The attitude of voluntary simplifiers as a vector of behavioral differentiation
Pages 103 to 122
Cite this article
- DELLECH DEBABI, Dorsaf,
- GUESMI, Khaled
- and SAHUT, Jean-Michel,
- Dellech Debabi, Dorsaf.,
- et al.
- Dellech Debabi, D.,
- Guesmi, K.
- and Sahut, J.-M.
https://doi.org/10.3917/g2000.355.0103
Cite this article
- Dellech Debabi, D.,
- Guesmi, K.
- and Sahut, J.-M.
- Dellech Debabi, Dorsaf.,
- et al.
- DELLECH DEBABI, Dorsaf,
- GUESMI, Khaled
- and SAHUT, Jean-Michel,
https://doi.org/10.3917/g2000.355.0103
1 – Introduction
1Nowadays, hyper-individualism, symbol consumption, hyper-consumption, scarcity of resources and environmental degradation seem to prevail. As a result, many anti-consumer social movements have emerged, supported by behavioral, social and environmental motives.
2Voluntary simplicity is one of these movements which are beginning to attract increasing numbers of consumers. The motives behind this movement are numerous: personal, environmental, economic, political and ethical. This trend belongs to an anti-consumer movement (Zavestoski, 2002). Moreover, several authors label it a “consumer rebellion” (Austin, Plouff &, Peters, 2005), or “consumer resistance” (Roux, 2007; Banikéma & Roux, 2014), or even “consumer boycott” (Kozinets & Handelman, 2004).
3In marketing, voluntary simplicity continues to attract researchers since it presents a rejection of mass consumption. Indeed, voluntary simplicity consists in deliberately and continuously reducing consumption in order to meet one’s real needs and values, for the welfare of future generations and for the protection of the planet.
4This new consumption trend can be explained by a culture of anti-consumption that we can consider as being a transition from marketing to dismarketing.
5The number of anti-consumers is growing to form groups and associations, or even environmental movements that defend this way of life. Despite this trend, marketing researchers remain indifferent to this new mode of consumption. Indeed, very few articles have yet been published on this topic.
6This movement represents a life philosophy which values the premise that “money does not bring happiness”. The questions to be explored are: why then do consumers ask for more? Why do we consume more and more products which have a negative effect on our environment? Does marketing, as argued by Brugvin (2015), play on our two main fears to make us consume more? These fears being the fear of missing something (material insecurity) and the fear of not being recognized (lack of self-esteem).
7Thus, according to Brugyin, “voluntary simplicity also aims to detach itself from the fear of lacking”. By adhering to voluntary simplicity, consumers feel less stressed. They make thoughtful purchases, develop values of self-sufficiency, and place a lot of importance on environmental protection and family life (Shama, 1985).
8It is in this context that researchers like Pradervand (1996) and Burch (2003) highlighted the role of voluntary simplicity in improving relationships with oneself, with others and with nature.
9The voluntary simplicity movement subscribes to a “postmodern” framework characterized by resisting consumption. The decision to adopt this lifestyle is voluntary and the reasons underpinning the decision differ from one person to another. Several authors have been interested in identifying the sociodemographic profile of simplifiers, such as Elgin and Mitchell (1977), Pierce (2000), and Brown and Kasser (2005), and these researchers believe that simplifiers tend to be women in their forties. Pierce (2000) adds that they usually have a high level of education. Other authors have attempted to establish typologies in order to distinguish the different categories of individuals who adopt this way of life (Elgin & Mitchell, 1977; Etzioni, 2004; McDonald, Oates, Young, & Hwang, 2006).
10In marketing, voluntary simplicity continues to attract researchers since it potentially represents a rejection of mass consumption which can go as far as boycotting some brands and products. This concept has attracted researchers from all continents, including emerging countries. Dellech et al. (2013) have already examined the determinants of simplistic behavior and its impact on wellbeing. They showed that, because of unstable security, economic and political conditions in some countries, voluntary simplicity lead to involuntary simplicity.
11Research on voluntary simplicity has shown that followers of this movement represent groups of individuals with similar characteristics, such as a high level of education, similar areas of residence, usually large cities, to mention but a few. However, the question about their motivations in adopting this behavior and about their attitudes towards this movement remains largely unexplored.
12This study aims to identify the different dimensions of this phenomena in order to help marketing experts to classify this type of consumer, since the issue is still little researched and these segments differ in terms of their motivation and behavior. To this end, a discriminant analysis is used to identify the main variables which distinguish the different groups of simplifiers.
