How Consumers Consume: A Typology of Consumption …...consumption objects in a variety of ways (see Simmel 1950). The basic conceptual units used to describe con-sumers' actions are

How Consumers Consume: A Typology ofConsumption PracticesDOUGLAS B. HOLT*

This article examines what people do when they consume. In recent interpretiveconsumer research, three research streams have emerged, each portraying howpeople consume through a distinctive metaphor: co'nsuming as experience, con-suming as integration, and consuming as classification. The research reported here—a two-year observational case study of baseball spectators in Chicago's WrigleyField bleachers—builds on this literature to systematically detail the universe ofactions that constitute consuming. The resulting typology refines, extends, andsynthesizes the three existing approaches to consuming and adds a fourth dimen-sion—consuming as play—to yield a comprehensive vocabulary for descnbing howconsumers consume. The usefulness of the typology is demonstrated by applyingit to develop an alternative conception of materialism as a style of consuming.

W hat do people do when they consume? Con-sumer research has traditionally viewed this

question, as self-evident, assuming that consuming isstructured by the properties of the consumption object.From an economic perspective, products have beenconceived as bundles of attributes that yield particularbenefits, and from a symbolic perspective, productshave been conceived as vessels of meaning that signifysimilarly across all consumers. Recent field studies,however, offer a different perspective (e.g., Bourdieu1984; Halle 1992; Morley 1986; Press 1991; Radway1984). These studies demonstrate that the act ofconsuming is a varied and effortful accomplishmentunderdetermined by the characteristics of the object. Agiven consumption object (e.g., a food, a sports activity,a television program, or an art object) is typically con-sumed in a variety of ways by different groups of con-sumers. This pervasive variation in consumer actionssuggests an important and relatively underdevelopedresearch stream for the discipline of consumer research:to comprehensively describe the variety of ways inwhich people consume, to understand how these dif-ferences vary across groups and situations, and to ex-plain the unacknowledged conditions that structure how

'Douglas B. Holt is assistant professor of marketing at the SmealCollege of Business Administration, The Pennsylvania State Uni-versity, University Park, PA 16802. This article evolved from a dis-sertation written at Northwestern University. Special thanks are dueto my dissertation committee—John F. Sherry, Jr. (chair), SidneyLevy, Helen Schwartzman, and Paul Hirsch—for their encouragementand advice. Also, I would like to thank Paul Anderson, Russell Belk,Amy Binder, Michael Mulvey, Jerry Olson, and the reviewers andeditors for their helpful comments.

different groups consume and the unintended conse-quences of such patterning (see Giddens 1979).

The study reported in this article focuses on the firststage of this research program and examines how peopleconsume in systematic detail (cf. Prus 1987). Informedby the constructionist and interactionist perspectivesfound in sociology, consuming is viewed in this researchas a type of social action in which people make use ofconsumption objects in a variety of ways (see Simmel1950). The basic conceptual units used to describe con-sumers' actions are termed "consumption practices."'The goal, then, is to develop an analytic language—atypology of consumption practices—that usefully rep-resents the variety of ways in which consumers interactwith consumption objects.

In consumer research, an innovative research streamhas recently emerged that plumbs the different ways inwhich consumers consume, using ethnographic andphenomenological methods to problematize the disci-pline's foundational verb. Three distinct metaphors forconsuming have emerged in this literature, each at-tending to a particular dimension of how people con-sume: consuming as experience, consuming as integra-tion, and consuming as classification. However, becausethe goal of these studies has been to detail specific as-pects of consuming, there exists a need for a compre-hensive framework that describes the universe of actions

'Basic categories of social action are often termed "methods" or"practices" (Bourdieu 1977; Garfinkel 1967; Giddens 1979). In thephenomenological and Wittgensteinian traditions on which these so-cial theorists draw, practices are viewed as the embodied skills thatpeople bring to bear in their everyday activities. This use is somewhatdifferent from the way in which the term is used in Marxist theory(often "praxis").

© 1995 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. • Vol. 22 • June 1995All rights reserved. OO93-53Ol/96/22OI-O0Ol$2.0O

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

that constitute consumitig. In this article, I use a casestudy to extend, refine, and synthesize these three per-spectives and add a fourth dimension—consuming asplay—to yield a typology that offers a comprehensivevocabulary for describing how consumers consume.

The typology of consumption practices was con-structed through analysis of extensive observations ofbaseball spectators sitting in the bleacher seats at Chi-cago's Wrigley Field. I attended 43 games during the1990 baseball season and 35 games during the 1991season. Baseball spectating was chosen because con-sumer actions in this activity are publicly accessible andbecause the slow pace of the game allows for high levelsof interaction between consumers. Because the goal ofthe study was to build theory, a distanced approach toparticipant observation was used that focused on eticunderstanding. I sought to distance myself from the"normal" perspective of the baseball spectator in orderto bring into relief the otherwise taken-for-granted ac-tions that constitute spectators' consumption of thegame (see Latour and Woolgar [1979] on "making thefamiliar strange"). In this regard, the methodologicalstrategy used by Erving Goffman throughout his careerserved as an exemplar.

A three-part, iterative analytical technique was usedto develop the consumption practices: preliminaryworking categories were constructed through a processof abstracting and generalizing from the specific obser-vations of baseball spectating by means of constantcomparison, coding, and memoing procedures (Strauss1987); these categories were then interpreted and re-constructed in light of contemporary social theory; and,finally, the categories were integrated with the relevantconsumer research literatures. This methodologicalstrategy generally follows the logic of Burawoy's (1991)extended case method, in which a single, detailed casestudy is used to reconstruct and extend existing theory.Thus, while the typology is developed from a case studyof baseball spectating, the methodological strategy usedin the study aims at developing a descriptive frameworkof consuming that is useful in analyzing a broad rangeof consumers and consumption objects.

METAPHORS FOR CONSUMINGTwo basic conceptual distinctions help to organize

how the different aspects of consuming have beentreated in previous research—the structure of con-sumption and the purpose of consumption (cf. Hol-brook 1994). In terms of structure, consuming consistsboth of actions in which consumers directly engageconsumption objects (object actions) and interactionswith other people in which consumption objects serveas focal resources (interpersonal actions). In terms ofpurpose, consumers' actions can be both ends in them-selves (autotelic actions) and means to some furtherends (instrumental actions). Crossing these two di-mensions yields a 2 X 2 matrix that locates the three

predominant .metaphors currently used to describeconsuming—consuming as experience, consuming asintegration, and consuming as classification—as wellas a neglected fourth dimension, here termed "con-suming as play" (see Fig. 1).

Consuming as ExperienceThe consuming-as-experience metaphor underlies

research examining consumers' subjective, emotionalreactions to consumption objects. Holbrook andHirschman (1982) pioneered research examining whatthey have variously termed the experiential, hedonic,aesthetic, autotelic, and subjective dimensions of con-suming. Most of their work, as well as subsequent re-search that bears their influence (e.g., Belk, Wallendorf,and Sherry 1989; Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993), tendsto view consuming as a psychological phenomenonfrom a phenomenological perspective, emphasizing theemotional states arising during consumption. The so-ciological view of consuming as experience developedhere complements this work, describing a variety ofconsumption practices in which these emotional statesare embedded.

Consuming as IntegrationResearch relying on the consuming-as-integration

metaphor describes how consumers acquire and ma-nipulate object meanings. Through a variety of con-sumption practices—for example. Rook's (1985) con-sumption rituals, Belk's (1988) self-extension processes,McCracken's (1986) personalizing rituals, and Belk etal.'s (1989) sacralizing processes—consumers are ableto integrate self and object, thereby allowing themselvesaccess to the object's symbolic properties. This researchextends these studies by refining existing descriptionsand adding an institutional dimension that is missingfrom current formulations.

Consuming as ClassificationThe consuming-as-classification metaphor under-

girds research that views consuming as a process inwhich objects—viewed as vessels of cultural and per-sonal meanings—act to classify their consumers.Building on foundational statements by Levy (1959),Sahlins (1976), and Douglas (1979), consumer researchhas drawn from a number of academic traditions in-terested in meaning (e.g., cultural anthropology, se-miotics, and literary theory) to specify the classificatoryaspects of consumption. However, this tradition has fo-cused almost exclusively on describing how meaningsare structured and on interpreting the meanings par-ticular to certain grpups or consumption categories,paying little heed to the classificatory processes in-volved. Thus, classification is usually assumed to be anunproblematic process that is accomplished through

HOW CONSUMERS CONSUME

FIGURE 1

METAPHORS FOR CONSUMING

PURPOSE OF ACTION

Autotelic Actions Instrumental Actions

ObjectActions

STRUCTURE OFACTION

InterpersonalActions

CONSUMINGAS

EXPERIENCE

CONSUMINGAS

PLAY

CONSUMiNGAS

iNTEGRATION

CONSUMINGAS

CiJ^SSiFiCATiON

possession and social display of the consumption object.Because the consumption practices through which clas-sification occurs have received little attention, the pres-ent research identifies a variety of ways in which con-sumers classify that have not been previously describedin the literature.

