Stigmatized-Identity Cues and Consumer Applications Revisited

This article responds to thoughtful commentaries provided by Lamberton (2019–this issue) and Wooten & Rank-Christman (2019—this issue) on Chaney, Sanchez, & Maimon (2019—this issue), an article in which we discussed the implications of social psychological research on stigmatized-identity safety cues for consumer behavior. In Chaney, et al. (2019–this issue), we contend that stigmatized-identity cues can signal belonging to marginalized groups via the ideological assumptions made about companies. In this article, we first clarify our definition of stigmatized identities beyond the limitation assumed by Wooten & Rank-Christman (2019—this issue). In addition, we join the conversation regarding when cues lead to divergent responses in social groups. We also consider how using identity cues can “backfire” and the importance of using marketing goals to assess the extent to which strategies using such cues succeeded. Lastly, we integrate Lamberton's (2019–this issue) framework of dignity architecture and related empirical findings to discuss some of the challenges of research on stigmatized-identity cues.