2 – Definitions and background of the concept of Voluntary Simplicity
13Gregg (1936) was the first to define the concept: “Voluntary simplicity involves both inner and outer conditions. It means singleness of purpose, sincerity and honesty within, as well as avoidance of exterior clutter, of many possessions irrelevant to the chief purpose of life. It means an ordering and guiding of our energy and our desires, a partial restraint in some directions in order to secure greater abundance of life in other directions. It involves a deliberate organization of life for a purpose”.
14Léonard-Barton (1981) defined it as the degree to which an individual voluntarily chooses a lifestyle aimed at maximizing direct control over his daily activities and minimizing his consumption and dependence.
15These definitions highlight the determined and personal nature of voluntary simplicity, which translates into minimizing consumption and therefore spending in order to ensure a peaceful life based on values underpinned by common sense.
16Several authors believe that voluntary simplicity is a way of life that has its origins way back in time. In fact, philosophers, prophets, and religious figures would choose to live modest and simple lives. They tended to separate themselves from the material goods of modern society and cultivate their spiritual self in order to be in harmony with themselves. According to Burch (2003), this line of thinking was propagated to North America in the seventeenth century.
17Authors have even called to mobilize the concept in favor of continued economic growth, considering frugality as a sacrifice in order to save the planet (Tirmarche, 2016).
18It was not until 1985 in Quebec, the year in which Serge Mongeau published his first book on voluntary simplicity entitled “Voluntary Simplicity”, that the concept generated renewed momentum. In his book, Mongeau explains how health problems arise from over consumption. He adds that “voluntary simplicity is not poverty, it is a deprivation that leaves more room for the mind, for consciousness; it is a state of mind which invites us to appreciate, to savor, to seek quality; it is a renunciation of the artefacts which weigh, hinder and prevent us from fully exploring all possibilities available to us”.
19In France, it was only in 1986 that Montaguetelli spoke of the concept in her book: “Voluntary simplicity, a way of life”.
20In the 1990s, this way of life regained popularity, as people grew disappointed and distrustful of of the consumer society. While it certainly offers satisfaction, joy and pleasure, it also takes away an individual’s identity, originality and authenticity. Materialism and the desire for an ever more comfortable life have led to a weakening of both consumer incomes and wellbeing. To compensate for the consequences of this modern trend of consumption, consumers began to join anti-imperialist movements, with those promoting voluntary simplicity remaining the most popular (Etzioni, 2004).
21In addition, some studies on voluntary simplicity have shown that it does not categorically oppose consumption, but rather endorses consumption in-keeping with ecological and / or ethical ideals and aspirations. Indeed, Shaw and Newholm (2002) stated that these consumers will purchase socially responsible products. Similarly, Craig and Hill (2002) indicated that simplifiers place much importance on the manufacturing process of the products they consume, regardless of what the brand wants to convey in terms of image or values. Shaw and Newholm (2002) and Housel (2006) further add that simplifiers buy technological products because they meet certain needs, namely economizing energy or sustainability.
3 – Motives underpinning voluntary simplicity
22Voluntary simplicity is a rich and a complex value system based on personal concerns about, and widespread increased interests in, issues on a national and international scope. Hence, the motives for adopting a simplistic way of life differ from one individual to another. Elgin and Mitchelle (1997) and Alexandre (2011) attempted to explain the incentives behind opting for a simplistic lifestyle by identifying the following five dimensions:
- Material simplicity: a central value for the simplistic movement. It is a question of privileging being rather than having, by reducing the consumption of superfluous goods and instead emphasizing the joy of living. Consumption of organic, sustainable, eco-efficient, aesthetic and functional products is a priority.
- Determination: voluntary simplicity enables consumers to reduce their degree of physical and psychological dependence on material goods. For them, self-sufficiency is a priority. Along the same lines, we can cite the following common practices: do-it-yourself, cultivating vegetable gardens, making gifts, repairing old objects, recycling, etc.
- Personal growth: choosing this lifestyle comes from a need to explore inner strength rather than to focus exclusively on objects, most of them being useless.
23These three dimensions represent the “personal motivation” dimensions identified by Alexandre (2011), who argues that individuals should rethink their relationship with money and possessions to save more time and energy than that from which they believe they derive happiness currently.
- The human scale: voluntary simplicity followers privilege human contact and social exchanges. This dimension represents social, community and humanitarian motivations.
- Ecological consciousness: this is a dimension identified by Elgin and Mitchell (1977) and Alexandre (2009). Interdependence of people and resources and awareness of ecological and environmental problems are the main issues addressed by these authors.
4 – The impact of voluntary simplicity on consumer attitudes and behaviors
24The effects of voluntary simplicity on consumer behavior can be observed on three levels: social, psychological and environmental.
