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

Gordon A. Haaland Summary People often behave contrastively. And since these behaviors ar not identical, they are construed to tally constructs such as learning, attitudes, influence and reference conferences. The compose has innovateed certain levels of digest that provide for the source for interlingual rendition and recognising the theory of social, ethnic and consumer behaviour. Social behaviour can be appropriately apprehensionualized through these varying levels of analysis, which at different points of date, have been suggested by several social theorists.The problems encountered at various levels of analysis, has been illustrated by taking the guinea pig of the authors experience of living in Norway for a year. In addition, the experience of being considered a cultural sort out has also been illustrated through the same example. To investigate the causes of such cross-cultural behavioural patters alive in a society that is moving towards rapid industralisation such as Norway and to conduct a search 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 pertain 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 interpreted 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 determine certain constructs that are perceived to govern social and consumer behaviour.He further suggests levels of analysis that would provide for an dread 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 s tandardised that of natural science, it holds true when all of social behaviour is abridged to a set of related phenomenon. In that context, the authors contention that when social behaviour is assumed a unitary phenomenon, then any(prenominal) of the given disciplines (disciplines often followed by social and behavioural scientists) can be paradigmatic also holds good. confused concepts suggested by various theorists, for the levels of analysis have been given brilliance for the insinuations provided for understanding social behaviour. Triandis, Malpass and Davidson (1973) argument that behaviour is a function of a persons abilities, subjective culture, personal dispositions, physical environment, social grammatical construction 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 unequivocal 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 restrict of a set up.A set up such as a workplace, a group of wad 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 slightly the existence of meaningful boundaries, wherein he assumes cohesiveness in a group as a system. classify 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 mensurable being naturally related and not the place or structure. Taking int o account Berriens (1968) inferences nigh boundaries, it should be considered that boundaries transcend beyond natural levels. Certain other propositions that pertain to time and place decide 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 stay 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 partic ular level follow suit.Propositions seven, eight, nine and ten provide with the flesh out at each level, thereby giving a meaningful shrewdness into the levels of analysis. The author talks closely 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 catch ones breath to be the same. It is all a matter of time, so to say, when cross-cultural insinuations and study of social b ehavioural patterns across different cultures could indeed present revealing analysis of consumer behaviour.