Consuming as PlayA fourth dimension of consuming—autotelic, inter-

personal consumer actions—has received little attentionin the consumer research literature (Sherry [1990] andArnould and Price [1993] are notable exceptions). Asdetailed below, this neglected dimension, termed con-suming as play, is an important aspect of consuming.This case study describes how people use consumptionobjects to play and develops the relationship betweenthis aspect of consuming and the other three dimen-sions.

All four metaphors are necessary to describe compre-hensively how spectators consume professional baseball.The 10 consumption practices constructed in this researchexplain the most important and distinctive features ofthese four domains and provide a specific vocabulary todescribe how consumers consume (see Fig. 2).

CONSUMING AS EXPERIENCEThe consuming-as-experience metaphor references

the methods used by spectators to make sense of and

respond to professional baseball. Such experiences arerarely constructed anew by consumers. Rather, howconsumers experience consumption objects is struc-tured by the interpretive framework(s) that they applyto engage the object. While people regularly apply aprimary (or everyday) framework that enables under-standing and action in everyday life (Berger and Luck-mann 1967; Goffman 1974), there also exist numeroussocial worlds (Becker 1982) consisting of secondaryframeworks that provide particular understandings ofmore specialized domains of our existence. Many con-sumption objects are embedded in such social worlds,which impart to consumers a shared definitionôf real-ity by structuring perceptions of "the way things are"in that world (Berger and Luckmann 1967). The socialworld of baseball is constituted not only by the formalrules of the game but, more important, by the widevariety of conventions, habits, strategies, and styles onwhich spectators draw (Swidler 1986). The baseballworld provides participants with an intersubjectivelyshared lens through which they can make sense ofsituations, roles, action, and objects in the baseballworld as well as a template that orients their actions(Geertz 1973). Spectators use interpretive frame-works to experience professional baseball in threedifferent ways: through accounting, spectators makesense of baseball; through evaluating, spectators con-struct value judgments regarding baseball; and throughappreciating, spectators respond emotionally to base-ball.


FIGURE 2

CONSUMING PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL: A MODEL OF SPECTATOR CONSUMPTION PRACTICES

Consumption Object

Professional Baseball:

Game, Players, Ballpark, Media

Experiencing- Accounting• bvaiuanng- Appreciating

integrating- Assimiiating- Producing- Personalizing

Piaying- Communing- Socializing

Ciassifying- ...Througii Objects- ...Through Actions

V J

\

SPECTATOR A

Experiencing- Accounting- Evaluating- Appreciating

Integrating- Assimiiating- Producing- Personailzing

\

SPECTATORS B...N

AccountingSpectators engage in accounting when they apply an

interpretive framework, usually that of the baseballworld, to make sense of what they encounter at thegame. Because accounting is such a basic, well-inte-grated activity in everyday life, its practice is often un-remarkable and so goes unnoticed. However, when thesense-making task is complex and requires specializedinformation, accounting becomes a significant com-ponent of consumers' actions. In professional baseball,the complexity of numerous baseball world conventionsand rules and the enormous number of relevant factsproduces a wide variety of possible situations and in-terpretations of those situations. It is the complexity ofbaseball that makes accounting an intensive and oftenrewarding activity for the spectator. For the baseballexpert, accounting comes easily and naturally, exceptin situations of rare complexity, while for a novicespectator, even the simplest accounts can be a struggle.

Two 10-12-year-old boys (Billy and Tommy) sit behindme with their fathers on each side. Each of them is scoringthe game on an official scorecard. Billy gives Tommysome tips on scoring.. Billy: For a single, you put a line through it; a strikeoutis a /(:.

Tommy: What's that mean?Billy: Strikeout.

Billy and Tommy argue about what the symbols for scor-ing mean, and then attention returns to the game.

Father: Watch the game, Billy.

Billy and Tommy: (The first out is a strikeout. Theyshout in unison.) K\

Billy: (The second out is a foul ball that is caught.) NoK unless it's a strikeout.

Father: (Ground ball is hit to first baseman MarkGrace, who hobbles the ball and gets it to Shawn Boskie,the pitcher covering first base, just in time.) He almostblew it. Did you see that?

Billy: Yeah. It was an error.Father: It would've been an error if he beat it out.Tommy to Billy: They don't get an at bat if they walk,

OK?Billy to Tommy: (Tommy is looking at the center field

Scoreboard.) Tommy, pay attention!Tommy: (George Bell hits an infield ground ball and

appears to run half-heartedly to first.) Run! Run! Run!He did that [made an out] on purpose. (This is the firstevaluative comment from either Billy or Tommy duringthe game.)

Tommy: (Andre Dawson flies out to the warning trackjust out of our vision behind the wall.) Ground rule dou-ble! Home run! (Searching in vain for an account of theaction.)

Father: No. He caught it. Four feet more and it wouldhave been a home run.

Billy: \\ was 50 close.Tommy: (Luis Salazar hits a ground ball to the shorts-

top.) Run! Run! Run! (Salazar is thrown out at first baseon a routine play.) Safe!

Billy: Safe! (Salazar is called out. Billy switches fromexcited tone to matter-of-fact tone.) Ground out. (June12, 1991)


The practice of accounting usually involves two steps:spectators typify (Berger and Luckmann 1967) actionsand objects, assigning them specific meaning and value,and then they contextualize this account by makingconnections with relevant facts to create a richer un-derstanding. Because the interpretive framework of thebaseball world is seldom specified at the level of detailnecessary to allow for automatic application, spectatorsmust infer how it should be applied to specific circum-stances. Foi" example, when a batter hits a ball into theoutfield and runs to first base, there are many deductivesteps that the spectator takes before defining the eventthat has transpired as a single.

Typifying actions in terms of relevant rules and con-ventions alone is often unsatisfactory because it yieldsan account that does not discriminate the particularitiesof a given action. Defining a play as a single, for ex-ample, provides a relatively thin understanding of whathas transpired. Thus, accounting also frequently in-volves linking context-enhancing facts to the accountin order to increase its specificity. For example, knowingthat the batter who hit the single was a pitcher who wastrying to bunt in order to advance a runner provides amore nuanced account of the play.

EvaluatingSpectators account when they use an institutional

framework to make sense of baseball, while they eval-uate when they apply this framework to pass judgmenton the situations, people, and actions they encounter.Spectators evaluate action by making comparisons toa variety of norms and baseline expectations. Thesebaseline expectancies are usually those constituted bythe baseball world, but spectators make judgments bycomparing experiences to everyday frameworks as well.For instance, the diving leap of a fielder, the velocityof a pitch, and the distance that a baseball is hit arefrequently compared to references in other spheres oflife, including one's own perceived ability to performthese actions. While neophyte spectators tend to makethese everyday comparisons, more experienced spec-tators commonly use the baseball world framework,because it allows them to make comparisons at a fineenough level to extract appreciable differences. For ex-ample, while any pitch of any professional pitcher isexceptional by the standards of most people's generalframework, the baseball world framework allows oneto discriminate between an older, tactical pitcher whocan only throw 80 miles per hour and a young fireballerwhose velocity approaches the century mark.

Evaluating involves comparisons to three types ofbaselines: norms, history, and conventions. Specificbaseball "facts" are important for all three types ofevaluation, as these serve as grist for such comparisons.Spectators constantly evaluate action according to thenormative expectations they have developed in theirinteraction with the game, often using statistics to justify

their judgments. These "objective" baselines are notalways official statistics but can also be measures createdby the spectator, as is the case when a spectator evaluatespitchers based on length of time between pitches (Au-gust 2, 1990). While a large percentage of players' andteams' performances can be quantified via statistics, anumber of important, intangible measures are difficultto translate into numbers. Thus, for important perfor-mance dimensions such as smartness, quickness, hustle,and choking, the norms are implicit. For example,spectators may berate an outfielder, yelling "Boneheadplay!" (August 1, 1990) when he allows a base runnerto advance an extra base by throwing the ball to thewrong infielder.

While normative evaluations are derived from com-parisons to baseball world baselines, historical com-parisons involve more narrow comparisons centered onthe specific performance of a particular player or teamin particular situations. Using history as a basis forcomparison requires more specialized knowledge thando normative comparisons and often leads to nuancedjudgments of action that would otherwise be consideredunexceptional when viewed according to norms. Forinstance, one spectator evaluated Ryne Sandberg's hit-ting performance in April as promising, even thoughhis batting average was not exceptional on a normativebasis (May 24, 1990). This evaluation stems from a his-torical baseline that illuminates the fact that in pastyears Sandberg has hit poorly early in the season andthen raises his average with exceptional performancein the warmer months.