- Social impact: simplicity followers play an important role in supporting and improving social equity through their charitable activities (Shi, 1985). Doherty and Etzioni (2003) state that the development of voluntary simplicity greatly affects the creation of conditions for the fair distribution of wealth. Indeed, voluntary simplicity makes it possible to find time for some and money for others in order to invest in charitable activities. These followers adhere to the actions of sharing, tolerance, constructive exchange and supporting others. For them, the collective interest predominates over individual interest.
- Psychological impact: according to Brown and Kassar (2005), simplistic people who adopt ecological behaviors report high levels of wellbeing whatever their age and gender. The study of Nickerson and al. (2003) showed that the stronger an individual’s financial ambitions, the more likely they are to become dissatisfied with their family life, regardless of their income. VanBoven and Gilivich (2003), on the other hand, assume that engaging in enriching experiences, beyond tangible goods, engenders deep personal satisfaction. Indeed, we can choose to consume less, have less money to live and therefore work less, and save time so we can flourish by being surrounded by our loved ones. We can also devote this free time to meeting our needs and to practicing self-rewarding activities.
- Environmental impact: Léonard-Barton (1981) and Shama (1985) showed that simplifiers have ecological concerns which are generally reflected in the responsible actions they undertake. These followers make simple, durable and reusable purchases. Indeed, they consume products with recycled packaging, rechargeable products and low-energy-consuming, organic and environmentally friendly products. They do everything to avoid pollution (traveling by bicycle, using public transport and carpooling, etc.).
5 – Typology of voluntary simplifiers
25Many authors such as Elgin and Mitchell (1977), Léonard-Barton (1981), Etzioni (1999-2004), McDonald et al. (2006), Lyer and Mincy (2009) and Peyer et al. (2017), have proposed typologies of “simplifiers”, some of whom have succeeded in establishing classification criteria supported and justified by theoretical and empirical studies.
5.1 – The typology proposed by Elgin and Mitchell (1977)
26Elgin and Mitchell (1977) worked on a sample of individuals to identify four groups. Three of these are simplistic: full simplicity, partial simplicity, and voluntary simplicity sympathizers. The last group consists of what they call indifferent individuals, or those opposed to voluntary simplicity.
- Individuals in the full voluntary simplicity group are proponents of the simple life. They engage in activities like gardening, recycling, biking, hiking, etc. They are family and mediation-oriented and favorable to any other growth process.
- As the name suggests, individuals in the partial voluntary simplicity group partially adhere to simplicity principles.
- Voluntary simplicity sympathizers share many values of voluntary simplicity, but they do not always act accordingly, for one reason or another. They play a pivotal role and are able to switch into the first or second group of simplifiers here above.
- Indifferent, unaware, or opposed to voluntary simplicity. These individuals do not adhere to voluntary simplicity for two reasons: either because they live in poverty and they do not know the consequences of abundance, or they are very involved in achieving their professional and social goals, and fear that voluntary simplicity is a threat to their image (lifestyle).
5.2 – The typology proposed by Leonard-Barton (1981)
27Leonard-Barton (1981) presents another typology of voluntary simplicity, consisting of three categories of simplifiers: conservatives, activists and conformists.
- Conservatives come from families who are hostile to any kind of waste. Generally, they live in developing countries, where they have experienced poverty in their youth. Conservatism or economy of resources is their way of life and represents a habit for them.
- Activists are family members with a rational sense of resource conservation and strong social responsibility. They invest in informing and educating the population to minimize resources consumption; they practice self-sufficiency (gardening, making furniture, etc.). They often serve as models and references for others by setting up collective activities for their neighborhoods.
- Conformists engage in voluntary simplicity for reasons that are not well defined. They adopt only certain behaviors (example: to reduce meat consumption). Their deliberate simplistic behavior depends on the environment in which they live; if it shows a great ecological consciousness, they will systematically follow this trend.
5.3 – The typology of Etzioni (1999-2004)
28The classification of Etzioni refers to the intensity of followers to simplify their lives. Three categories of followers are identified:
- Downshifters: they have a moderate behavior towards voluntary simplicity, which is reflected in a partial simplification in some areas such as consumption and work.
- Strong simplifiers: they are more committed to voluntary simplicity, they have chosen to reduce their income and restructure their lives accordingly.
- Holistic simplifiers: this is a global form of voluntary simplicity, which is expressed by a complete adjustment of life style to the ethics of this ideology. Individuals are motivated by a reduction in their consumption, by ethical and ecological values.
5.4 – The typology of McDonald et al. (2006)
29McDonald et al. based their classification on an intermediate group of simplifiers that they describe as a “beginning-simplifier” with an anti-consumption life style supported by a philosophical or even religious rejection of capitalist norms. This typology of Beginning Voluntary Simplifiers consists of three groups; the first practices accidental simplicity, the second practices partial simplicity and the third includes apprentice simplifiers.
