The Context of Social, Cultural and Consumer Behaviour – Article Review

Gordon A. Haaland Summary People often behave differently. And since these behaviours are not identical, they are construed to parallel constructs such as learning, attitudes, influence and reference groups. The author has presented certain levels of analysis that provide for the source for interpreting and recognising the theory of social, cultural and consumer behaviour. Social behaviour can be appropriately conceptualized through these varying levels of analysis, which at different points of time, have been suggested by several social theorists. The problems encountered at various levels of analysis, has been illustrated by taking the example of the author’s experience of living in Norway for a year. In addition, the experience of being considered a ‘cultural stereotype’ has also been illustrated through the same example. To investigate the causes of such cross-cultural behavioural patters existing in a society that is moving towards rapid industralisation such as Norway and to conduct a research on the changes in the patterns of the interpersonal behaviour, the author has offered 11 propositions in order to address these issues. These propositions are centered on the varying levels of analysis that was put forth to study the different constructs of social, cultural and consumer behaviour. And the propositions do present a context for the analysis with a special concern for the type of culture that is being taken into consideration. Review The article suggests the context for studying the theory and the rationale of social and consumer behaviour. In doing so, the author has identified certain constructs that are perceived to govern social and consumer behaviour. He further suggests levels of analysis that would provide for an understanding into the inter-disciplinary factors of cross-culture and culture-specific behaviour. When the author cites the reference made by Kuhn (1962) regarding ‘paradigm’, i. e. social sciences needs a paradigm like that of natural science, it holds true when all of social behaviour is abridged to a set of related phenomenon. In that context, the author’s contention that when social behaviour is assumed a unitary phenomenon, then any of the given disciplines (disciplines often followed by social and behavioural scientists) can be paradigmatic also holds good. Various concepts suggested by various theorists, for the levels of analysis have been given importance for the insinuations provided for understanding social behaviour. Triandis, Malpass and Davidson (1973) argument that behaviour is a function of a person’s abilities, subjective culture, personal dispositions, physical environment, social structure and so on, most of the variables as pointed out by the author are prevalent in a contemporary set up. Hansen (1972)* says that an individual is also driven by ‘perceived individuality and value importance’ which also help affect decision making. More often than not, the effect depends on the degree of positive and negative reward that was previously associated with the value. It can therefore, be assumed that these two variables can also be considered as behavioural constructs. The issue of ‘culture stereotyping’ has been brilliantly explained by the author, by taking the example of no other that his own. The cross-cultural references had been drawn from his own experiences of his stay in Norway for nearly one year. But considering the social, economic, cultural and demographic arrangement in Norway, the example of being treated as a culture stereotype limits the study of interpersonal behaviour and crossculture between the Norwegians and the Americans. Similar constructs for analysis in different geographic locations may not hold significance, as the behavioural patterns and culture-specific stereotypes may be different. The propositions set out by the author have been arrived at after the research that was carried out by him during his stay in Norway. Though hypothetical, these propositions are meant to cut down the levels of analysis into ‘singular set of statements’ that would present a view on the concept from a broader perspective. Most of the propositions mentioned by the author, concentrate on the idea of social and consumer behaviour within the confines of a set up. A set up such as a workplace, a group of people sharing similar attributes (by interlocking normative behaviour of people within an organisation) or people who belong to a culture that has evolved for centuries with little or less change. The author also talks about the existence of ‘meaningful boundaries’, wherein he assumes cohesiveness in a group as a system. Group cohesiveness, by and large, is determined by the attributes of persons forming that group and the interests they share among one another. Boundaries as the author has pointed out refers to the units measured being naturally related and not the place or structure. Taking into account Berrien’s (1968) inferences about boundaries, it should be considered that boundaries transcend beyond natural levels. Certain other propositions that pertain to ‘time and place’ define the necessity of studying culture across various generational as well as geographic differences. Studies which are limited to only one time and place would also result in a single time and place analysis. The idea to study multiple levels of analysis across cultures by remaining within the constructs of a particular level of analysis is apt. Cross-cultural phenomenon that explain similarities in cultures as ‘etic’ and dissimilarities as ‘emic’ proves the importance of digressing from various levels of time and place and study social behaviour by delineating conditions of interaction with time and place. The other propositions that deal with selection of methodology and design questions for the level of analysis and the use of multivariate analysis and preparation of theoretical statements for a particular level follow suit. Propositions seven, eight, nine and ten provide with the details at each level, thereby giving a meaningful insight into the levels of analysis. The author talks about there being no ‘apriori’ basis for selecting a level for social analysis centered on consumer behaviour. This can be considered a valid statement since consumer problems are diverse and assume proportions of complexities when encountered in different scenarios and culture set ups. The propositions as put forth by the author do provide an insight into the varying levels of complexities in social, cultural and consumer behaviour, but these propositions could fall vulnerable to deeper investigation into the context of social behaviour. All the views and opinions expressed by the author may pertain to a particular generation, but the relevance of these propositions remain to be the same. It is all a matter of time, so to say, when cross-cultural insinuations and study of social behavioural patterns across different cultures could indeed present revealing analysis of consumer behaviour.