Spectators evaluate action not only in terms of per-formance but also in relation to applicable conventions.Much of the action of the players, umpires, and spec-tators is conventionalized, and so spectators who areaware of these conventions use them to evaluate whatthey observe. For example, the sequence of actions usedin pitching—the stance, the windup, the delivery, andthe follow-through—are conventionalized. Thus, spec-tators evaluate how pitchers' actions differ by usingthese conventions as a baseline. For example, formerCubs relief pitcher Mitch Williams has a most uncon-ventional style in which he nearly falls over at the endof his throw. This unusual motion is a prime target forevaluation by spectators.

AppreciatingSpectators appreciate professional baseball when they

respond emotionally to its situations, people, action,and objects. The term "emotion" is used here in aninteractionist sense to describe the holistic, short-termfeelings that spectators express in response to the game(McCarthy 1989; Schott 1979). Appreciating taps thefull range of emotional responses: in addition to clearlypositive emotions such as feelings of excitement andawe in reaction to a spectacular diving catch or the joyand relief felt when a clutch hit drives in the winning


run in the ninth inning, appreciating may also includenegative emotions—anger at a poor throw by an out-fielder or feelings of disappointment and frustrationwhen the Cubs fail to score with the bases loaded andno outs. Like accounting and evaluating, appreciatingis accomplished through the application of a variety offrameworks, although, again, the baseball world frame-work predominates. Important types of appreciating forbaseball spectators include aesthetics, humor and irony,ambiance, and sensory stimulation.

Aesthetic responses involve emotional reactions tothe artistry and beauty of professional baseball (seeHolbrook and Zirlin 1985). For example, spectators of-ten use an everyday framework to appreciate the fluid,athletic movements of players as they dive for the ballor swing the bat—feats that are beyond what they canimagine themselves doing. These same actions generateaesthetic responses cultivated in the baseball world,where beauty is identified in finer, institutionally de-fined gradations of action. For example, the baseballworld framework allows spectators to appreciate the ef-ficient elegance of Dawson's throwing motion when heguns down a runner at third base, the enthusiasticabandon with which Shawon Dunston unleashes athrow from his shortstop position, or the anticipationand timing required for Doug Dascenzo to make a div-ing catch in center field.

Spectators are particularly responsive to situationsand actions that are perceived as out-of-the-ordinary,plays that challenge the expectations set up by the base-ball world framework. These situations can induce re-sponses such as surprise, joy, irony, humor, disappoint-ment, and even awe. For example, this is the case whenhome runs, relatively rare events anyway, are bunchedtogether in unusual fashion, such as when the CubsHector Villanueva hit two homers in consecutive at batsto the same spot in left field. The novelty of this repe-tition led to crowd to jump to its feet and chant "Hector!Hector!" for several minutes (May 1, 1991).

The ambiance created at Wrigley Field is a primarydraw for many Cubs spectators. In an everyday frame-work, Wrigley Field is appreciated for providing achange of pace; an expanse of green in the middle ofan urban enclave, it is an idyllic setting. The design ofthe ballpark, the old-time organ music, the vendorsthrowing peanuts—all act to create a radical, nostalgicdeparture from the typical Chicago environs. But thecharacteristics of the ballpark are appreciated using thebaseball world framework as well. Spectators appreciateWrigley Field as being one of the few remaining classicballparks, as reflected by its age, design, excellent sightlines, idiosyncratic features (the vines on the outfieldwall), lack of modern accoutrements (the only ballparkthat still uses a manual Scoreboard), and the baseballsavvy of its spectators.

Sensory experiences associated with attending a ballgame are also appreciated in both everyday and base-ball-specific frameworks. For instance, drinking a cold

beer on a hot day in the sun is a pleasant experiencefor many, but this activity is particularly appreciatedby baseball world participants, for whom it is mean-ingful because of its symbolic linkages with the baseballworld ideal of a day at the ballpark. Spectators alsoenjoy wolfing down ballpark franks wrapped in sweatybuns, working through a bagful of peanuts over thecourse of a game, and using wooden spoons to eat frostymalts that quickly become less than frosty. The appre-ciation of these items lies more in their socially con-structed associations with baseball spectating than withtheir material culinary attributes. For example, spec-tators who otherwise rarely eat hot dogs occasionallyremark that for some reason, hot dogs always taste betterat the ballpark. Appreciating the hot dog is primarilydriven by the consumption of its meaning based on thelocal framework of baseball. The sweaty, unadornedhot dog serves as a concrete symbol of professionalbaseball and baseball spectating, and these valuedmeanings have become imbued and naturalized to theextent that the hot dog actually tastes better.

CONSUMING AS INTEGRATIONThe consuming-as-integration metaphor references

the methods used by consumers to enhance the percep-tion that a valued consumption object is a constitutiveelement of their identity (or self-concept [Rosenberg1979]). In contrast with consuming as experience, in-tegrating is an instrumental act pursued to facilitate thesymbolic use of the object. Baseball spectators integratea variety of elements of professional baseball into theiridentity; a particular game, a team, players, the ballpark,and the baseball world all serve as targets for integration.

Integrating practices operate in two directions. Prac-tices that integrate consumption objects into one'sidentity have been termed self-extension processes (Belk1988) in that such actions symbolically draw externalobjects into one's self-concept. In addition, spectatorsintegrate in exactly the reverse manner—they reorienttheir self-concept so that it aligns with an institutionallydefined identity (see, e.g., Zerubavel 1991; cf. Solomon1983).

While integrating is all but automatic for consump-tion activities in which consumers significantly partic-ipate in the creation of the consumption object (e.g.,camping, parties, or photography), the task becomesmore difficult with mass-produced consumption objects(e.g., banking, automobiles, or celebrities), where thereified quality of the object makes integration with theconsumer's subjective identity a problematic process(Miller 1987). Thus, while institutional structures, suchas social worlds, are necessary to provide consumerswith resources to construct their experiences as mean-ingful (McCracken 1986), the objectification necessaryto constitute such worlds has the ironic effect of makingit more difficult for consumers to appropriate the con-sumption object's meanings. Integrating practices, then.


are methods applied by consumers to break down thisinstitutional distancing between consumer and con-sumption object: through assimilating, the baseballworld framework becomes perceived as a natural wayof thinking and acting; through producing, spectatorsassert that their actions help to construct the consump-tion object; and through personalizing, spectators alterthe baseball world to assert the individuality of theirbond with professional baseball.

AssimilatingAssimilating practices are the methods by which

spectators become competent participants in the socialworld of professional baseball. For baseball spectators,assimilating is closely tied to the length and quality ofinteraction between spectator and valued elements ofthe baseball world. Assimilating may occur in any in-teraction with the baseball world: watching a game ontelevision, reading the sports page, or talking aboutbaseball with a friend at work. However, attending agame as a spectator offers enhanced possibilities for as-similating, because spectators are able to interact di-rectly with the game, players, ballpark, and other base-ball world participants at a level that is unavailablethrough other modes of consumption. In addition, at-tending allows spectators the opportunity to learn aboutand play the role of spectator as defined by the baseballworld.

Because assimilating involves thinking like, feelinglike, acting like, and looking like a baseball world par-ticipant, one important aspect of assimilating is attain-ing a degree of competence in the three experientialpractices, so that enacting the role of spectator becomestaken for granted. For instance, assimilating as a spec-tator requires developing the requisite baseball worldknowledge and the specialized tastes that flow from thisknowledge: knowing where the best seats are and seek-ing them out, understanding the game's longstandingrivalries and showing keen interest in those matchups,and appreciating the unique characteristics of WrigleyField that make games at other parks less enjoyable bycomparison. Given that assimilating involves not only,thinking like a baseball world participant but also actinglike one, actions such as dressing in Cubs paraphernalia,talking about Cubs statistics with the person sitting nextto you, rooting for the Cubs, jeering bad calls, and em-phatically punching the air and yelling "One! Two!Three strikes you're out!" with television announcerHarry Caray are all potent loci of assimilation.

baseball.^ Participating in the production of consump-tion experiences is often a mundane matter when theinstitutional configuration of the consumption worldallows the consumer a significant degree of control (e.g.,in holiday meals [Wallendorf and Arnould 1991]; orskydiving [Celsi et al. 1993]). But when the consump-tion object is controlled by others, producing practicesbecome problematic. The role of spectator in profes-sional baseball is one that allows little opportunity toexert one's will on the baseball game. Yet, spectatorsstill pursue practices through which they seek to en-hance the perception that they are involved in thegame's production. The primary types of producingpractices used by spectators are managing, predicting,and bonding.

Spectators frequently engage in imaginary interac-tions with managers, players, and umpires, attemptingto influence their actions, second-guessing their calls,or berating their performance (see Caughey's [1984]"imaginary social worlds"). In essence, they create andplay out a fantasy in which they are managing, in chargeof play on the field. Some spectators even assert thattheir actions significantly influence the game.

