Introduction to the symbolic consumption of television programs

The phenomenon of symbolic consumption attaches to the idea that people search for identity through consumption (Elliott & Wattanasuwan 1998; Wattanasuwan 2005; Shankar & Fitchett 2002). Scholars such as consumer researchers, sociologists and psychologists have identified consumption as means of constructing and expressing identity. Elliott (1997) states that products have symbolic meanings which operate in two directions: outward in constructing the social world and inward in constructing self-identity. In this respect, consumers can use symbolic meanings of consumption objects to make sense of the world they live in, to identify associations with other people, and to construct, maintain and express their identities. Consumers may have different interpretations and meanings for the consumption objects and events, so that meanings are not delivered in the communication but are constructed within it (Anderson & Meyer 1998). To manage the phenomenon of meaning making in general, and identity construction in particular, understanding the nature and development of relevant consumer-object relationships is essential.

In the previous literature it is acknowledged that possessions, brands and places can play a role in defining the consumer’s sense of self (e.g. Belk 1988). In a similar vein, we may see that television programs have such characteristics that consumers can identify with. We may further suggest that “we are what we watch on television.” Yet, consumer-program relationships are not widely studied in consumer research. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to model self-identification in consumer-program relationships. Firstly, this will require a clarification of the conceptual domain of self-identification. Secondly, I will specify the structural relations of concepts related to self-identification in consumer-program relationships. Thirdly, I will evaluate the model fit to empirical data and interpret the findings.

1.1. Conceptualization of identity construction

There are several concepts, such as self, self-concept, identity, personal identity and social identity that relate to identity construction. Self-concept is a cognitive and mental representation that one has of oneself. Identity (also referred to as self-identity) is that part of the self which can be specified and expressed to other people. Thus, the basic distinction between the concepts of self and identity lies in that self connotes a more individualistic frame of analysis whereas identity implies some collective basis for self-definition (Deaux 1992). At a more precise level of conceptualization of identity, personal identity refers to the awareness of self as being different from others, unique. Social identity, for one, is awareness of self as having similarities with other people.

Also lifestyle often occurs in discussions on identity. Lifestyle can be referred to as practice of identity-making (Jagose 2003). Thus, the clear distinction between identity and lifestyle is that lifestyle consists of expressive behaviors that are observable (Sobel 1981), whereas identity cannot be directly observed, it can only be articulated. Lifestyle and identity are interwoven as it may be argued that “all social choices are not only about how to act but who to be” (Giddens 1991). As lifestyle and life situations are likely to change over time, so can identities develop. It is quite commonly agreed among postmodern researchers that identity is a dynamic construct. Not only people can redefine their identity, they also can have many different kinds of identity-related projects simultaneously. This is the case when thinking of the many social roles that individuals may possess. To exemplify, a woman can be mother, friend, daughter, employee, wife, voluntary worker, and marathoner. On the other hand, personality traits are rather stable properties of one’s identity. Consequently, it is quite difficult to take over identity

as an entity and draw absolute distinctions between the things that comprise one’s identity and those that do not.

In this study, identity construction is conceptualized as self-identification, which means negotiation between one’s self-identity and social identity (e.g. Jenkins 2004). Thus, it is suggested that clear distinction between self- and social identity is not possible. The underlying approach to study the self-identification is drawn from symbolic interactionism -literature which states that the self is a function of interpersonal interactions. When related to the context of television program consumption (consumer-program relationships), the construct of self-identifica-tion refers to the relevance of a television program to one’s self-identificaself-identifica-tion.

Like brands, television programs are good at telling stories and conduct social meanings (cf. Edson Escalas 2004). These stories can be adopted, altered or discarded based on the consumers’ different interpretive strategies and life projects (Hirschman & Thompson 1997; Aitken, Gray & Lawson 2008; Ahuvia 2005). It is suggested here that self-identification can be realized through the symbolic consumption of television programming. However, it is also suggested here, that the phenomenon of self-identification is not directly observable, yet it can be empirically approached from different standpoints that relate to consumer-program relationships. The cognitive and psychological approach to examine consumer-program relationships is adopted in this study. Thus, the focus is on attitudes toward the consumption of television programming instead of an emphasis on actual viewing practices. This choice of focus also means that subconscious identity construction is beyond the scope of this study.

