Journal of Religion and Health

, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 93–111 | Cite as

Explaining Seemingly Paradoxical Consumer Experiences: Conjoining Weekly Road Rage and Church Attendance

Psychological Exploration

Abstract

The purposes of the current study are threefold: Provide evidence that an extreme paradoxical group exists—people frequently attending church and exhibiting road rage, profile this group, and frame possible explanations for the seemingly paradoxical behaviors. This study employs data from a national (USA) lifestyle survey conducted by Market Facts with 3,350 American respondents. The major questions asked about church participation and road-rage behavior (“giving a finger” and “flashing headlights”). Nomologically, relevant activities include 3 items for church goers and 3 items for road-rage givers. Additionally, 14 items profiled the lifestyles of the unique paradoxical behavior segment. Utilizing cross-tabulation tables, property space analyses identify the double extreme (XX) group (18 people) and other 6 groups with a significant chi-square test, confirming the extreme group exists. Analyses of variance test results show that comparing nomologically relevant activities among the seven groups is all statistically significant, indicating the nomological validity is met. Overall, the XX group tends to have more males, be younger, and have a higher proportion of people working in sales. The profile of lifestyle analyses shows the XX group members have both high ambitions and expectations, might be very frustrated individuals, and equip with the adventurous and masculine traits related to aggression. The XX behavior group’s demographic and psychographic characteristics portray similar lifestyles that differ from other groups. Case-based analyses provide further contextual information of nuances to XX segment individuals. The limited energy theory, the Eagleman’s theory of unconscious mind, and justification theory help to explain why people conjointly go to church and commit road rage. Addressing chronic paradoxical behaviors provides implications for social de-marketing to reduce aggressive anti-social behavior such as road rage. Frequent church attendance may help make people more sensitive to their wrongdoings and gradually revise the anti-social behavior.

Keywords

Paradoxical behavior Limited energy theory Unconscious mind Justification theory Road rage 

References

  1. Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of Behavior Research, 31(4), 868–882.Google Scholar
  2. Bargh, J. (2002). Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer judgment, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Tröetschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014–1027.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bass, F. M., Tigert, D. J., & Lonsdale, R. T. (1968). Lonsdale market segmentation: Group versus individual behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 5(3), 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Ego depletion and self-control failure: An energy model of the self’s executive function. Self and Identity, 1(2), 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M. T., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1773–1802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation and the executive function: The self as controlling agent. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, R. (2000). Mapping the mind. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eagleman, D. (2007). 10 Unsolved mysteries of the brain. Discover Magazine, July 31, 2007. Retrieved 02/15/2012 from http://teacherweb.com/TN/Hillwood/dAmbrosi/BrainMysteries.pdf.
  12. Eagleman, D. (2011). Incognito: The secret lives of the brain. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, G. (August 15, 2005). Trend expert: Embrace paradoxes to meet consumer needs. Furniture/Today, 24.Google Scholar
  14. Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., et al. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 325–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gau, L. S., & Woodside, A. G. (2011). Living in paradox: Committing road rage and attending church most weeks. AMA Summer Educators’ Conference Proceedings 2011 (Vol. 22, pp. 185–192).Google Scholar
  16. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
  17. Herbst, C. M. (2011). ‘Paradoxical’ decline? Another look at the relative reduction in female happiness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 773–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirschman, E. C. (1992). The consciousness of addiction: Toward a general theory of compulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krane, V., Choi, P. Y. L., Baird, S. M., Aimar, C. M., & Kauer, K. J. (2004). Living the paradox: Female athletes negotiate femininity and muscularity. Sex Roles, 50(5/6), 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krieglmeyer, R., Wittstadt, D., & Strack, F. (2009). How attribution influences aggression: Answers to an old question by using an implicit measure of anger. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lazarsfeld, P., & Barton, A. (1965). Qualitative measurement in social science: Classification, typologies, and indices. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences (pp. 155–192). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. McCollough, T. E. (1974). Mental illness and public policy. Journal of Religion and Health, 13(4), 251–258.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2009). Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 69–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mick, D. G., & Fournier, S. (1998). Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Otnes, C., Lowrey, T., & Shrum, L. J. (1997). Toward an understanding of consumer ambivalence. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perfetto, R., & Woodside, A. G. (2009). Extremely frequent behavior in consumer research: Theory and empirical evidence for chronic casino gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(3), 297–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Steup, M. (2011). Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Ed.). Retrieved 02/15/2012 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/epistemology/.
  30. Stone, J., Wiegand, A. W., Cooper, J., & Aronson, E. (1997). When exemplification falls: Hypocrisy and the motive for self-integrity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 54–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tyler, J. M., & Burns, K. C. (2008). After depletion: The replenishment of the self’s regulatory resources. Self and Identity, 7(3), 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. United States Census Bureau. (2013). U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/.
  34. Vest, J., W. Cohen and M. Tharp (1997), Road rage: Tailgating, giving the finger, outright violence—Americans grow more likely to take out their frustrations on other drivers. US News & World Report, June 2. Retrieved 02/17/2011 from http://www.drivers.com/article/169/.
  35. Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Waters, R. (2007). The power of paradox. Associations Now, January. Retrieved 02/17/2011 from http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/ANowDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=24149.
  37. Wegner, D. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson, T. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Woodhead, H. E. (2006). The power of paradox. Oakville, Ontario: Hasley Enterprises Worldwide Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Woodside, A. G. (2008). Anti-social behavior: Profiling the lives behind road rage. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 26(5), 459–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Leisure and Recreation ManagementAsia UniversityTaichung cityTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Marketing, Carroll School of ManagementBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  3. 3.College of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Hawai’i at HiloHiloUSA

Personalised recommendations