When the Pirates take the field, the fans immediatelyjump on Andy Van Slyke, yelling the familiar derogatorychants. Ted reprimands them (seeming to forget that heled these chants in days past), "Hey guys, the last timewe got him pissed off he hit two home runs. Hey, don'tmess with him. There are two guys you don't want topiss off—Van Slyke and Strawberry. Anybody else isfine." (April 22, 1990)

In addition to managing, predicting action on thefield can be used as a means of interjecting some controlover the game. Even predictions that require little inthe way of competence can be empowering on the in-frequent occasions when they are accurate.

In the bottom of the ninth with the Cubs down by a run,Dawson comes to bat. Steve says, "Andre's gonna hitone out." Dawson crushes one to the top of the left-fieldbleachers above us, and Steve yells with a smirk (evi-dencing much satisfaction), "Who called it?" (May 8,1990)

Because of the difficulty involved in becoming an of-ficially recognized producer in the baseball world, spec-tators often pursue an alternate strategy of bonding withthose deemed the official producers of the game—pri-marily the players, coaches, and media. By establishingsome sort of relationship—no matter how tenuous oreven fictional—with the productive Core of the con-sumption world, spectators are able to engage in vicar-

ProducingProducing practices are methods through which

spectators act to enhance their perception that they aresignificantly involved in the production of professional

It is important to note that spectators' participation in producingpractices is a subjective phenomenon. For instance, Becker (1982)argues that consumers play a key role in the production of culturalgoods. However, one characteristic that distinguishes consumers from"official" culture producers is that consumers seldom recognize theirproductive role.


ious production. They perceive that they have tappedinto the official producers' productive capabilities andthus have become insiders (Unruh 1979). The wide va-riety of celebrity-worshiping activities found in Amer-ican society can be interpreted as practices in whichconsumers seek to establish relationships with those atthe core of a valued social world.

Because of institutional constraints, establishing anykind of relationship with baseball world producers canbe an arduous task, so spectators employ a variety ofcreative strategies: attracting players' attention whileon the field, waiting for players at the locker room exitbefore and after games, collecting autographs and otherpersonalized memorabilia, and attending baseball con-ventions and store promotions where players often ap-pear as a draw. Confirmation of the spectator's bondwith players on the field occurs when a player reacts tothe spectator. Thus, a wink or a nod at a fan's screamedcomment, a wave to the crowd, or a practice ball thrownto a spectator in the stands are potent indicators thatthe player has reciprocated.

A spectator yells to Cubs outfielder Jerome Walton, "HeySpudnick!" (Walton scans the bleachers.) "He looked! Ican't believe it! That's his nickname. Now we can tellour friends. . . . I don't know him, but I know his nick-name." (June 5, 1991)

Roger McDowell, a pitcher for the Philadelphia Philliesduring the 1990 season, was easily the most popularnon-Cubs player among bleacher spectators because ofhis willingness to interact with them.

A young woman seated next to me screams at McDowell,asking him to take a picture with her camera. She dropsher camera to him. McDowell, in his typically playfulmanner, waves for the fans on each side of the womanto get in the picture. Perhaps a hundred fans pack closetogether for the shot. He does the same at the other endof the left-field bleachers . . . and then comes to returnthe camera. He is greeted with adoring comments("Roger, we love you!" "Hey Roger, we want you on theCubs!" "Why don't you play for the Cubs?"), having wonover the fans with his antics. He gives a baseball to thewoman with the camera. She screams. (April 10, 1990)

PersonalizingPersonalizing practices are methods in which spec-

tators add extrainstitutional elements to the baseballworld in order to assert the individuality of their rela-tionship with professional baseball. Like producingpractices, personalizing practices involve exerting one'sinfluence on baseball. However, while for producingpractices this influence occurs within the institutionalboundaries of the baseball world, personalizing practicesinvolve modifying the baseball world in some way. Actsof personalizing have been discussed extensively in theconsumer research literature (Belk 1988; Belk et al.1989; McCracken 1986; Wallendorf and Arnould 1991).In that literature, the term has been used to describe

actions in which consumers symbolically and physicallytailor mass-produced consumption objects in order toacquire and manipulate their meaning-carrying prop-erties. The approach taken here further refines this def-inition: personalizing only occurs when consumers'manipulations alter institutional elements of the con-sumption world. Many instances in which consumersmanipulate goods are, in fact, institutionalized acts thatare structured by their respective social worlds (e.g.,decorating a house to achieve a homey look [McCracken1989]; cooking a homemade Thanksgiving meal [Wal-lendorf and Arnould 1991]). Such actions are moreappropriately categorized as assimilating rather thanpersonalizing practices, because they indicate the con-sumer's integration into a collective identity rather thanan attempt to singularize the good. Indeed, the bound-ary between personalizing and assimilating practices isforever shifting, for personalizing actions are subject tothe process of institutionalization and thus can, overtime, become part of the consumption world that theactions initially sought to modify.

Like assimilating and producing practices, person-alizing practices are problematic for spectators, whohave limited access to the productive nucleus of thebaseball world—the game and its players. Spectatorsattempt to adorn the stadium walls with distinctive signsand occasionally exhibit a proclivity for pelting the fieldwith foreign objects, but such personalizing acts arediscouraged at Wrigley Field. So, instead, spectatorsconcentrate on personalizing one element over whichthey are able to exercise some control—themselves. Bypersonalizing dress, signs, and comments, spectatorsattempt to individuate their relationship with players,teams, and the game. Because dressing in Cubs para-phernalia has become an institutionalized aspect ofspectating at Wrigley Field, personalizing requires stay-ing one step ahead of the crowd by incorporating idio-syncratic elements into the standard ensemble: cus-tomizing hats with pins, ticket stubs, or flashing lights,sewing handmade shirts with the Cubs logo, or con-structing strange-looking signs with offbeat narratives.More radical personalizing acts are also witnessed oc-casionally, such as that of a group of four young menwho sat bare-chested throughout the game, each witha large, grease-painted letter drawn on his chest so thattogether they spelled "C-U-B-S" (June 11, 1991). Atthe extreme, a few spectators go to great lengths to com-pletely personalize their attendance at the game bycombining costumes, props, and commentary to createfictional characters such as The Bleacher Preacher orRonnie Woo Woo.

Spectators also personalize professional baseball byintegrating their own personal experiences with thosethat are constituted within the baseball world. For ex-ample, spectators often compare action on the field totheir childhood experiences on Little League or highschool baseball teams or to more recent episodes in localSoftball leagues. If an outfielder sustains a shoulder in-


jury diving for a ball, someone is bound to commentthat they once experienced a similar injury. Spectatorsalso engage in personalizing when they integrate dis-parate elements from other spheres of life into theiraccounts of the baseball game. For example, spectatorssometimes adapt jokes from Saturday Night Live skitsto Cubs games: former Cubs outfielder Doug Dascenzois "the Doug-man, the Dougster, playin' in the majors,"and unquestioned allegiance to the Cubs is confirmedin a self-mocking manner by declaring "da Cubs."

CONSUMING AS PLAYConsuming not only involves directly engaging con-

sumption objects but also includes using consumptionobjects as resources to interact with fellow consumers.As with object actions, this interpersonal dimension ofconsuming also can be usefully divided into autotelicand instrumental components. Playing practices cap-ture the autotelic dimension: consumer-object-con-sumer interaction that has no ulterior end, interactionfor interaction's sake (Simmel 1950).

Spectators, when they play, adopt a metacommuni-cational frame.that defines the content of their talk andactions as meahingless except for its role in enhancinginteraction with others (Bateson 1955; Goffman 1974).This frame also defines the roles and rules that thosewho participate in play assume. The consumption ob-ject is essential for playing because it provides the ma-terials through which playful interaction is enjoined.Professional baseball acts as a resource for playing; justas haystacks have served certain artists and the weatherhas served many neighbors, baseball provides a com-mon locus for people who often have few other com-monalities. Two types of playing are prevalent amongbaseball spectators: in communing, spectators sharetheir mutually felt experiences with each other, and insocializing, spectators make use of experiential practicesto entertain each other.

CommuningSpectators commune when they share how they are

experiencing the consumption object with each othersuch that their interaction with the game becomes amutual experience (cf. Arnould and Price 1993). Spec-tators who apply the baseball world framework oftenexperience the game in much the same way. When inthe company of like others, this mutuality of perspectivereverberates between consumers, creating a subtle butpowerful form of interaction. Numerous scholars in theDurkheimian tradition have described the power ofgroup interaction focused on a central icon or totemthat often serves as the basis for sacred experiences (Belketal. 1989).