- Accidental simplifiers: Low-income people who behave in a manner similar to that of voluntary simplicity but without ethical and environmental motivations.
- Partial simplifiers: people in this group choose to change part of their behavior. It is likely that these people decide to become complete followers of voluntary simplicity or, on the contrary, non-followers.
- Apprentice simplifiers are people who are learning about voluntary simplicity. They were non-followers and they changed their lifestyles in order to become entirely voluntary simplifiers.
5.5 – The typology of Lyer and Mincy (2009)
30In order to set up this classification, Lyer and Mincy (2009) crossed the two criteria of anti-consumption object (to a product or a brand) and anti-consumption reasons (which can be social or personal). They then identified four groups of anti-consumption followers:
- Globalists who challenge the detrimental effects of consumption on the environment, which becomes a factor for the increasing gap between rich and poor.
- Simplifiers represent consumers who are generally followers of the voluntary simplicity movement. They always tend to buy what is only necessary and useful in order to have a euphoric lifestyle.
- Activists use their purchasing power to influence the purchase of a product or a brand by boycotting it. The boycotted product or brand is supposed to represent a specific threat to society, like environmental degradation.
- Anti-loyalists: an anti-loyalist behavior is a personal commitment that is aimed at sparing the purchase of a brand because of the perception of its inferiority or its negative effects.
5.6 – The typology of Peyer et al. (2017)
31To identify voluntary simplifiers, Peyer et al. (2017) used a new measurement method based on objective data, namely the average equivalent household income and the level of consumer durables.
32These authors have tried to determine the voluntary simplicity profile by identifying five consumer segments: Poor consumers, Less well – of consumers, Well-off consumers, Voluntary simplifiers and Over consumption consumers.
- Poor consumers: It is the smallest segment composed of young, includes mostly women, having the lowest level of education relative to other segments.
- Less well – of consumers: Are mainly young and have an education below average, their consumption of durable goods is moderate.
- Well-off consumers: Consumers in this group have the highest average income and the second level of consumption of durable goods. They are predominantly male.
- Voluntary simplifiers: This group has the second highest household income and the second lowest level of consumption of durable goods. Individuals in this group have considerably fewer consumer durables. This group contains in majority female consumers, well-educated with an average age of 54 years.
- Over consumption consumers: his group is made up of more male consumers, educated. They have the highest level of consumption of durable goods.
33According to the review of the literature, we found that researchers tried to define the concept of voluntary simplicity, to determine its dimensions and to explain the motives of its followers. Other researchers have focused on elaborating different typologies. However, to our knowledge, no research has attempted to highlight the most salient attributes (characteristics) followers who can differentiate in a fairly rigorous way the classes of simplistic, or even more to identify the most decisive and explicit behavior in the separation of these classes. It is in this sense that this research is positioned, insofar as the limits noted in the typologies made will be examined, in order to verify, the existence of salient behavior, characterizing each simplistic group.
6 – Empirical study
34In order to answer the present research questions and identify groups of simplifiers and their respective characteristics, a non-probabilistic convenience sampling method was used. The questionnaire was self-administered and distributed using the Google Forms interface on Facebook groups, and entitled “Voluntary simplifiers in Tunisia”. This administration was used as access to respondents is fairly easy. 100 responses were collected for the exploratory analysis and 200 responses for the discriminant analysis during the spring of 2016. The questionnaire comprises five sections. A first introductory section presents the context of the study to internet users and is indeed a hook to get internet users to answer the questionnaire. The following four sections measure voluntary simplicity in terms of its different dimensions.
35To measure voluntary simplicity, Cordeau and Dubé’s scale (2008) was used, which is a translation and adaptation of the scale developed by Iwata (2001), the “Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle scale”. Indeed, this measurement scale demonstrates good content validity, with its four respective dimensions: reflective purchase attitude, self-sufficiency attitude, non-materialistic attitude and pro-environment attitude, which are those most evoked in the literature. This Cordeau and Dubé’s measurement scale (2008) consists of 17 items and its statements are measured using a 7-point Likert scale.
6.1 – Analysis of the voluntary simplicity measurement scale
36First the suitability of the voluntary simplicity scale to the context of the study (Tunisian voluntary simplifiers) was checked. The exploratory study was carried out among 100 people and the results were obtained using principal component analysis with SPSS (as shown by the KMO index and Bartlett’s sphericity test in Table 1). The results indicate acceptable coefficients for the KMO index and the Bartlett test. This confirms the factorability of the present variables.
