A

comparison of Albinsson et al. (2010) and Lee et al.

(2009) on anti-consumption and brand avoidance, focus-
ing on aims, methods and conclusions.

Introduction
All over the world, products with the same purpose but different brand and quality are stocking
up the shelves in the supermarkets. Consumer behaviour is a highly studied area and many scien-
tific studies have been conducted on this topic, but not many on why one brand is chosen over
another exist. This is something Lee et al. (2009) aims at changing. Through the study, Lee et al.
(2009) examine what reasons affect the consumers to avoid various brands and if there is any
limits to brand avoidance. Albinsson et al. (2010) conducts another study in the field of anti-
consumption, but here the focus is on how much anti-consumption affects East German consum-
ers. The study by Lee et al. (2009) is characterized by examining how some consumers avoid spe-
cific products, whereas Albinsson et al. (2010) examine anti-consumption in general from an East
German consumers point-of-view.
Since not much research exists, it is difficult to find theories about this particular subject,
which could be the foundation for further research. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to
compare and contrast the two studies conducted by Albinsson et al. (2010) and Lee et al. (2009)
in order to create an overview of anti-consumption as a social phenomenon. In this paper, the fo-
cus is on the aims of the papers, the methods used in the studies and the respective conclusions
of the two studies. These three aspects are important to look at, since they together create coher-
ence to the study.

Comparison

Aims of the papers
All scientific studies conducted share a similar type of framework; one of the most significant fea-
tures of this framework is the purpose statement. The purpose statement allows the author of a
study to be explicit about what the study in questions aims to uncover. The aim of the paper is
beneficial for both the reader and researcher since it functions as an outline for the particular
subject, which the paper intends to investigate upon, furthermore, the researcher can create co-
herence by having the purpose statement in mind when conducting the study. Both of the studies,
which this paper compares, contain purpose statements.
Although the studies (Albinsson et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2009) utilize a purpose statement, it is re-
quired of the reader to do a detailed reading of the studies in order to identify what the aims of
the papers are, since they do not write it explicitly. It is also a similarity that the two studies op-
erate within the same field - this being the field of anti-consumption and brand avoidance. The
nature of research sets the framework for the direction of the purpose statement.
Despite working within the same field, the two studies still manage to set up to different sets of
aims; it is evident that the two studies have had different motives for conducting the studies. Lee
et al. (2009) indicate clearly why a study on anti-consumption and brand avoidance is needed;

accordingly, brand avoidance is rarely mentioned as a concept in other scientific studies and no
clear definition of the concept exists (Lee et al. 2009: 169-170). Furthermore, Lee et al.
(2009:170) imply that former research done on brand avoidance and anti-consumption has been
one-dimensional; former studies focus on singular reasons, but according to Lee et al. (2009:170)
brands have more than one dimension; therefore there might be more than one reason to why
brand avoidance and thereby anti-consumption exist. These arguments are the incentives for Lee
et al. (2009); these incentives lead to the aim of the study, which seeks to determine what can
cause brand avoidance and whether there are any limits to brand avoidance (Lee et al.
2009:170).
Whereas Lee et al. (2009) are more focused on brand avoidance and the causes behind this
phenomenon, Albinsson et al. (2010) apply a slightly wider focus by looking at anti-consumption
at a more general level instead of brand specific; it is a characteristic for this study that Albinsson
et al. (2010:413) examine anti-consumption among consumers in East Germany. Albinsson et al.
(2010:415) indicate that the aim of the study is to understand how extensive the ethic of anti-
consumption of East German culture is, and what has caused this. Furthermore, Albinsson et al.
(2010:415) are also interested in identifying the main reasons for anti-consumption; this relates
to the purpose statement of Lee et al. (2009), which aims to find the more general reasons for an-
ti-consumption and brand avoidance.
Despite having constructed different purpose statements, the two studies (Albinsson et al.
2010; Lee et al. 2009) share similarities, which make the studies comparable.

Methods
So far, this paper has focused on the aims of the two studies by Albinsson et al. (2010) and Lee et
al. (2009). It was possible to detect both similarities and differences in the two purpose state-
ments. The aims of the papers are not the only topic, where the two studies are comparable;
when looking at the data, especially how the information is collected it is possible to see similari-
ties as well as differences. Both studies take on a qualitative approach by conducting interviews
(Albinsson et al. 2010: 415; Lee et al. 2009: 171), but the way the approaches are conducted were
different. Albinsson et al. (2010:415) conducted 12 informal interviews and 20 formal inter-
views; furthermore, follow-up interviews were conducted over a period of 5 years to see if the
East German consumers would change their opinion on anti-consumption. This differs from the
approach of Lee et al. (2009:171), who started with conducting three very detailed interviews to
test the interviewing protocol. This proved successful; therefore, Lee et al. (2009) conducted in-
depth interviews with all 23 participants. Lee et al (2009:171-172) made sure to constantly com-
pare the data gathered from the interviews in order to ensure that the findings are coherent with
the field of study.
When comparing and contrasting the methods of Albinsson et al. (2010) and Lee et al. (2009)
it is not enough to solely look at how the information is gathered; it is also of great importance to
look at how the data is analysed. It is clear that both studies have chosen discourse analysis as
the method of analysis. This type of analysis is relevant since the statement proclaimed by the
interviewee is more important than the actual textual structure. The use of discourse analysis is
evident in one of the interviews conducted by Lee et al. (2009:173), where Lee et al. (2009) con-
clude that the interviewee creates her own identity and appearance through the choices she
makes on brand avoidance and anti-consumption. As stated, it is not only Lee et al. (2009) who