In the Wrigley Field bleachers, the collective sharingof experiential practices is a critical element of con-suming. In fact, one could argue that a primary reason

for sitting in the bleachers (where the "seats" arebenches, the view is less desirable than that of otherlocations, and fellow spectators can be obnoxious—yet,tickets are often scalped for three times their value) isthat its close quarters and celebratory, carnivalesqueatmosphere facilitate the communal aspects of con-suming. The potency of communing is most evident inspectators' reactions to extraordinary occurrences (e.g.,a spectacular play, a dramatic finish, or an ironic cir-cumstance), in such situations, spectators' reactionsplay off each other, this spiraling interaction raising thelevel of emotional intensity to the point where happinessis expressed as ecstatic screams, disappointment bringstears, and anger can quickly build into open hostility(a potential threat to fans of other teams). For example,when Cubs catcher Damon Berryhill hits a home runin the bottom of the ninth inning to win a game, spec-tators erupt in joyous celebration, pumping fists intothe air, yelling, and reveling for several minutes as thedramatic tension that had gradually increased as theCubs failed to take advantage of opportunities to winthe game is suddenly released. While these spectatorscertainly engage in what was earlier termed "appre-ciating," that does not capture all of what has transpired.A significant aspect of consuming here is the sharing ofthis unusually dramatic finish with others, throughwhich the spectators create the adrenalin-filled celebra-tion in the stands that follows the game.

SocializingIn addition to communing, playing often takes on a

more performative, reciprocal style in which spectatorsuse their experiences with the game to entertain eachother (see Sherry 1990). Participants take turns ex-changing comments, often attempting to replicate, ifnot outdo, other participants in terms of the quality oftheir commentary. Nuanced evaluations, witty repartee,and emotional demonstrations of tastes are the favoredmeans to engage in this type of play.

Jim: (Jim gives his interpretation of Sandberg's errorthat ended his record-setting streak for most errorlessgames.) It seemed like he was trying to do it, trying toend the streak. The Cubs had the game won anyway, soit didn't hurt to take a risk. If it had been close, he wouldnever have thrown it. . . . (The Reds catcher hits a ballbetween the center and right fielders.) . . . Gonna betwo.

Craig: Little bit of a 'tweener [a hit that lands in thegap between two outfielders, usually leading to an extra-base hit].

Jim: That's a 'tweener. . . . Did you watch the roadgames last week? [Cubs outfielder Dwight] Smith almostkilled two people with foul balls, slicing them the oppositeway.

Craig: Smith is starting to hit the ball. . . . (seventh-inning stretch) . . . Allll right! Let's get some runs!(Mimicking Harry Caray's standard postsong battle crywhen the Cubs are behind.)

10 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Jim: (Dunston makes a routine putout in the top ofthe eighth inning.) I wish he was still a little wild. It wasalways fun watching people in the third or fourth rowduck when he let one fly. . . . (Sandberg doubles in thebottom of the eighth.) Two and three [i.e., Sandberg andGrace, the second and third hitters in the lineup] haven'tdone anything all year. . . . They're giving him thirdbase [i.e., the pitcher is allowing Sandberg to take a biglead at second base].Craig: That's tough with a lefty [i.e., it's difficult for a

left-handed pitcher to hold a runner close on secondbase]. (May 22, 1990)

While Craig and Jim's conversation certainly con-tains instrumental elements, its primary characteristicis autotelic interaction rather than the communicationof specific information. Jim and Craig use the game asa means to socialize, entertaining each other throughhumorous and insightful commentary that plays off thegame.

CONSUMING AS CLASSIFICATIONThe consuming-as-classification metaphor references

the ways in which consumers use consumption objectsto classify themselves in relation to relevant others.Consumers classify by leveraging their interaction withthe object—their experiential and integrating prac-tices—to communicate with other consumers (wherethe "other" can be also be oneself viewed in the thirdperson [Mick and DeMoss 1990]).

Classifying practices serve both to build affiliationand to enhance distinction. Spectator sports offer aneffective vehicle for building affiliation through the to-temic symbols of team, ballpark, and players. The pro-ductive resources of the baseball world provide concretemarkers to represent spectators' collective identities—as baseball fans. Cubs fans, and Wrigley Field aficio-nados. Affiliation at the team level is particularly im-portant. Interaction that valorizes the Cubs—showingconcern and respect for the Cubs star players, wearinga Cubs jacket, or declaring the length and intensity ofone's affection for the team—serves to construct andsustain meaningful ties between otherwise heteroge-neous consumers. And, as social boundaries must al-ways be at the same time exclusive and inclusive(Douglas and Isherwood 1979), classifying practices al-ways serve to distinguish as well as to affiliate. Cubsgames serve as both the sacred site from which affiliativebonds emanate (Belk et al. 1989) and the locus of valuein the baseball world where the means to create dis-tinction is earned (Bourdieu 1984). Engaging in actionsthat enhance one's sense of affiliation as a Cubs fan alsonecessarily results in distinguishing oneself from thosewhose allegiance is not as strong and from those whoaffiliate with other teams or none at all. Baseball spec-tators engage in two distinct methods of classifying—classifying through objects and classifying through ac-tions.

Classifying through ObjectsConsumers classify through objects when they use

the shared meanings associated with a consumptionobject to classify themselves or others. This type ofclassification has been much discussed in consumer re-search (e.g.. Levy 1959; McCracken 1986), but the in-teractional processes required to classify through objectsare rarely problematized. Because most studies of thesignifying properties of consumption objects have ex-amined highly visual material goods (e.g., clothing,food, automobiles, housing, or favorite objects), theytend to assume that classification is a mundane processof displaying one's possessions to others (e.g.. Fisherand Price 1992; Kleine and Kernan 1991). Display isan incomplete description of how people communicatethrough objects and is not applicable to consumptionobjects that, because they are not material goods (e.g.,services or ideas) or because they are public objects (e.g.,cities or works of art), cannot easily be owned or dis-played.

In order to classify through objects, consumers mustfirst establish the nature of their relationship to the con-sumption object. This is often a complex and problem-atic process, as demonstrated by consumers of profes-sional baseball. Spectators seeking to communicate theirassociation with symbolically valued elements ofprofessional baseball—a game, a player, the Cubs, orWrigley Field—have adopted a variety of classificatorypractices that serve to demonstrate their associationwith these objects to self and others. Attending a gameis a powerful indicator of spectators' associations withprofessional baseball's valued objects, but it is bothshort-lived and not necessarily directed at those withwhom one is interested in communicating. So spectatorshave adopted a number of practices to enhance theirability to communicate their affiliation and distinctionbeyond the temporal limitations of the game itself. Avariety of objects are often used as symbols to markassociations with ephemeral events. Clothing that in-corporates the team's insignia is, of course, a primarytool used to extend the temporal boundaries of one'saffiliation. Souvenirs and photos are also primarymarkers for baseball spectators. They add credibility tothe claims and opinions of their owner, and they addcontext to stories by serving as conversation pieces.Souvenirs that certify one's attendance are particularlyvalued: otherwise worthless freebies that are given awayat games; home-run, foul, and batting practice balls;and even the ivy covering the outfield walls at WrigleyField. Also, many spectators take photos and videosthat document their attendance; and in pursuit of theultimate documentation, they often crowd together,push over one another, and hold up special signs (e.g.,"The CUBS and WGN are #1!") to get the televisioncamera operator's attention.

Yet, documentary markers, even photographic evi-dence, are relatively ambiguous indicators of associa-

HOW CONSUMERS CONSUME 11

tion. They give credibility that some type of relationshipexists, but they are not able to pinpoint its quality orintensity. It is left to techniques that allow for a higherdegree of specificity to fill in the details. Storytelling isthe primary vehicle through which spectators specifythe nature of their relationship with professional base-ball. Through stories, spectators are able to interlaceautotelic conversation (i.e., playing) with descriptionsof their ties to professional baseball by using details togive credibility to their claims. Often, spectators willuse stories to describe previous games they attended,which reaffirms the length and strength of associationwith the Cubs and Wrigley Field. Because important orunusual games are the most salient representations,spectators often tell stories about such games in whichthe storyteller can intimate, I was there. For example,Ted conveys his long-term, intensive relationship withthe Cubs and Wrigley Field by weaving stories convey-ing that relationship into his ongoing "playing" banterwith other spectators.

When asked by a fellow spectator why a large section ofseats in center field is not in use, Ted tells him that theseats are blocked off so that the hitter can see the ballbetter (reasonably common knowledge among Cubs fans)but then adds some historical detail: "In the sixties, weused to bring an extra shirt to the game. When the Cubswere up we'd have dark blue shirts on, but when theopposition came to the plate we'd change into a whiteshirt. [The batters on the other team] couldn't see any-thing against the white background. People finally caughton, and they blocked off the seats. We thought it wasfair—home-field advantage. I've been sitting here since1967. The crowd around me has changed but I don't."(April 22, 1990)

In fact, a significant attraction of attending games inperson is to gather ammunition for distinction-buildingstorytelling. Spectators even cite the Cubs record forgames when they have been in attendance as if it weretheir own record.

The Braves take the lead in the top of the ninth inning.Duncan and his friend raise their beers, showing theirloyalty in the face of losing by toasting, "Win or lose!"Duncan relates this turn of events to last season: "Yeah,I had a bad record last year, 7 and 4" [i.e., the Cubs wonseven and lost four games that Duncan attended]. (iVIay29, 1990)

Classifying through ActionsPast research describes how consumption objects

serve to classify strictly in terms of what is above termedclassification through objects—classifying oneself andothers by means of objects with which one has dem-onstrated an established association. However, in ad-dition to this method, consumers also use the mannerin which they experience the consumption object toclassify. For object classification, the particular mean-ings associated with a consumption object provide the

content of the classificatory act, while for action clas-sification, object meanings are irrelevant—what mattersis how one interacts with the object.' In baseball spec-tating, the meanings of actions are conveyed to othersthrough participating in conventions, predicting, men-toring, and expressing tastes.