KMO Index and Bartlett Test
| Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. | .715 | |
| Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 646.029 |
| Df | 136 | |
| Sig. | .000 | |
KMO Index and Bartlett Test
37Four factors are identified which explain 54.903% of variance (appendix 1). This reproduces the same dimensions found by Iwata (2001) and Cordeau and Dubé (2008). However, statements with very low loadings and significantly less than (0.5) were abandoned. These statements are items 4, 5, 6, 16 and 17, respectively “material abundance does not make happiness”, “with the exception of travel, I take advantage of my leisure time without spending too much money”, “If I had more money, I would buy even more”, “I feel happy when I am surrounded by the items I bought” and “I buy new products even if the old products are still usable”. Thus, we retain a four-factor scale as shown in Table 2 below.
Measurement scale of voluntary simplicity
| Dimension | Items |
|---|---|
| Factor n°1: Reflective purchase attitude | I try to lead a simple life and not to buy unnecessary items. I do not buy impulsively. When I shop, I decide to buy only after seriously considering whether or not I really need the item. |
| Factor n°2: Pro-environment attitude | People show a great deal of indifference to the way they pollute or destroy the environment. Behaviors that help to conserve the environment are very important. I always try not to pollute or destroy the environment. |
| Factor n°3: Self-sufficiency attitude | Whenever possible, I prefer to make things on my own rather buying them. It is preferable to grow our own vegetables. If we want to live a satisfying life, it is preferable to be self-sufficient as often as possible. |
| Factor n°4: Non-materialistic attitude | I try to use the items I buy for as long as possible. We should focus less on the aesthetic presentation of items I cannot tolerate that items which are still usable are thrown away in large quantities as if they were waste. |
Measurement scale of voluntary simplicity
6.2 – Discriminant analysis
38Discriminant analysis is the most appropriate method of analysis for this study and which enables us to distinguish the different groups of simplifiers according to our variables. This method has two approaches depending on the aim of the study: the descriptive approach and the decision-making approach. In this study, both approaches were retained.
Objectives
39The first discriminant analysis for descriptive purposes enabled an identification of the discriminating power of the variables representing the different groups of simplifiers. In the present case, we identify the variables representing voluntary simplicity, which contribute most to distinguish the different groups of simplifiers.
40As for the decision-making or predictive approach, this enabled the design of classification functions to predict an individual’s affiliation to one of the groups. According to the scores obtained using this approach, individuals were assigned to one of the groups previously defined.
Results of the discriminant analysis
41The 200 individuals in the sample were divided into four categories according to their simplicity attitudes (reflective purchasing attitude, non-materialistic attitude, self-sufficiency attitude and pro-environment attitude). The aim was to distinguish these categories and to explain the discriminating power of the variables representing each category. The discriminant analysis revealed three discriminating functions (4-1), which aim to distinguish these four categories.
42The eigenvalues of the first function, which represents 56.6% of explained variance, is 0.926, which is high compared to the other two functions. The second function has an eigenvalue of 0.473, and represents only 28.9% of explained variance. As for the third function, it has a low eigenvalue (0.235), and represents only (14.4%) of explained variance (Table 3: Eigenvalues).
Eigenvalues
| Function | Eigenvalues | % of variance | Cumulative % | Canonical Correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | .926a | 56.7 | 56.7 | .693 |
| 2 | .473a | 28.9 | 85.6 | .567 |
| 3 | .235a | 14.4 | 100.0 | .436 |
Eigenvalues
a. First 3 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.43The results of the three functions are all significant (<0.005) (Table 4: Wilks’ Lambda). Indeed, the value of lambda of Wilks varies between 0 and 1. In view of these results, the three respective functions are retained: pro-environment attitude, self-sufficiency attitude and non-materialistic attitude.
44The behavior of voluntary simplistic followers can be a source of differentiation of the various profiles. Indeed, three attitudes are discriminated, namely: pro-environment attitude, selfsufficiency attitude and non-materialistic purchasing attitude. On the other hand, the behavior associated with impulse buying was not retained as a discriminating function of voluntary simplicity, as it is not specific to voluntary simplicity. Indeed, this attitude associated with impulse buying can be a characteristic of rational consumers.
45The standardized coefficients of the discriminant functions (Appendix 2) clearly show that, in function 1 “proenvironmental attitude”, the item “Behaviors which help to conserve the environment are very important”, has the highest coefficient with a value of 0.838, followed by the item “I usually try not to pollute or destroy the environment” with a value of 0.705, and the item “Indifferent to how they pollute or destroy the environment “with a value of 0.516. Meanwhile, in function 2, “self-sufficiency attitude “, the significant coefficients are those of the items “where possible, I prefer to make things myself, rather than buying them” with a value of 0.783, the item “If we want to live a really satisfying life, it is better to be as self-sufficient as possible”, and the item “It is better to grow our own vegetables” with values of 0.582 and 0.516 respectively. In function 3, “non-materialistic attitude”, the highest coefficient is that of the item “We should focus less on the aesthetic presentation of items” with a value of 0.826, followed by “I cannot tolerate that items which are still usable are thrown away in large quantities as if they were waste” and “I try to use items that I have bought for as long as possible” with values of (0.671) and (0.586) respectively.
