Enabling vulnerable populations: insights from the experiences of functionally illiterate consumers

Abstract

Purpose The social transformation of “disadvantaged segments of society” requires an in-depth understanding of their behavioural reactions in different social contexts. To this end, the present study focuses on individuals who become vulnerable owing to their functional illiteracy in an “English”-dominant marketplace. Thus, the purpose of this study is to understand the sources of stress as perceived by functionally illiterate individuals and the mechanisms adopted by them to manage such stress when making “high-involvement” product purchases. Insights gained from the study would be beneficial for developing efficacious support programs for vulnerable populations. Design/methodology/approach In-depth interviews were conducted with 25 bottom-of-the-pyramid individuals living in slums and housing schemes located in and around Colombo, the capital city of Sri Lanka. Findings Two sources of perceived stress and five coping strategies were derived from the thematic analysis of the data. Participants highlighted the sources of their perceived stress as possible loss of resources and possible loss of self-esteem. Further, the participants were found to adopt several mechanisms to cope with the state of their stress and vulnerability experienced within English-dominant shopping environments, namely, seeking help from salespeople, continuing to shop at the same store, shopping with companions, “convenience purchasing” and buying only well-known brands. Originality/value These insights into the vulnerability, stress and coping mechanisms as experienced by functionally illiterate consumers will allow for the design of efficacious interventions to empower vulnerable populations.

Language-related stereotype threat, customers’ well-being and its outcome

“…One dimension that reflects such an assessment is one’s sense of social integration, which is based on the evaluation of the quality of their relationships, depicting the extent of commonness, and the feeling of belonging to the society (Feng et al , 2019; Keyes, 1998). Moreover, sociolinguistic literature also indicates that vulnerability among non-native speakers may arise due to the stigma attached to their limited language proficiency, eventually affecting their well-being (Jang and Kim, 2019; Jayasundara et al , 2020; Malik and Paswan, 2022). These studies have identified two psychological outcomes of the perceived stigma attached to their language variation – intergroup anxiety (Osborne, 2001; Stephan, 2014) and lack of social belongingness (Chaffee et al , 2020; Gluszek and Dovidio, 2010a, 2010b; Richman and Leary, 2009; Walton and Cohen, 2007).…”

Coping with crisis: The paradox of technology and consumer vulnerability

“…A predominance of studies has tended to focus on specific groups who are disadvantaged by their personal characteristics and circumstances. For example, vulnerability may arise due to stigmatizing circumstances such as consumers with limited language proficiency (Jang & Kim, 2019;Jayasundara et al, 2020), low literacy (Staden et al, 2017), poverty (Choudhury et al, 2019), gendered vulnerabilities (McKeage et al, 2018Voola, 2019), elderly consumers' limited capacity to navigate in the marketplace (Hwang & Nam, 2017) and disabled consumers living with impairment (Eskytė, 2019;Higgins, 2020). The theoretical understanding of vulnerability that is synonymized with disadvantaged (at-risk or neglected) consumers adopts a fixed rather than a temporal state (Elms & Tinson, 2012).…”

Adolescent Consumer Vulnerability: Consumer Socialization Perspective

“…Further, Commuri and Ekici (2008), proposed that the traditional underprivileged consumer conceptualization based on demographic or categories may undeniably be useful and should not be abandoned. Thus, extant literature revealed that consumers are vulnerable due to; Low literacy and language skills (Stewart & Yap , 2020;Jayasundara et al, 2020;Nishadi, 2020;Crowell, 2014;Broderick et al, 2011), Gender (Lacoba et al, 2020;Li et al, 2020;Fox & Hoy, 2019;McCoy et al, 2017;Nora et al, 2015;Svensson 2003;Barber, 2013) Lack of resources (FCA, 2014;Canhotoa & Dibb, 2016), Income (Powell & Binh, 2013;Li et al, 2020;Khan et al, 2012;Bowman et al, 2004), Social Class (Paniagua et al ,2014;Ranjith et al, 2015;Skårdal et al, 2014;Svastisalee, et al, 2012;Wills et al, 2009;Hanson and Chen, 2007) and Older age (Melnikas & Smaliukiene, 2007;Moschis et al, 2011;Silvera, Meyer & Laufer;Berg, 2015).…”