Although applying the three experiential practices ina public forum such as a ballpark allows for some degreeof "natural" communication of one's experience, theprocess involved can be problematic: How do spectatorsknow how others are experiencing the game? Partici-pating in baseball conventions allows spectators toclassify more explicitly. Because conventionalized ac-tions are publicly displayed, they serve as clear symbols.Important conventions for bleacher spectators at Cubsgames included derogatory chanting aimed at the op-posing team's players (e.g., "Strawberry sucks!"),salaaming to ex-Cubs star outfielder Dawson as a signof respect, staying until the end of the game no matterwhat the score, and one anticonvention—avoiding par-ticipation in the "wave." To demonstrate the impor-tance of conventions in communication, both the mostcelebrated and the most subtle conventions at WrigleyField are described.

Wrigley Field's most notorious convention is the"throw back"—the bleacher spectator's defiant returnof the opposition's home-run ball to the field from whichit came. This act is a potent form of producing—takingthe game into one's own hands by symbolically rejectingthe opposition's fo'ray. But, at the same time, it servesas a dramatic, public display of one's status as a knowl-edgeable Cubs fan and bleacher spectator. This is par-ticularly true given that, in this instance, participationrequires more than just knowledge of the convention;it also requires resisting the temptation of the neophytespectator to engage in object classification by pocketinga valuable souvenir from the game.

Fred McGriff hits a two-run homer to right field, wherea spectator grabs and holds onto the ball. He is met witha loud and persistent round of "Throw it back!" chants,followed by the left-field fans chanting "Right fieldsucks!" This time the right-field fans do not reply sincethe chant has a target and they appear to be in agreementwith the interpreted sentiment (i.e., the fan in right fielddoes "suck"). For the next three outs, the "throw it back"chant reappears between plays. A Crowd Control mansits next to the fan, evidently to protect him from possiblehostile actions from the angry crowd. The fans aroundme are not truly angry, though. They laugh about thesituation, agree that they might do the same thing, butstill feign anger .and join in on the chant. Two innings

I term "classification through action" is quite similar towhat anthropologists and sociologists have called "ritual action." Ihave chosen to use the former because the term "ritual" has beenused in a variety of ways in consumer research, few of which alignwith the term's predominant usage in the social sciences (see Holt[1992] for a review). Also, this choice allows for consistency withother terminology in the typology.


l a te r , [he Ian t m a l K d c c R k ' s lo t h r o w t h e bal l hac ks ,i s i a n d i n j ; m a i i o n . ( J u n e (\ i '^ ' J I l

'] he\ count pitches throv\n, too.He hasn't walked any. (Aprii 10, 1'M I )

Widely louted conventions such as the throw backprovide J puhlic torum tor demonstrating one's alfih-alion with and distinction from other spectators at\ar\ing lc\eis—as baseball vvoiid participatits. as Cubstans, and as bleacher spectators. However, spectatorconventions do not always involve the enactment ofconsciousK saiiclic)ned rules: spectators' routine actionsare subject to conventionalization as well. Conventionsthai require spectauirs to respond qu'ckK to pla\ onthe tield are partKularK suited to creating distinction.l-'or e.\ample, whenever a ball is hit over the outfielder'shead, whetlier tor a home run or an extra-base hit,bleacher spectators immediately stand up and often letout an exclamation (e.g., '"All right!" if the Cubs arebatting or "Oh nol" if the opp(menls are batting). Be-cause several seconds often elapse between the time theball is hit and the conclusion ol the play, spectators puttheir accounting conifietence on the line v\hen the\ en-gage in conventional reactions before the outcome hasbeen established. I'ly balls to the outtield cati be difficultto judge from the perspective one gets in the bleachers,so these serve as a challenging o]"iportunlly for spectatorsto react properlv and L|uickly. Those who correctly ac-count for a tlv out bv not standing up are pleased withthemselves and often expect others to defer to theircompetence, while those vvho jump up when thev mo-mentarily believe that a ball might earry for an extra-base hit or a home run ciften sit down quickly w ith asheepish grin acknowledging their accounting miscue.

Another way of c!assif\ ing through action is men-toring. Baseball vvorld competence is rareh distributedequally among spectators wilhin earshot. Thus, morecompetent spectators often v\i!l act as mentors for theless competent, building their credibility as a baseballauthoritv.

A ball iiL'ts b\ t he ( u h s c a t c h e r , a l i c i u m g a r u n o n t h epla> T fd lo i id ls g ives his r u l i n g iin t h e p l a y , " S c o r i n gon tl ic [iia\ — w i l d [ i i tch ' Ans t i n u ' t h e hall h i t s t h e d i r t .It 's ca l l ed a wi ld p i l c h , e v e n if t h e c a t c h e r s h o u l d h a v es t o p p e d \[." 1 he ott'icial s c o r i n g llaslie'- on t h e s c t u e b o a r dm o m e n t s l a i e r — w i l d p i t c h . ( 'Xpril 2 2 . !9'')l))

Spectators nol only make use of post hoe accountingskills to classify, the> also use an a priori variant—pre-dicting. Preiiictions rely on probabilistic assessments ofalternative scenarios based on a detailed accounting ofthe current game situation analv/ed against baselineexpectations. It the prediction isjustifiable based on thebaseball world norms tor such situations, it signals thepredictor's aliilily to acctiunt for action, regardless ofwhether the pretlietion turns out to be accurate

/ Jrri I his ]s probLtbK M a d d u x ' s last i n n i n g.Sam i he> got nn o n e vv a m i ing u p . ( P a u l .

h a d w a r n u ' d u p bu t had sat dov\ i i )I iirr\ Seven i n n i n g s . Fîrst s t a r l i>f Ihe s e a s o nS<in; H e vêtu seven innmizs in p r e s e a s o n .

Like storytelling, such predictions serve as rhetoricaldevices that allow the spectator to build distinction oralfiliation. in much the same wa\. the expression oftastes acts to reveal the sophistication of the spectator'sgrasp of the baseball world jVamevvork. I astes serve todistinguish when they reveal a more nuanced, eveniconoclastic, view that can he supported bv' baseballworid facts, as opposed to mere repetition of an acceptetlmajoritN' position {e,g., "Andre Dawson's awesome").Here. Ted distinguishes himself by asserting his alle-giance to a marginal C\ibs pla\er—Dascen/o—givingsupporting evidence to back his view.

i ed c o m m e n t s [hat I">ascen/o (ihe ( 'ubs utility nu t l i e ldc i ,V. ho IS plav ing left held l o d a \ I is "on the b u b b l e " ( m e a n -ing tha t w h e n the c l u b has to cu t haek its ros ter bv th reepeop le on Mav 1. D a s c e n / o is o n e vv ho m a \ lose his joh)i V en it' his s ta t is t ics art" not t ha t grea t . "">'ou want a guvlike that in the c lubhmise , because he has a great a t t i t ude .He ' s a g a m e r . ' " [ da scen /o m a k e s a ca tch m o m e n t s later,l e d veils, " 'Neah. D o u g ' f h a t ' s mv m a n D u n g ! " (Apri l

APPI.VING THK TVPOLOCA :MATERIALISM AS A SIYI.K

OF CONSUMINGOne way tojudge the value ofa theory-building study

IS to evaluate vvhether the resulting theorv provides use-ful insights when applied to topics of interest to thediscipline (Peter and Olson IMS3). \\'hile such a goalextends beyond the empirical scope of this research, anapplication of the t\polog> is oH'ered—developing a newapproach for conceptuali/ing materialism—that issuggestive of Its usefulness and would merit further em-pirical investigation.

Past studies have viewed materialism as a trait orvalue that measures the importance of possessions inone's life (Belk !^)S5: Richins and Dawson 1992). Whilethis work has produced interesting results, the emphasisthese studies place on possessiveness is a potentialweakness. Possessions are ()f great importance not onlyfor those usualK considered to be materialists but alsofor others who do not readily tit the materialist muniker(see, e.g., Belk et al, l'-)89) and include those who havevery little to call their own (e.g.. the homeless [Hill andStamcy I''90]), Indeed, anthropologists have arguedpersuasively that pcsssessions are of critical importancefor all humankind in substantiating and hence repro-ducing cultural meanings ([Douglas and Isherwood1979; McCracken 1986). I hus, the importance of pos-sessions ma\ be too general a measure lo capture whatiscommmily meant by materialism.