Wilks’ Lambda
| Test of Function(s) | Wilks’ Lambda | Chi-square | Df | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – 3 | .285 | 155.483 | 36 | .000 |
| 2 – 3 | .550 | 74.214 | 22 | .000 |
| 3 | .810 | 26.189 | 10 | .002 |
Wilks’ Lambda
46We can therefore conclude that function 1, which is mainly associated with environment protection behavior, that the most discriminating item is “Behaviors which help the conservation of the environment are very important”. In function 2, comprising the items representing self-sufficiency, the most discriminating item is “where possible, I prefer to make things myself, rather than buying them”. In function 3, which represents the non-materialist purchasing attitude, the most discriminating item is “We should focus less on the aesthetic presentation of the items”. In accordance with Cordeau and Dubé (2008), three of the four factors identified for measuring voluntary simplicity are retained for the present study, namely the pro-environment attitude, self-sufficiency attitude and non-materialistic attitude.
47We can therefore conclude that within each group of voluntary simplifiers, there is a significant difference in the motivations of their respective members. Indeed, discriminant analysis enabled the identification of the most salient criterion for each group of voluntary simplifiers.
48The graphical representation summarized in Figure 1 below indicates that function 1 represents the pro-environmental attitude and function 2 represents self-sufficiency attitude.
49The second objective behind the use of the discriminant analysis is to assign individuals to each of the distinct groups. To this end, the structural matrix allows us to interpret the contributions of the predictive variables to the linear functions by combining intragroup correlations between the independent variables and the discriminating functions. Indeed, regarding the barycenter functions values (Table 5), which illustrate the three discriminating functions estimated at the barycenter of four groups, assigning followers as simplifiers can be explained as follows: in the first discriminant linear function, these followers are described as individuals having a pro-environment attitude, since in this factor, the pro-environment attitude is best represented with a coefficient of 2.117.
Graphic representation of the four groups
Graphic representation of the four groups
50In the second discriminant linear function, simplifiers are assigned to the group of individuals having a self-sufficient behavior with a coefficient of 1.420. As for the third function, individuals are rather described as having a non-materialistic attitude, with a significant coefficient of 2.116.
Functions at Group Centroids
| Voluntary simplicity | Function | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Non-materialistic attitude | .249 | -.969 | 2.116 |
| Pro-environment attitude | 2.117 | .377 | -.405 |
| Reflective purchase attitude | -.770 | -1.241 | -.730 |
| Self sufficiency attitude | -1.084 | 1.420 | .104 |
Functions at Group Centroids
Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at group means51The classification results (Table 6) show an overall significant “well-classified” rate for each group, ranging from (78.7%) for the “non-materialistic attitude” group, (84.2%) for the “pro-environment attitude” group to (100%) for the “self-sufficiency attitude” group.
Classification Results
| Simple life | Predicted Group Membership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reflective purchase attitude | Self-sufficiency attitude | Non-materialistic attitude | Pro-environment attitude | Total | |
| Reflective purchase attitude | 0 | .0 | .0 | .0 | 100.0 |
| Self-sufficient behavior | 0 | 100.0 | .0 | 25.0 | 100.0 |
| Non-materialistic attitude | 0 | .0 | 78.7 | 34.0 | 100.0 |
| Pro-environment attitude | 0 | 5.3 | 6.6 | 84.2 | 100.0 |
| Ungrouped cases | 0 | .0 | 13.4 | 62.7 | 100.0 |
Classification Results
a. 84.2% of original grouped cases correctly classified.52These results support the argument that among followers of the voluntary simplicity there are subgroups, with different behaviors and which can constitute important niches for managers to offer them products and services adapted to their needs.
7 – Conclusion
53In recent years, new consumption behaviors have emerged, translating anti-consumption movements which have been come to be known as voluntary simplicity. This has led to a reflection on this mode and style of consumption, in order to understand its different facets.
54The first step of the present research was devoted to a theoretical development on voluntary simplicity and involved adapting Cordeau and Dubé’s voluntary simplicity scale (2008) to the context of this study. A second step aimed to determine the most discriminating factors that would distinguish the different groups of voluntary simplicity followers and assign simplifiers to one of the three identified groups. Discriminant analysis enabled identification of the three simplistic groups which were the most important, namely the pro-environment simplifiers group, the non-materialistic simplifiers group and the self-sufficient simplifiers group. The group of simplifiers having reflective purchase attitude was not retained in the analysis. The results of this study offer a guide to managers to gain a better understanding of the behavior of followers of this movement. In fact, each of the three selected groups can constitute a niche that the manager must know and identify in order to adapt an innovative and original marketing mix.