use discourse analysis; an example of the same type of analysis can be found in the study of Al-
binsson et al. (2010:418), where the authors in question have interviewed a man, Norbert, who
states that nothing is thrown way if it still can operate. They (Albinsson et al. 2010:418) then use
discourse analysis to interpret what type of person Norbert is and how this can relate to anti-
consumption among East German consumers. It is also relevant to this section that Albinsson et
al. (2010) refer to Lee et al. (2009) in the text; Albinsson et al. (2010:419) analyse the discourse
of Norbert based on the knowledge derived from the study by Lee et al. (2009).
As with the aims of the papers, the two studies (Albinsson et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2009) share
similar features in the methods section. Both studies agree on the qualitative method, but the ap-
proach is different. The method of analysis is also related by using discourse analysis. This view
on discourses as well as identity and personality fits very well with the scientific tradition of so-
cial constructivism (Burr 2011), where identity is negotiated through discourses. Although ex-
amples of this scientific tradition could be found throughout the texts, this is not the focus of this
paper and will therefore not be elaborated further on.

Conclusions
As mentioned earlier in this paper, scientific studies share similar framework; the conclusion is
one of the most important features in this framework. The conclusion allows the authors to finish
up their study by concluding on their respective purpose statements, which they initially set out
to investigate on. Together with the purpose statement, the conclusion is able to give the study
coherence. Both of the studies in question (Albinsson et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2009) have reached
their respective conclusions. Albinsson et al. (2010:422) conclude that East German consumers
are reluctant to hyperconsume, which is a characteristic of the Western society. This type of
throwaway society does not fit well with the East German culture and these consumers tend to
avoid Western products due to lower quality standards (Albinsson et al. 2010: 422).
Although Albinsson et al. (2010) concludes on the first part of the purpose statement, they are
not fully able to conclude on the second part of their purpose statement what the more general
causes for anti-consumption are. Furthermore, Albinsson et al. (2010) do not offer ideas for fur-
ther research or how Western product manufacturers or scholars can use the findings of this re-
search in order to optimize products or studies. Despite not proposing further research, Albins-
son et al. (2010:421) are aware that the study, which they conducted, is of a small size, which
might hold several implications for the conclusion and validity of the study.
Like Albinsson et al. (2010), Lee et al. (2009) do not conclude on what causes anti-consumption
in general, since the study had a narrower field of focus the rejection of particular brands. Lee
et al (2009:178) conclude that, unlike former studies conclusions, several things such as unsatis-
factory experiences, ideological conflicts, and symbolic unsuitability can cause brand avoidance.
Dissimilar to Albinsson et al. (2010), Lee et al. (2009:179) are aware that further research on
this topic can be done; furthermore, they (Lee et al. 2009:179) direct their findings at product
manufacturers so they can gain advantage from this knowledge. This is not the only difference in
the critique of the conclusions; whereas Albinsson et al. (2010) are aware of the implications,
which the size of the study might cause, Lee et al. (2009) do not mention it in their conclusion.
They (Lee et al. 2009:179) state that this conclusion might not apply to everybody, but nothing is
said about the size of the study, which is approximately the same as the study by Albinsson et al.
(2010).

Conclusion

This paper set out to create an overview of a topic, where there is a lack of research. Through a
comparison of two studies (Albinsson et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2009) with the focus on the aspects of
aims of the papers, methods and the conclusions, an overview of anti-consumption and brand
avoidance has been established.
The two studies in question originate from the same field of research, but contain different an-
gles on the same topic. The studies share many similar features one of them being the method
section, where both studies have a qualitative approach and implement discourse analysis. De-
spite the similarity in choice of approach, the way the study is conducted differs from Albinsson
et al. (2010) to Lee et al. (2009). The different purpose statements has lead to different conclu-
sions; Lee et al. (2009) state that there are three main factors, which might influence the con-
sumer to avoid particular brands. As stated in the paper, Albinsson et al. (2009) have a broader
focus on anti-consumption. The conclusion brought forward by Albinsson et al. (2009) indicates
that East German consumers are not in favour of the Western society, which they define as a hy-
perconsumptive and a throwaway society.
These studies could be of great relevance to both businesses and scholars, since this is a sub-
ject where the possibilities for further research are great.

Bibliography

Albinsson, P.A., Wolf, M. and Kopf, D.A. (2010) Anti-consumption in East Germany: Consumer re-
sistance to hyperconsumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9, 412-425.

Burr, V. (2001) An introduction to social constructionism. [online] Available at:
http://lib.asb.dk.www.baser.dk/ecompendium/6223_Burr.pdf [Accessed 02 January 2013]

Lee, M.S.W., Motion, J. and Conroy, D. (2009) Anti-consumption and brand avoidance. Journal of
Business Research 62, 169-180.