bit good as nonvoluntary picks of socialisation agents to a great

extent determines what the acculturating single sees and learns about the

ingestion world in the host state. These differences in larning farther lead to

different consumer behaviour, such as treating advertizements otherwise or utilizing

different standards in doing purchase determinations.

Change versus Continuity: The Role of Products and Consumption

Change and continuity are two of import subjects of the ego. It is through changeless

alterations that the ego develops. At the same clip, to maintain the ego integrated and unified,

at that place besides needs to be certain continuity of the ego during the altering procedure. This

ongoing duologue between alteration and continuity makes up the history of the ego. Merely as

historical leftovers make it possible for us to understand and partly reproduce

historical events and the life of historical people, there are besides certain things that

typify an person ‘s yesteryear, present and future ego. Both the person ‘s ownerships

and people around the person make up the extended ego ( Belk 1988 ) and confirm

the history of his or her ego.

Although many alterations in ego are fiddling and may non even be recognized, other

alterations can be dramatic and can significantly change the ego. The alterations an

acculturating person ‘s ego undergoes would belong to the latter. When an person

comes to a new state, he or she is really likely to see dramatic alterations through

the socialization procedure, particularly when the person ‘s original civilization is really

different from the host civilization. It is really of import for the person to accommodate to the

alterations and at the same clip to keep the continuity of the ego. Possessions play an

of import function in this self-management. On the one manus, geting new ownerships or

merchandises, particularly merchandises strongly associated with the host civilization, helps the ego to

transportation to the new civilization. On the other manus, old ownerships remind the acculturating person of his or her past and supply the footing to travel on as still the same ego, hence comforting possible struggles or emphasis brought by the alterations. As really few old ownerships

can be carried when one travels abroad, these ownerships are substituted by merchandises

from the original state or merchandises typifying the original civilization.

For persons in different socialization manners, the accent on alteration versus

continuity will be different. For assimilationists, they will be eager to alter themselves

to the new individuality as a member of the host civilization. For them, merchandises from the host

state are frequently purchased and consumed to demo belonging to the host civilization. For

integrationists, nevertheless, accent will be put on both alteration and continuity. Merchandises

from host state are consumed and absorbed, and at the same clip merchandises from the

original state are every bit cherished. Integrationists ‘ ingestion form will be

expected to be a mixture of host state manner and original state manner. For

separatists, since they stick to their old civilization and can non or are non willing to accept

the new civilization, they will be immune to alter every bit good as the merchandises typifying such

alterations. For these persons, merchandises from the original state or merchandises

typifying the original civilization will be treated with enthusiasm and bestowed

significance these merchandises may non hold earlier. For marginalists, they neither attention

about keeping their original civilization, nor want to absorb into the host civilization.

There is a alteration traveling on that forsakes the original civilization but does non take on the host

civilization. Both merchandises typifying the original civilization and merchandises stand foring the

host civilization will be rejected. As a 3rd civilization may emerge as a consequence of marginalisation,

marginalists will devour in a manner that is consistent with this new civilization, and a new

ingestion form qualifying this 3rd civilization may be formed.

Before we turn to the following subdivision, it is necessary to indicate out that acculturating

person ‘s resocialization and self-management are non two viing accounts of

the relationship between socialization and consumer behaviour. Rather, they frequently take

topographic point at the same clip and can be used to explicate different facets of the person ‘s

alone ingestion form.

Effectss of Individual Characteristics

Individual features can be divided into two wide classs: demographic

and socioeconomic features, such as age, gender and income, and psychological

features, such as motive and personality. Prevailing attending has been given

to the demographic features of acculturating persons. Variables such as age,

gender, and income have been used in empirical research chiefly to show the profiles of

the samples used and to show the external cogency of the surveies. Few surveies,

nevertheless, have paid attending to how these demographic and socioeconomic variables

drama functions in socialization or consumer socialization, and particularly in the relationship

between socialization and consumer behaviour. The effects of such demographic

variables can non be ignored. Weinstock ( 1964 ) found that faith and old

business in Hungary have important influence on Hungarians ‘ assimilation into

American civilization. Kuo and Lin ( 1977 ) besides found important correlativity between age

and instruction of Chinese-Americans and their cultural designation.

