Stigma is a concept that marketers frequently and casually use, but it is underexplored as a theoretical construct. The authors propose a theory of stigma that identifies it as a formative construct associated with perceptions of deviance and undesirability along with inflated risk perceptions. This research also goes beyond the social stigma typically studied in marketing and related fields to examine product stigma. Specifically, this research explores the stigmatizing effects of labeling on genetically modified foods, a domain of economic and political importance. Using different labels proposed in international debates, the experiment reveals that such labels can create stigma and that, to some degree, marketers can attenuate stigma through certain qualified labeling.
CrockerJennifer, MajorBrenda, and SteeleClaude (1998), “Social Stigma,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, SusanT. Fiske, DanielT. Gilbert, and LindzeyGardner, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill, 504–553.
6.
DarleyWilliam K., and LimJeen-Su (1993), “Assessing Demand Artifacts in Consumer Research: An Alternative Perspective,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (December), 489–95.
7.
The Economist (1997), “Labeling the Mutant Tomato,” (August 9), 54.
8.
The Economist (2003), “The GM Gamble,” (May 17), 62–63.
9.
ErlerSusan F., and DeanC. Garstecki (2002), “Hearing Loss- and Hearing Aid-Related Stigma: Perceptions of Women with Normal Hearing,”American Journal of Audiology, 11 (2), 83–92.
10.
FDA (2008), “Guidance for Industry: Use of Animal Clones and Clone Progeny for Human Food and Animal Feed,” (January 15), (accessed March 6, 2008), [available at http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Guidance/Finalguideline179.pdf].
11.
FeinSteven (1996), “Effects of Suspicion on Attributional Thinking and the Correspondence Bias,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (6), 1164–84.
12.
FormanekRaymondJr. (2001), “Proposed Rules Issued for Bio-engineered Foods,”U.S. Food and Drug Administration Consumer Magazine, (March–April), (accessed March 15, 2004), [available at http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/201_food.html].
13.
GregoryRobin, FlynnJames, and SlovicPaul (2001), “Technological Stigma,” in Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology, FlynnJames, KunreutherHoward, and SlovicPaul, eds. London: Earthscan Publications, 3–8.
14.
GregoryRobin, and TheresaA. Satterfield (2002), “Beyond Perception: The Experience of Risk and Stigma in Community Contexts,”Risk Analysis, 22 (2), 347–58.
15.
HallmanW.K., HebdenW.C., AquinoH.L, CuiteC.L., and LangJ.T. (2003), “Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion,” Publication No. RR-1003-004, Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey.
16.
IacobucciDawn, BobbyJ. Calder, EdwardC. Malthouse, and DuhachekAdam (2003), “Psychological, Marketing, Physical and Sociological Factors Affecting Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions for Customers Resisting the Purchase of an Embarrassing Product,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 30. KellerPunam Anand, and DennisW. Rook, eds. Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 236–40.
17.
JaegerWilliam K. (2002), “Economic Issues and Oregon Ballot Measure 27: Labeling of Genetically-Modified Foods,” Oregon State University Extension Service, (October), (accessed December 1, 2004), [available at http://www.voteyeson27.com/costanalysis.pdf].
18.
JungJae Min, and JamesJ. Kellaris (2002), “A Scale for a New Millennium: A Psychometric Measure of Ethical Judgment Using the Dalai Lama's Universal Criteria,” in Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, Vol. 13, WilliamJ. Kehoe, and JohnH. LindgrenJr., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 117–18.
19.
KaspersonRoger E., JhaveriNayna, and JeanneX. Kasperson (2001), “Stigma and the Social Amplification of Risk: Toward a Framework of Analysis,” in Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology, FlynnJames, KunreutherHoward, and SlovicPaul, eds. London: Earthscan Publications, 9–27.
20.
KleinJill G., EttensonRichard, and MarleneD. Morris (1998), “The Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People's Republic of China,”Journal of Marketing, 62 (January), 89–100.
21.
KozinetsRobert V., and JayM. Handelman (2004), “Adversaries of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 691–704.
22.
KunreutherHoward, and SlovicPaul (2001), “Coping with Stigma: Challenges and Opportunities,” in Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology, FlynnJames, KunreutherHoward, and SlovicPaul, eds. London: Earthscan Publications, 331–52.
23.
LarosFleur J.M., and Jan-BenedictE.M. Steenkamp (2004), “Importance of Fear in the Case of Genetically-Modified Food,”Psychology & Marketing, 21 (11), 889–908.
24.
LevyAlan S., and BrendaM. Derby (2000), “Report on Consumer Focus Groups on Biotechnology,” Consumer Studies Team, Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC (October 20).
25.
LinkBruce G., and JoC. Phelan (2001), “Conceptualizing Stigma,”Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–85.
MorrinMaureen (1999), “The Impact of Brand Extensions on Parent Brand Memory Structures and Retrieval Processes,”Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (November), 517–25.
28.
MowenJohn C. (2000), The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to Consumer Behavior.Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29.
MurphyDennis (2005), “Consumer Perceptions of Qualified Health Claims in Advertising,” Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, Working Paper No. 277, (July).
30.
NesmithJeff (2002), “Genetically-Modified Food: As Biotechnology Spreads, Questions Grow, Too,”Atlanta Journal and Constitution, (February 28), 7A.
PettyRichard E., MoniqueA. Fleming, and PaulH. White (1999), “Stigmatized Sources and Persuasion: Prejudice as a Determinant of Argument Scrutiny,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (1), 19–34.
ScholdererJoachim, and LynnJ. Frewer (2003), “The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy,”Journal of Consumer Policy, 26 (2), 125–57.
37.
ShimpTerence A., EvaM. Hyatt, and DavidJ. Snyder (1991), “A Critical Appraisal of Demand Artifacts in Consumer Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (December), 273–83.
38.
Society for Toxicology (2002), “The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced Through Biotechnology,” (accessed March 23, 2006), [available at http://www.toxicology.org/ai/gm/GM_Food.asp].
39.
TepperKelly (1994), “The Role of Labeling Processes in Elderly Consumers’ Responses to Age: Segmentation Cues,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 503–520.
VerdurmeAnnelies, and ViaeneJacques (2003), “Exploring and Modeling Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically-Modified Food,”Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal, 6 (2), 95–110.
42.
The Wall Street Journal (2006), “E. Coli's Enablers,” (December 18), A16.
43.
WeinerBernard, RaymondP. Perry, and MagnussonJamie (1988), “An Attributional Analysis of Reactions to Stigmas,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (5), 738–48.
44.
WildeParke E., and MargaretS. Andrews (2000), “The Food Stamp Program in an Era of Welfare Reform: Electronic Benefits and Changing Sources of Cash Income,”Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34 (1), 31–47.
45.
WilsonAmy (2005), “Ford May Pull the Plug on Minivan,”Automotive News, 79 (6131), 6.
