Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

A Durable Replacement Model for Symbolic versus Utilitarian Consumption: An Integrated Cultural and Socio-economic Perspective

2006; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 35; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/12265080600715426

1744-3873

Shijin Yoo, Seh‐Woong Chung, Jin Han,

Consumer Retail Behavior Studies

Abstract Abstract The accumulated knowledge on durable consumption has traditionally been premised upon identifying personal factors (e.g. demographics or psychographics) underlying the purchase decision. On a broader scope, however, consumer behavior is shaped by cultural and social factors, and our understanding would be incomplete without these considerations. To this end, this study sets out to provide an integrative framework on durable consumption. Specifically, the proposed framework explores whether cultural differences do exist in the perception of a selected durable (e.g. automobile) on the symbolic/utilitarian dimension, which in turn, may affect the length of the replacement cycle, likelihood of upgrading to a higher status model, as well as, inertia towards remaining within the same product-type in the category (e.g. sedan, SUV, minivan, pickup truck). Applying a multinomial logit model to Korean and US automobile transaction data, the finding reveal that Korean consumers tend to have shorter replacement cycles, engage in more upgrades but are less likely to change the product-type than American consumers. Considerations of cultural and socio-economic factors as key drivers of the differences in perception and behavior are put forward. Managerial implications and directions for future research are also discussed. Keywords: Durable consumptionmultinominal logit modelsymbolic meaning Notes 1. While there are some researchers who divide the measurement of consumer attitude into three dimensions: symbolic, hedonic, and utilitarian consumption (e.g. Woods, 1960 Woods, W. A. 1960. Psychological dimensions of consumer decision. Journal of Marketing, 24: 15–19. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), this research does not make a sharp distinction between symbolic and hedonic consumption. Instead, this research regards symbolic and hedonic consumption as one concept in opposition to utilitarian consumption as in Batra and Ahtola (1990 Batra, R. and Ahtola, O. T. 1990. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2): 159–170. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and Hirschman and Holbrook (1982 Hirschman, E. C. and Holbrook, M. B. 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3): 92–101. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 2. Although some researchers do not make distinction between symbolic consumption and experiential consumption (i.e. Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982 Hirschman, E. C. and Holbrook, M. B. 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3): 92–101. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and use the term "hedonic consumption" as opposed to "functional" or "utilitarian" consumption, the concept of product symbolism in this study does not include experiential aspects such as sensory pleasure, variety and/or cognitive stimulation. 3. In this study, "Class" and "Category" are used interchangeably to represent a hierarchical structure of a certain product (e.g. small, medium, and luxurious). "Type" represents a functional categorization of a product (e.g. sedan, SUV, minivan, and pickup truck).