It’s Not Just What You Say, But Also How You Say it: Cultural Differences in Consumer Reactions to Social Exclusion and the Role of Communication Norms

People often compensate for self-threats through consumption. Recent research suggests that responses to implicit vs. explicit forms of social exclusion (being ignored vs. being rejected) produce very different responses (attention-getting vs. affiliative), and these differences are a function of which aspects of the self (power vs. self-esteem) are threatened (differential needs hypothesis; Lee & Shrum, 2012). We propose that these effects are culture-dependent. In three studies, we show that eastern (Korean) and western (US) participants show opposite responses to implicit vs. explicit social exclusion because the two types of exclusion threaten different needs as a function of culture. Implicit exclusion threatens power for Americans (resulting in increased conspicuous consumption) but threatens self-esteem for Koreans (resulting in increased charitable giving), whereas explicit exclusion threatens self-esteem for Americans (resulting in increased charitable giving) but threatens power for Koreans (resulting in increased conspicuous consumption). Further, we show that this moderating effect of culture is mediated by communication norms (high- vs. low-context). These findings suggest that although the different forms of social exclusion produce different effects for different cultures, the differential needs hypothesis can account for these effects.