Instead ot'focusing on the overall importance of pc>s-sessions, it may he more productive to deiine materi-alism in terms of how people use their possessions. 1 het>pn!og\ of consumption practices offers a useful tool

L_

HOW CONSUMERS CONSUME i 5

for anah/in^ maieriiilisni in this iiiannL'r because it ca-tcgori/cs the dilVcrent \\a>s in which people use con-SLiniplioii obiects, MLileriahsm can be conceptuali/edas the consuniplion style thai results when consumerspcrcci\e thai \alue inheres in consumption objectsrather than ni experiences or in other people, Consum-ing m a materialist stvie, then, emphasi/.es integratingpractices o\cr experiential practices (because integratingser\es to link consumers to valued objects) and classi-i\in^ through objects o\er classifying through actions(because objects arc perceived as value laden), and itdeemphasi/es pla\ ing practices (because playing is cen-tereil on other people rather than objects).

This approach to materialism has several advantages.F irst. instead o( relying completely on attitudinal dif-iêrences. particular consumer actions are detailed thattogether constiiute materialist consumption. Second,this conception otters a lighter specification of the dis-posiiional protUe that leads to materialist consumption.Detinmg materialism m terms of the importance ofconsumption objects to life satisfaction (Richins andDav\son 1 '•>92) conflates the different wa\s in which ob-jects can generate satisfaction. Objects can yield satis-taction as ends in themselves and as signihers but alsobecause they facilitate highly valued experiences andplavful mteraciions, instead, the t\polog\ suggests thatmaterialism is a distinctne st>le of consumption thatresults when consumers believe that value inheres inconsunipliiMi objects raiher than in experiences or inother people,

f-'inally. this view provides more specitication in de-timiig the t>pposite end of the continuum: What is eon-sumption v.hen it is not materialist',' Conceptions ofmaterialism that emphasi/e the importance of posses-sions often deline materialism's opposite as voluntarysimplicit>"—choosing to li\e a life of material simplicitybecause one \alues moral responsibilit>. spiritualgrowth, and self-actuali/ation (ligin 19S I, Richins andDa\^son !y')2). While nonmateriaiists may indeed havefewer possessions than materialists, the e,xplanationimplieci b\ \oluntar\ simplicit\—that peopie havefewer ptissessions because they place less value on ob-jeets—runs contrary to ethnographic e\ idence, ¥ov in-stance, some studies ha\e found that exactly the op-posite relationship holds: those vvho li\e with fewerobjects may assign more importance to those objeelsthat thcN do ha\e (e,g,, consider the "ascetie" new class.[Rourdieu l'JS4]; or the few special possessions retainedby the homeless [Hill and Stamey 1490]), Why. then,might nonmateriaiists ha\e fewer possessions than ma-terialists,'

The t\polog\ of practices suggests that nonmateri-aiism consists tit two ideal types: the consumption stylethat results when vahie is perceived to inhere in expe-riences (i.e,. experiential consumption) and the con-sumption style that results when value is perceived toinhere in oiher persons (i.e.. plav consumption). Whilein materialist consumption cibjects are \iewed as a

source i>f \alue to be appropriated and communicated,both types of nonmaterialism treat consumption objectsas resources to be leveraged rather than as terminalsources o! value. In experiential consumption, obiectsser\e as resources to create valued e,xperiences. and inplay consumption, objects facilitate interactions withvalued others-

Nonmaterialists, then. ma> well have tcwer posses-sions than materialists, but not because the> place lessvalue on possessums. Instead, their relative lack of pos-sessions results because possessitms can more readilysate nonmateriaiists" desires for enio>able experiencesand interactions, whereas materialists' tJesires to de-velop object linkages are potentially insatiable. W'hilefiner or more numerous possessions ma>' serve to en-hance experiences and mteracticms, notimaterialisis"acquisitive desires are constrained by their hnite abilityto sustain the necessary experiential and pla>ing prae-tices required to receive value from these objects E orexample, owning a beautiful vacation home in themountains is of little benetit for ncMimalerialists if theyare not able to use the house to enable enjo>able ex-periences or to enhance interactions with friends andfamily.

On the other hand, materialists are faced with a dif-terent set of constraints on their desires to acquire pos-sessions. Materialists are limited bv the resources theyhave available to build relationships with valued objects.These resources can be human—consider, for example,the time and etlbrt required for baseball spectators toestablish a credible bond vvith the Cubs and commu-nicate this to others. However, integrating with valuedobjects can be accomplished bv means other than theselabor-intensive consumption practices. In materialistconsumption, financial resources can sometimes sub-stitute for human resources, because the aet of owningserves as a povêrful means of building object relation-ships and requires a negligible human investment mconsuming. If one returns to the vacation house e,\-ample. materialists assert their relationship to the houseand the desirable location simply bv owning the prop-erty (although this relationship certainly would be bol-stered bv' lab(*r-intensive integrating practices)—littlehuman investment is necessary to materiallv consumethe house. Thus, materialists" desires for more posses-sions are constrained only by their finaneial limits.

The increased specification of materialism otteredhere also allows i'or some demvstihcation of the polem-ical characteristics of the materialism debate both inand outside academia. Nonmateriatists are often viewedas morallv preferable to materialists because they assignless importance to consumption objects. However, ifone adopts the conception of materialism above. Itseems more likely that condemnation is provoked notby the importance granted to objects (because all threetypes of consumers can highly value objects for dillerentreasons) but by the wav materialists use objects, FV-r-ceptions of materialists' moral inferuiritv, then, appears

14

to flow from two aspects of their consumption style:that they view objects as ends rather than resources andthat they use object values to enhance how they areviewed by others.

But are the consumption activities often deemednonmaterialist really that different? Because material-ism involves how one consumes, not what one con-sumes, it need not involve material goods—services andactivities such as entertainment, vacations, and eveneducation can be consumed in a materialist style (seeKelly 1986). Consider, for example, the current popu-larity among upper-income professionals of vacationsto remote and exotic locales, trips that are frequentlyarranged by groups such as the Sierra Club that explic-itly condemn materialism (see, e.g., Durning 1993).According to the argument developed above, it is per-fectly feasible for participants to consume these vaca-tions in a materialist style, for example, by valuing anadventurous vacation in the Himalayas as an objectthat can be used to classify oneself as adventurous,healthy, or interested in the environment. The majordifference is that the accumulation of experiences, evenwhen consumed in a materialist style, still requires amodicum of human participation, and so acquisitive-ness applied to nonmaterial objects is more restrictedthan that applied to material objects.

Second, even when people consume in a nonmater-ialist style, this fact does not negate the possibility thatthey are using consumption for the same instrumentalpurposes as materialists. As Cubs spectators demon-strate, experiencing consumption objects is both an au-totelic and a classifying activity. While the way in whichmaterialists use objects to communicate is frequentlya focus of condemnation (e.g., the yuppie signifiers ofthe 1980s), experiential practices can also be leveragedto communicate the same meanings that materialistsare often taken to task for—status, economic success,and the like. Adroitly comprehending the intricatestrategies at a Cubs game, evaiuating the subtle nuancesof a microbrewery beer, or appreciating the naturalbeauty of a mountain range in a refined manner can allsignify status just as wearing a Rolex did a decade ago.Such classifying practices are perhaps even more pow-erful because of their potential subtlety.

CONCLUSIONConsuming is a mode of action in which people make

use of consumption objects in a variety of ways. In thepast decade, a provocative research tradition hasemerged that describes important aspects of how peopleuse consumption objects. The typology constructed inthis study, situated within this tradition, provides acomprehensive framework describing the diiferent waysin which consumers consume—what are here termedconsumption practices. The typology of consumptionpractices makes four specific contributions to this lit-erature: (1) it extends existing descriptions of consumer


actions directed toward the consumption object, (2) itdevelops the neglected interpersonal dimension of con-suming (i.e., how consumers use objects to interact withother consumers), (3) it describes the institutionalstructuring of consuming, and (4) it provides a frame-work describing linkages between heretofore isolatedmetaphors for consuming.

Research examining consumption as experience hasdetailed how consumption objects are appreciated. But,in addition to appreciating, the present study demon-strates that accounting for and evaluating consumptionobjects are significant aspects of consuming, actions thatcan be just as important as appreciating in determiningconsumer satisfaction. And, in each of these three prac-tices, consumers do not create their experiences anew;rather, they apply interpretive frameworks to experienceconsumption objects. A comprehensive understandingof how people experience consumption objects, then,requires not only a phenomenological description ofconsumers' felt experiences but should also include anunderstanding of the institutional framework(s) thatconsumers apply to engage objects, for these frame-works provide the raw materials with which consumersconstruct their experiences.

In much the same way, research attending to con-sumption as integration has focused on only one of thethree integrating practices described here, emphasizinghow consumers manipulate object meanings to fit theirpersona! identity. In addition, the present study dem-onstrates that integration is pursued through the op-posite process, adapting one's identity to fit institution-alized meanings through assimilating and producingpractices. These practices again suggest that an insti-tutional perspective is a necessary component for un-derstanding the ways in which consumers make use ofthe symbolic qualities of consumption objects. Muchof the dynamism of consumption results from consum-ers seeking to reinvent themselves in order to take ondesired roles or to participate in desired social worlds(see, e.g., Schouten 1991). The prevalence of assimi-lating and producing practices among consumers sug-gests that research should focus on mapping those in-stitutional frameworks to which consumers aspire (see,e.g., Richins 1991) as well as the valorization processesthrough which these frameworks come to exert suchmotivational force on consumers.