1.2. Conceptual framework for self-identification in consumer-program relationships

The theoretical grounding for this study is in the symbolic consumption literature in the interplay of consuming and being. As a conceptual framework for this study, four distinct concepts related to identity-related consumption of television programs are next presented. The concepts of connectedness, self-connection, attachment and emotional attachment are derived from the consumption research on the symbolic meaning of consumption, extended self and consumer-object relationships. Thus, this study aims to contribute to these streams of research by providing a valid conceptualization of the phenomenon of identity construction in consumer-program relationships. The four concepts are expected to be linked to each other by manifesting different aspects of consumers’ self-identification in the context of consumption of television programs.

Connectedness manifests how television program becomes part of one’s daily life. The concept of audience connectedness was first introduced by Russell and Puto (1999) who proposed that this concept can capture the extent to which a program extends beyond the mere viewing experience, contributing to a viewer’s self and social identity. Russell, Norman & Heckler (2004) further define connectedness as “the level of intensity of the relationship(s) that a viewer develops with the characters and the contextual settings of a program in the parasocial television environment.” Connectedness to a program can vary from indifferent entertainment to high-involved fanaticism. High connectedness develops if the program is considered to be personally relevant (Russell & Puto 1999). Clearly, connectedness is a conative concept in terms of concrete and visible acts of self-identification. Russell et. al. (2004) further identify six dimensions of connectedness that manifest different daily activities in which television programs and/or their characters can one way or another be present and have relevance. These dimensions are escape, fashion, imitation, modeling, aspiration and paraphernalia. In addition to these dimensions, it is likely, that there may be also other manifestations of connectedness, such as program-related online activity and consumption.

Self-connection manifests how an individual sees program as relation to her/his predominant needs and -goals, such as striving for verification and self-enhancement. In this vein, the self- connection has been defined as a dimension of the consumer-object relationship that indicates the amount that the particular object contributes to one’s identity projects and concerns. Hence, this connection expresses significant aspects of self (Fournier 1998; Swaminathan, Page &

Gürhan-Canli 2007; Thomson, MacInnis & Park 2005). Relatedly, an important distinction can be made between one’s actual self and ideal self. Actual self refers to how a person perceives him/herself, whereas ideal self refers to how a person would like to perceive herself (Sirgy 1982). Self-connection refers to cognitive evaluation of the television program quality in terms of one’s goal-oriented self-identification.

Attachment theory began with John Bowlby’s ideas about the nature and function of human attachments. There is a wide array of areas into which attachment theory has been extended since Bowlby’s original ideas. One of those areas is consumer research. Kleine, Kleine III and Allen (1995) characterize attachment as a signifier of self-extension, which means that attachment describes the degree of “me-ness” of the consumption object as relation to different temporal orientations of self. The previous discussion has emphasized development of self as life stories and narratives (e.g. Ahuvia 2005). Basically this conception suggests that self-identity is developed when people integrate

their remembered past, experienced present and anticipated future into a coherent whole (Baumgartner 2002). As Belk (1988) has pointed out, a sense of past is essential to a sense of self as it enriches our sense of self when defining who we are and where we are going. Also Giddens (1991) presents that self is reflexively understood in terms of biography. Furthermore, attachment can be related to the dimensions of individual and social identification, which means that possessions can have significance in terms of both self- and social symbolism. Clearly, attachment is here conceived as a cognitive concept in terms of the narration of self-identification. It illustrates how program is experienced and interpreted as relation to the sense of self.

Emotional attachment is closely related to concept of attachment. However, we may distinguish between attachment and emotional attachment since emotional attachment is not evaluative, but it is emotion-laden, affective concept (see Ball &

Tasaki 1992 for the measurement of emotional aspects in attachment). Further, it does not imply a temporal orientation. It is likely that the things that are closer to our identities result in greater emotional attachment than things that are less relevant to our identities (Belk 1988). Ahuvia (2005) has further noticed that consumers use the things they love to construct a sense of self especially in the face of identity conflicts. Loved objects are also connected to self-expression by making visible internal dispositions, preferences, and impulses.

As a whole, the concept of connectedness brings out the intensity of one’s relationship with a television program by showing how the television program is a part of the consumer’s daily life. The concept of self-connection is needed to indicate the overall relationship quality and depth in terms of the aspects of self-verification and self-enhancement. Attachment manifests and specifies the particular nature and orientation of the consumer-program relationship, whereas the concept emotional attachment can capture affection-laden responses that relate to consumption of a particular television program. Operationalization of the four constructs as Likert-scaled statements is presented in Appendix 1 within the limits of chosen items for the final structural model.