55Moreover, this research has also highlighted, that within each group of simplifiers, very specific behavioral attributes characterize and differentiate each group. These attributes are the very important in separating these groups.
56Indeed, for the group of individuals with a “pro-environment attitude”, the highly discriminating item is “Behaviors that help to conserve the environment are very important”, suggesting that consumers in this group place a great deal of importance on companies which preserve the environment and demonstrate socially responsible behavior.
57This is consistent with the results of Shaw and Newholm (2002) who found that simplifiers tend to consume products from socially responsible companies. On the other hand, these consumers can go as far as boycotting companies which pollute the environment. For this group, it is essential for companies to create labeled environmentally-friendly products from organic farming and fair trade with recyclable, sustainable or reusable packaging.
58As for the advertising campaigns, it is important to focus the communication axes and themes through highlighting the ecological and biological attributes of products. Regarding distribution, we must rely on those circuits which minimize excessive energy consumption. Sandlin and Walther (2009) and Shama (1981) found that followers of voluntary simplicity buy in convenience stores because the longer the distribution circuit, the more energy is consumed by transport. It is also necessary to create shopping poles for these products within predefined sales areas in order to facilitate their identification by these simplifiers.
59For the “non-materialistic” consumer group, the most discriminating item is “We should focus less on the aesthetic presentation of the items”. These consumers are rather attracted by simple packaging and ecological, reusable and recyclable products.
60As for the last self-sufficiency attitude group, the most discriminating item is “Whenever possible, I prefer to make things myself, rather than buying them”. Consumers in this group prefer to make things themselves. Buy a piece of furniture in a kit and make the assembly at home, prepare cakes by themself, etc., are part of their purchasing habits.
61This study is not without limitations, the main one being that the sample was interviewed via the internet, so it was not possible to control the “social conformity bias”. In fact, for the sake of being in conformity with the social norm, the answers of interviewees can translate a social ideal and moral.
62An in-depth face-to-face interview, could have overcome this limit and presents an avenue for future research: indeed, in order to deepen the understandings of this theme, a qualitative study using an in-depth interview guide is necessary.
Total Variance Explained
Standardized coefficients of the discriminant functions
| Functions | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| I don’t make impulsive purchases. | .108 | .114 | .294 |
| When I do make purchases, I decide to buy only after seriously considering whether I really need the article. | .419 | -.064 | .342 |
| Where possible, I prefer to make things myself, rather than buy them. | .008 | 0.783 | .366 |
| It is better to grow our own vegetables. | .291 | .516 | .191 |
| If we want to live a really satisfying life, it is better to be as self-sufficient as possible. | .021 | .582 | .085 |
| Indifferent to how they pollute or destroy the environ ment. | .516 | .070 | -.218 |
| Behaviors that help to conserve the environment are very important. | .838 | .352 | -0.269 |
| I usually try not to pollute or destroy the environment. | .705 | .224 | 0.133 |
| I try to use items that I have purchased for as long as possible. | .169 | -.247 | .586 |
| We should often focus less on the aesthetic presentation of items. | .247 | .181 | .826 |
| I cannot tolerate that items which are still usable are thrown away in large quantities as if they were waste. | -.346 | .247 | .671 |
Bibliography
- Alexander, S. 2009. Voluntary Simplicity: The Poetic Alternative to Consumer Culture. Stead & Daughters, Whanganui.
- Alexander, S. 2011. The Voluntary Simplicity Movement: Reimagining the Good Life beyond Consumer Culture. International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability. 7 (3): 133.
- Austin, CG., Plouff, CR. & Peters, C. 2005. Anticommercial consumer rebellion: conceptualization and measurement. Journal of targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing.14 (1): 62-78.
- Banikéma, A S. & Roux, D. 2014. La propension à résister du consommateur: contribution à l’étude d’une disposition à s’opposer aux tentatives d’influence marchande. Recherche et Applications en Marketing. 29 (2): 34-59.
- Brown, K W. & Kasser, T. 2005. Are psychological and ecological wellbeing compatible? The role of values, Mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research. (74): 349-368.
- Brugvin, T. 2015. Le marketing s’appuie sur nos peurs pour nous faire consommer plus. Editions Yves Michel.
- Burch, M A. 2003. La vie de la simplicité, pour soi et la planète. Montréal: Les éditions Ecosociété.
- Cordeau, D. & Dubé, M. 2008. L’échelle de simplicité volontaire: une validation en français. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale. (79): 100.
- Craig-Lees, M. & Hill, C. 2002. Understanding voluntary simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing. 19 (2): 187-210.