The typology also extends the domain of consump-tion to include two dimensions that have received neg-ligible attention in the consumer research literature—how consumers use consumption objects to play andto classify. The importance of consumption for socialclassification has been amply documented in previousresearch, but the ways in which classifying is accom-plished through consumption has received far less at-tention. In addition, the use of consumption for auto-telic interaction—playing—has been a neglected topicin consumer research. This study demonstrates thecomplexity of the consumption practices used by con-

HOW CONSUMERS CONSUME 15

sumers to play and to classify. All acts of consumingare rife with such interpersonal interaction (even privateacts of consuming involve self-communication and, of-ten, self-play), but this is particularly true of consumingthat occurs in groups—families, peer groups, subcul-tures, organizations, and the like. Consumer researchthat examines group forms of consumption needs toconsider these interpersonal dimensions of consumingor risk ignoring the core characteristics of consumingas a group phenomenon.

Finally, the typology suggests some of the ways inwhich the four core metaphors for consuming—expe-riencing, integrating, playing, and classifying—are in-terrelated. One important implication is that consumingis never just an experience, a disinterested end in itself.Consumer actions directed toward consumption objectshave many faces: they are lived experiences that en-lighten, bore, entertain, or raise our ire, but they arealso means that we use to draw ourselves closer to valuedobjects and resources that we use to engage others—toimpress, to befriend, or simply to play.

[Received August 1993. Revised June 1994. BrianSternthal served as editor and Deborah RoedderJohn served as associate editor for this article.]

REFERENCESArnould, Eric and Linda Price (1993), "River Magic:

Extraordinary Experience and the Extended ServiceEncounter," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June),24-45.

Bateson, Gregory (1955), "A Theory of Play and Phantasy,"Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, 39-55.

Becker, Howard (1982), Art Worlds, Berkeley and Los An-geles: University of California Press.

Belk, Russell (1985), "Materialism: Trait Aspects of Livingin the Material World," Journal of Consumer Research,12 (December), 265-280.

(1988), "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journalof Consumer Research, 15 (September), 139-168.

-, Melanie Wallendorf, and John Sherry (1989), "TheSacred and Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy onthe Odyssey," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June),1-38.

Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann (1967), The SocialConstruction of Reality, New York: Doubleday.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(1984), Distinction, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Burawoy, Michael (1991), Ethnography Unbound, Berkeleyand Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Caughey, John (1984), Imaginary Social Worlds. A CulturalApproach, Lincoin: University of Nebraska Press.

Celsi, Richard, Randall Rose, and Thomas Leigh (1993), "AnExploration of High-Risk Leisure Consumption throughSkydiving," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June),1-38.

Douglas, Mary with Baron Isherwood (1979), The World ofGoods, New York: Basic.

Durning, Alan Thein (1993), "Long on Things, Short onTime," Sierra, 78 (January/February), 60-62, 139-144.

Elgin, Duane (1981), Voluntary Simplicity, New York: Mor-row.

Fisher, Robert J. and Linda L. Price (1992), "An Investigationinto the Social Context of Early Adoption Behavior,"Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 477-486.

Garfinkel, Harold (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Geertz, Clifford (1973), The Int^pretation of Cultures, NewYork: Basic.

Giddens, Anthony (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory:Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis,Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Goffman, Erving (1974), Frame Analysis: An Essay on theOrganization Experience, New York: Harper & Row.

Halle, David (1992), Inside Culture, Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Hill, Ronald Paul and Mark Stamey (1990), "The Homelessin America: An Examination of Possessions and Con-sumption Behaviors," Journal of Consumer Research,17 (December), 303-321.

Holbrook, Morris (1994), "The Nature of Customer Value:An Axiology of Services in the Consumption Experi-ence," in Service Quality, ed. Roland Rust and RichardOliver, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 21-71. ,

and Elizabeth Hirschman (1982), "The ExperientialAspects of Consumption," Journal of Consumer Re-search, 9 (September), 132-140.

and Robert Zirlin (1985), "Artistic Creation, Art-works, and Aesthetic Appreciation," in Advances inNonprofit Marketing, ed. Russell Belk, Greenwich, CT:JAI, 1-54.

Holt, Douglas B. (1992), "Examining the Descriptive Valueof 'Ritual' in Consumer Behavior: A View From theField," in Advances in Consumer Behavior, ed. John F.Sherry, Jr. and Brian Sternthal, Provo, UT: Associationfor Consumer Research, 213-218.

Kelly, Robert (1987), "Museums as Status Synibols II: At-taining a State of 'Having Been,"' in Advances in Non-Profit Marketing, Vol. 2, ed. Russell Belk, Greenwich,CT: JAI, 1-38.

KJeine, Robert E., Ill and Jerome Kernan (1991), "ContextualInfluences on the Meanings Ascribed to Ordinary Con-sumption Objects," Journal of Consumer Research, 18(December), 311-324.

Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar (1979), Laboratory Life:The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Levy, Sidney (1959), "Symbols for Sale," Harvard BusinessReview, 37, (July/August), 117-124.

McCarthy, E. Doyle (1989), "Emotions Are Social Things:An Essay in the Sociology of Emotions," in The Sociologyof Emotions: Original Essays and Research Papers, ed.David Franks and E. Doyle McCarthy, Greenwich, CT:JAI, 51-72.

McCracken, Grant (1986), "Culture and Consumption: ATheoretical Account of the Structure and Movement ofthe Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods," Journal ofConsumer Research, 13 (June), 71-84.

(1989), "Homeyness: A Cultural Account of OneConstellation of Consumer Goods and Meanings," inInterpretive Consumer Research, ed. Elizabeth Hirsch-

16 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

man, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,168-183.

Mick, David Glen and Michelle DeMoss (1990), "Self-Gifts:Phenomenological Insights from Four Contexts," Journalof Consumer Research, 17 (December), 322-332.

Miller, Daniel (1987), Material Culture and Mass Consump-tion, New York: Blackwell.

Morley, David (1986), Family Television: Cultural Power andDomestic Leisure, London: Comedia.

Peter, J. Paul and Jerry Olsont(1983), "Is Science Marketing?"Journal of Marketing, 47, (Fall), 111-125.

Press, Andrea (1991), Women Watching Television: Gender,Class, and Generation in the American Television Ex-perience, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Prus, Robert (1987), "Generic Social Processes: Implicationsof a Processual Theory of Action for Research on Mar-ketplace Exchanges," in Advances in Consumer Re-search, Vol. 14, ed. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul An-derson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,66-70.

Radway, Janice (1984), Reading the Romance: Women, Pa-triarchy, and Popular Literature, Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press.

Richins, Marsha (1991), "Social Comparison and the Ideal-ized Images of Advertising," Journal of Consumer Re-search, 18 (June), 71-83.

and Scott Dawson (1992), "A Consumer Values Ori-entation for Materialism and Its Measurement: ScaleDevelopment and Validation," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 19 (December), 303-316.

Rook, Dennis (1985), "The Ritual Dimension of Consump-tion," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December),251-264.

Rosenberg, Morris (1979), Conceiving the Self, New York:Basic.

Sahlins, Marshall (1976), Culture and Practical Reason, Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Schott, Susan (1979), "Emotion and Social Life: A SymbolicInteractionist AnzXysis" American Journal of Sociology,84 (May), 1317-1334.

Schouten, John (1991), "Selves in Transition," Journal ofConsumer Research, 17 (March), 412-425.

Sherry, John F., Jr. (1990), "A Sociocultural Analysis of aMidwestern American Flea Market," Journal of Con-sumer Research, 17 (June), 13-30.

Simmel, Georg (1950), The Sociology ofGeorg Simmel, ed.Kurt Wolff, New York: Free Press.

Solomon, Michael (1983), "The Role of Products as SocialStimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Approach," Journalof Consumer Research, 10 (December), 319-329.

Strauss, Anselm (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Sci-entists, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Swidler, Ann (1986), "Culture in Action," American Socio-logical Review, 51 (April), 273-86.

Unruh, David (1979), "Characteristics and Types of Partic-ipation in Social Worlds," Symbolic Interaction, 2 (Fall),27-42.

Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric Arnould (1991), "We GatherTogether: Consumption Rituals of Thanksgiving Day,"Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 13-31.

Zerubavel, Eviatar (1991), The Fine Line: Making Distinc-tions in Everyday Life, New York: Free Press.

Documents

How Consumers Consume: A Typology of Consumption …...consumption objects in a variety of ways (see Simmel 1950). The basic conceptual units used to describe con-sumers' actions are