Search

As consumers’ political opinions become more divided and more central to their identities, it is important to understand how political ideology shapes consumers’ attempts to differentiate from others in the marketplace. Seven studies demonstrate that political ideology systematically influences consumers’ preferences for differentiation. Conservative ideology leads consumers to differentiate from others vertically in the social hierarchy through products that signal that they are better than others, and liberal ideology leads consumers to differentiate from others horizontally in the social hierarchy through products that signal that they are unique from others. This happens because conservatism endorses, and liberalism opposes, the belief that the dominance-based hierarchical social structure is a legitimate mechanism to distinguish individual qualities. The effect is robust across measured and manipulated ideology, hypothetical and real product choices, and online searches in conservative and liberal US states. Manipulating consumers’ differentiation goals and perceptions of hierarchy legitimacy mitigates the effect. The findings advance existing research on political ideology, social hierarchy, and consumer divergence, and they contribute to marketing practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an argument in favour of rejecting dominance over rejecting ex-ante pareto in case ex-post egalitarianism is assumed to be true. It discusses the Personal Reasons Principle that involves no uncertainty and agues that it must involve violating dominance in cases which dominance conflicts with ex-post egalitarianism and ex-ante pareto. The author also explains that the conflict between the three principles should not be understood as a conflict between two moral perspectives.

The author comments on the article "Substantive equality revisited," by Sandra Fredman, published within the issue. Topics discussed include a review of the case Andrews v. The Law Society of British Columbia decided in 1989 before the Supreme Court of Canada, the argument that social hierarchy is the identifying principle of substantive equality, and reasons why reasonable accommodation could be considered a "difference" theory.

The response of the author to a critique about her article "Substantive Equality Revisited," published within the issue is presented. Topics discussed include counterargument against the view that single principle of substantive equality if that of social hierarchy, the manner by which stereotyping was addressed in the article, the four dimensions of substantive equality, and the synchronization structural change with participation and voice.