Not merely can demographic factors act upon socialization itself, they can besides

chair the relationship between socialization and consumer behaviour. Age and life rhythm phase have been related to consumer socialisation. At different ages and life rhythm

phases, people tend to larn different consumption-related cognition and values and tend

to interact otherwise with socialisation agents ( Moschis 1987 ) . Gender can besides

influence the socialisation procedure through different socialisation agent pick and

different contents of the mass media consumed ( Moschis 1987 ) . Socioeconomic factors

may likewise influence an person ‘s entree to different socialisation agents and to

different cognition and values.

Demographic and socioeconomic variables can besides chair the interaction

between socialization and consumer behaviour through the person ‘s self-identity.

Peoples at different ages or life-cycle phases and with different instruction degrees tend to

hold different accents on different facets of the ego. If an single immigrates to a

new state when he or she is comparatively immature, his or her ego may non be really deep

rooted in the original civilization yet or may non even be mature adequate. Change is non rather

a job for him or her, as immature people tend to look more at the hereafter. If the

single immigrates at a ulterior life-cycle phase, nevertheless, he or she may experience a greater

challenge in altering his or her ego. As people grow older, they tend to look more at

the past and tend to defy alterations that would divide them from the yesteryear. Male and

female besides tend to hold different self-perceptions, which prompt them to utilize different

get bying schemes when faced with alterations. All these demographic and/or socioeconomic

variables influence an person ‘s self-perception, his or her attitude towards alterations in

the ego, and his or her ability to cover with such alterations, which farther influences the

ingestion manner he or she adopts in the new state.

We have discussed how an person ‘s demographic and socioeconomic

features can act upon his or her socialization procedure and chair the

relationship between socialization and consumer behaviour. These features are besides

good known to hold a direct influence on consumer behaviour itself. For illustration, males

and females tend to treat information otherwise and be given to be the household determination

shapers for different merchandises and different determination variables ( Davis 1970 ; Meyers-Levy

and Maheswaran 1991 ) . As our chief focal point here is on socialization and its relationship

with consumer behaviour, we shall non brood on such direct influences on consumer

behaviour in farther item.

Compared with demographic and socioeconomic variables, psychological factors

such as motive and personality have received far less attending in socialization

surveies by consumer research workers. However, these factors are of import ancestors of

behaviour and have important influence on behaviour. Without sing these

psychological features of an acculturating single, we will non be able to to the full

understand his or her consumer behaviour. Due to infinite bound, we will concentrate on one

psychological factor, personality, to exemplify how psychological factors can play a function in

acculturating persons ‘ ingestion life.

Personality is defined as “ a individual ‘s alone psychological make-up, which

systematically influences the manner the individual responds to his or her environment ” ( Solomon

1994, p.623 ) . Among the different attacks to personality research, trait theory has by

far received the most attending in consumer research. Trait theory decomposes

personality into a set of traits such as extraversion and amenity. Each trait has alone deductions on behaviour. Consumer research workers have surveies a assortment of traits

including neurosis, extraversion, dominance and duty. Earlier research workers

tried to tie in these personality traits straight with consumer behaviour. But

inappropriate steps of personality and mutual exclusiveness between personality traits and

consumer behaviour studied have led to dissatisfactory consequences. Personality is found to hold

either no influence on consumer behaviour at all or merely really weak relationship with

behaviour ( Kassarjian 1971 ) . Recently, research workers have explored alternate ways of

tie ining personality with consumer behaviour. Alternatively of straight act uponing

consumer behaviour, personality traits are found to act upon behaviour through some

interceding variables ( Moordian and Olver 1997 ) and/or to chair the relationship

between situational factors and behaviour ( Holbrook and Olney 1995 ) .

To suitably integrate personality into our socialization theoretical account, we besides

demand to see the assorted waies these personality traits may act upon socialization and

acculturating consumers ‘ behaviour. First, personality can act upon an acculturating

person ‘s ingestion through socialization. Weinstock ( 1964 ) found that

Hungarian-Americans with higher accomplishment orientation are more assimilated. He besides

found manipulative and misanthropic inclinations to be significantly related to degree of

assimilation. However, he did n’t happen autocratic inclinations, amenity, inclination

to hold with incompatible points and appendage to hold important influence on

socialization. Weinstock ‘s survey is exemplifying of the possible effects personality has on

socialization. But non plenty empirical groundss have been collected to organize a guiding

theory as to what personality traits are relevant to acculturation procedure and what are non.

alone deductions on behaviour. Consumer research workers have surveies a assortment of traits