BERGER: Communication. Consumers want other people to think certain things about them, and so they wear clothes that communicate particular identities. Conspicuous consumption, or spending lots of money on visible goods, is a good way to try and communicate wealth, but this signal breaks down when any wannabe can buy a certain car or handbag. What were once status symbols become just aspirational markers rather than the real thing. Consequently, insiders may engage in more inconspicuous consumption to signal only to others in the know. Such subtle signals may be almost invisible to the mainstream, and this helps maintain their cache.
LEHRER: In a 2007 paper, you note that "Manhattanites stopped wearing mesh trucker hats when the bridge-and-tunnel crowd adopted them." In other words, the urbane crowd abandoned a fad once too many of the "wrong" people adopted it. You argue that this kind of switch is because consumers choose products that communicate a "desired identity." Is this true of all product domains? Or are certain consumer items more intertwined with our identity than others? If so, why? Why are hats more reflective of our identity than, say, backpacks?
BERGER: Certain domains are definitely more symbolic of identity and this fact has a lot to do with utility and function. People buy detergent based on what cleans the best, and consequently that choice doesn’t say much about who they are. Shirt choice, however, is based much less on function. Two different colored shirts do an equally good job of being shirts, so observers are more likely to attribute someone’s choice to something about their identity. Similarly, things that violate functionality are more likely to be seen as identity-relevant. Wearing sunglasses indoors makes it harder to see. Wearing a scarf in the summer is unnecessary. Consequently, these behaviors are more likely to be seen as signals of identity because they have little functional value.
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentSo, yeah, most people are mindless herd animals. Baaaaa! What else could possibly explain the popularity of "The Jonas Brothers?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe attachment of the phrase "Scientific" to a magazine's masthead, undoubtedly assists the purchase of many of the items advertised therein.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe buyer will rationalize the acquisition of the trinkets as impeachably intelligent.
the original ideas and quality,a label like Prada brings can not be compared to Hilfiger,there is never a fresh idea or high quality there,Hilfiger and Polo are merchandisers not designers,in the true sense of design...Ralphs women ware is laughable,its costume..its not at all what real designers out there do.Those who choose to wear Prada will do so because it looks great,feels great and thay can afford it.Others will wear it because it is expensive,even thoug it looks off on them.I dont wear Prada as i can not see spending so much money on such frivolity,style does not need to be costly.I do apreciate the creativity and hope it keeps on coming.Alain Filiz.Mia Fl
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat so interesting about this is that it not only covers social psychology but sociology as well. In the case of status symbols, we typically will buy those things that are explain the status of where we are at in life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see Berger took off his captain obvious hat for the photo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this