- Dellech, D., Saidi, K. & Debabi, M. 2013. De la simplicité volontaire à la simplicité involontaire: une transition dictée par la crise et la pauvreté. Paper presented at the “Pauvreté, Précarité et consommation” conference, 25th October, Université Paris Est Créteil.
- Doherty, D. & Etzioni, A. 2003. Voluntary simplcvity: responding to consumer culture. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- Elgin, D. & Mitchell, A. 1977. Voluntary simplicity. The Co-Evolution Quarterly Summer. 5 (18).
- Etzioni, A.1998. Voluntary simplicity: characterization, select psychological implications and societal consequences. Journal of Economic Psychology. (19): 619-643.
- Etzioni, A. 2004. The post affluent society. Journal of social economy. 62 (3): 407-20.
- Friedman, M. 1985. Consumer boycotts in the United States, 1970-1980: Contemporary events in historical perspective. Journal of Consumer affairs. 19 (1): 96-117.
- Gregg, R. 1936. Voluntary Simplicity. Visva-Bharati Quarterly. reprinted in Manas (September 4, 1974).
- Housel, T H. 2006. Solar panels, shovels and the net: selective uses of technology in the homesteading movement. Information, Communication and Society.
- Iwata, O. 2001. Attitudinal determinants of environmentally responsible behavior. Social Behavior and Personality. (29): 183-190.
- Kozinets, RV. & Handelman, J M. 2004. Adversaries of consumption: consumer movements, activism and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research. 31: 691-704.
- Lee, MSW., Motion, J. & Conroy, D. 2009. Anticonsumption: An overview and research agenda. Journal of Business Research. 62 (2): 145-147.
- Léonard –Barton, D. 1981. Voluntary Simplicity lifestyle and energy conservation. Journal of Consumer Research. 8 (3): 243-252.
- Lyer, R. & Mincy, J A. 2009. Purpose and object of anti-consumption. Journal of Business Research. 62 (2).
- McDonald, S., Oates, C J., Young, CW. & Hwang, K. 2006. Towards sustainable consumption: researching voluntary simplifiers. Psychology & marketing. 23 (6): 515-534.
- Mongeau, S. 1985-1998. La simplicité volontaire, plus que jamais. Montréal: Les éditions écosociété.
- Montaguetelli, M. 1986. La simplicité volontaire, un autre mode de vie. Paris édition Chiron, collection Espace de vie.
- Nickerson, C., Schwarz, N., Diener, Ed. & kahneman, D. 2003. Zeroing in on the dark side of the American dream: a closer look at the negative consequences of the goal for financial success. Psychological Science. 14 (6): 531-536.
- Peyer, M., Balderjahn, I., Seegebarth, B. & Hutel, A. 2017. The role of sustainability in profiling voluntary simplifiers. Journal of Business Research. 70: 37-43.
- Pierce, LB. 2000. Choosing simplicity: real people finding peace and fulfillment in a complex world. Carmel, Calif: Gallagher Press.
- Pradervand, P.1996. Découvrir les vraies richesses, pistes pour vivre plus simplement. Genève: éditions Jouvences.
- Roux, D. 2007. La résistance du consommateur: proposition d’un cadre d’analyse. Recherche et Applications en Marketing. 22 (4).
- Sandlin, J A. & Walther. C S. 2009. Complicated simplicity: moral, identity, formation and social movement learning in the voluntary simplicity movement. Adult Education Quarterly. 59 (4): 298-317.
- Shama, A. 1981. Coping with stagnation: voluntary simplicity. Journal of Marketing. 45 (3):120-134.
- Shama A. & Wisenblit J. 1984. Values of voluntary simplicity: lifestyle and motivation. Psychological Reports. 55: 231-240.
- Shama A. 1985. The voluntary simplicity consumer. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2 (4): 57-63
- Shaw, D. & Newholm, T. 2002. Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychology & Marketing. 19 (2).
- Shi, D. 1985. The Quaker Ethic. In the simple life: plain living and high thinking in American culture. Athens: University of Geogia Press,
- Tirmarche, A S. 2016. Mobiliser en faveur de la décroissance: Théorie vs Action. Fucid April.
- VanBoven, L. & Gilovich, T. 2003. To do or to have, that is the question. Journal of Perssonality and Social Psychology. 85 (6): 1193-1202.
- Zavestoski, S. 2002. The social-psychological bases of anti-consumption attitudes. Psychology and Marketing. 19 (2): 149-65.
Publisher keywords: anti-consumer movement, consumer behavior, lifestyle, sustainable consumption, typology, voluntary simplicity
Uploaded: 04/02/2019
https://doi.org/10.3917/g2000.355.0103