Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Audience Effects In Consumption

  • Metin M.Coşgel (a1)

Extract

Consider how your consumption would change if you were stranded on a deserted island. Isolation would eliminate all social influences on your consumption decisions, even for the same choice set. You might decide not to consume cosmetics, curtains, or neckties, and pay less attention to the style or color of your clothes, car, or furniture. These choices might not matter as much to you anymore, for you would not have to consider the reactions of other individuals to your consumption. Similarly, isolation would also eliminate social influences on your speech. Absent an audience, your choice of words would not be subject to the judgments of others.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Audience Effects In Consumption
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Audience Effects In Consumption
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Audience Effects In Consumption
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
Basu, Kaushik. 1989. “A Theory of Association: Social Status, Prices and Markets.” Oxford Economic Papers 41:653–71.
Borden, Richard J. 1980. “Audience Influence.” In Psychology of Group Influence, edited by Paul, B. Paulus, pp. 99131. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brennan, Timothy J. 1989. “A Methodological Assessment of Multiple Utility Frame-works.” Economics and Philosophy 5:189208.
Coşgel, Metin M. 1992. “Rhetoric in the Economy: Consumption and Audience.” journal of Socio-Economics 21:363–77.
Douglas, Mary and Baron, Isherwood. 1979.The World of Goods. New York: Basic Books.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1981. “What is Equality? Part I: Equality and Welfare.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 10:185246.
Elster, Jon. 1989. “Social Norms and Economic Theory.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 3:99117.
Frank, Robert H. 1985.Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frankfurt, Harry G. 1971. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” The Journal of Philosophy 68:520.
Geen, Russell G. 1980. “The Effects of Being Observed on Performance.” In Psychology of Group Influence, edited by Paulus, Paul B, pp. 6197. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Granovetter, Mark, and Roland Soong, . 1986. “Threshold Models of Interpersonal Effects in Consumer Demand.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 7:8399.
Hausman, Daniel M. 1992. The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
Hayakawa, Hiroaki, and Yiannis Venieris, . 1977. “Consumer Interdependence via Reference Groups.” Journal of Political Economy 85:599615.
Hirsch, Fred. 1977.Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C, and Holbrook, Morris B. 1981. Symbolic Consumer Behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Iannaccone, Laurence R. 1989. “Bandwagons, and the Threat of Chaos.” Journalof Economic Behavior and Organization 11:431–42.
Kami, Edi,andDavid, Schmeidler. 1990. “Fixed Preferences and Changing Tastes.” The American Economic Review 80:262–67.
Klamer, Arjo. 1990. “Towards the Native's Point of View: The Difficulty of Changing the Conversation.” In Economics and Hermeneutics, edited by Don, Lavoie, pp. 1933. New York: Routledge.
Klamer, ArjMcCloskey, Donald N,and Robert Solow (editors).1988. The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuran, Timur. 1990. “Private and Public Preferences.” Economics and Philosophy 6:126.
Leibenstein, Harvey. 1950. “Bandwagon, Snob, And Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumers' Demand.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 64:183207.
Margolis, Howard. 1982. Selfishness, Altruism, and Rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCloskey, Donald N. 1985. The Rhetoric of Economics. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
McCloskey, Donald N. 1990. if You're So Smart: The Narrative of Economic Expertise. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McPherson, Michael S. 1983. “Want Formation, Morality, and Some ‘Interpretive’ Aspects of Economic Inquiry.” In Social Science as Moral Inquiry, edited by Norma, Haan, Bellah, Robert N., Paul, Rabinow, and Sullivan, William M., pp. 96124. New York: Columbia University Press.
McPherson, Michael S. 1984. “On Schelling, Hirschman, and Sen: Revising the Conception of the Self.” Partisan Review 51:236–47.
Pollak, Robert A. 1976. “Interdependent Preferences.” The American Economic Review 66:309–20.
Postema, Gerald J. 1987. “Collective Evils, Harms, and the Law.” Ethics 97:414–40.
Sen, Amartya K. 1970. “The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal.” journal of Political Economy 78:152–57.
Sen, Amartya K. 1973. “Behavior and the Concept of Preference.” Economica 40:241–59.
Sen, Amartya K. 1977. “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 6:317–44.
Simon, Herbert A. 1982. Models of Bounded Rationality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Spence, Michael A. 1974. Market Signalling: Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Uhlaner, Carole J. 1989. “Relational Goods and Participation: Incorporating Sociability into a Theory of Rational Action.” Public Choice 62:253–85.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed