University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How does status influence behavior? The impact of achieved and endowed status on consumption patterns

(USC Thesis Other)

How does status influence behavior? The impact of achieved and endowed status on consumption patterns

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOW DOES STATUS INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR?
THE IMPACT OF ACHIEVED AND ENDOWED STATUS ON CONSUMPTION
PATTERNS

by
Aarti Sriram Ivanic
________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Aarti Sriram Ivanic

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this to the 50 million individuals who suffer from epilepsy worldwide.
Be strong, dream big and always believe that you can do it! Life is full of endless
possibilities … let’s not lose another moment to seizures.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Over the past five years there have been several individuals who have affected my
life. I would like to thank each of them for their support, encouragement and belief in me.
To my best friend and the love of my life, Rasto: I would not have been able to
start or finish this degree without your undying love, support and understanding. You
have always been there for me with a hug, a smile, a shoulder to cry on and an enormous
amount of encouragement. I thank you for always believing in me, never allowing me to
quit and for your never-ending patience. All of these have helped me get through these
past five years.
Oliver, you are the light in my life. Over the past two years, you have changed my
life in more ways than I ever imagined. You always make me laugh, even when I don‘t
want to or you don‘t mean to. Your smiles and hugs are so re-assuring that I believe that
anything is possible. Thank you for putting up with my long days, days away and
occasional pre-occupation. Without your love, this would not be possible.
Mom, thank you for all your help, understanding and patience along with your
love and support. Your help with Oliver has been invaluable in helping me finish this
degree. Krishna, you have always believed in me, even when I haven‘t. You have never
given up! Thanks for the encouragement and for always being proud of all of my
accomplishments. Dad, I know you would be proud!
To my advisor Joe: it has been an amazing experience being your first student.
Thank you for your mentorship, encouragement, and countless hours of dedication. Over
the past five years, you have let me take charge whenever I have wanted and you have re-
focused me and steered me in the right direction as needed. I feel that you have prepared

iv
me well for academia. I truly appreciate all that you have done for me and I know our
collaboration and friendship will continue for years to come.
To my committee members Kristin and Jen: you have been a wonderful addition
to my committee. Thanks for always being there with a kind word, critical feedback and
hours of statistical help. You have been very involved every step of the way I really
appreciate all you have done for me over the past few years.
Finally, to all my friends in the Ph.D. program. I am going to miss you! I have
enjoyed our years together. Whether struggling through econometrics or long hours
running lab experiments, we have been through the highs and lows together and the
friendship and bond we have formed will continue for a long time.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

ABSTRACT x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Endowed Status 2
1.2. Achieved Status 3
1.3. Objective 5
1.4. Overview 5

CHAPTER 2: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY: THE 7
IMPACT OF RACIAL HIERARCHY ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY
2.1. Chapter Abstract 7
2.2. Chapter Introduction 8
2.3. Chapter Contribution 11
2.4. Chapter Overview 12
2.5. Literature Review 12
2.5.1. Status, Race, and Money 12
2.5.2. Identity Salience 13
2.5.3. Racial Identification 15
2.6. Chapter Summary 16
2.7. Study 1: Race, Salience, and Willingness to Pay 17
2.7.1. Purpose 17
2.7.2. Participants and Design 17
2.7.3. Procedure 18
2.7.4. Measures 19
2.7.5. Predictions 19
2.7.6. Results 20
2.7.7. Discussion 21
2.8. Study 2: Need for Status and Racial Identification 22
Moderate Willingness to Pay
2.8.1. Purpose 22
2.8.2. Participants and Design 22
2.8.3. Procedure 22
2.8.4. Measures 24
2.8.5. Predictions 24
2.8.6. Results – Room Upgrade 25

vi
2.8.7. Results – Flight Upgrade 29
2.8.8. Discussion 33
2.9. Chapter Discussion 34
2.10. Chapter Conclusion 35

CHAPTER 3: THE INTRINSIC BENEFITS OF STATUS 36
3.1. Chapter Abstract 36
3.2. Chapter Introduction 36
3.3. Chapter Contribution 39
3.4. Chapter Overview 40
3.5. Literature Review 41
3.5.1. Role Identity, Status, Behavioral Expectations 41
3.5.2. The Intrinsic Benefit 43
3.5.3. Identity Salience 45
3.6. Chapter Summary 46
3.7. Study 1: Status Congruent Behavior 47
3.7.1. Purpose 47
3.7.2. Respondents and Design 47
3.7.3. Procedure 47
3.7.4. Measures 48
3.7.5. Predictions 48
3.7.6. Results 48
3.7.7. Discussion 51
3.8. Study 2: Status Congruent Behavior Elevates Prestige 51
3.8.1. Purpose 51
3.8.2. Respondents and Design 51
3.8.3. Procedure 52
3.8.4. Design Summary 54
3.8.5. Measures 55
3.8.6. Predictions 56
3.8.7. Results 57
3.8.8. Discussion 60
3.9. Study 3: Identity Salience, Status Congruent Behavior, 61
and Prestige
3.9.1. Purpose 61
3.9.2. Respondents and Design 61
3.9.3. Procedure 62
3.9.4. Measures 65
3.9.5. Predictions 65
3.9.6. Results 66
3.9.7. Discussion 70
3.10. Chapter Discussion 71
3.10.1 Chapter Findings 72
3.10.2 Chapter Implications 72

vii
3.10.3 Future Research and Limitations 73
3.11. Chapter Conclusion 74

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION 75
4.1. Main Findings and Implications of how Status 75
Influences Behavior
4.2. Suggestions for Further Status Research 77
4.3. Final Thoughts 79

REFERENCES 80

APPENDICES 88
Appendix I. Study 1 Stimulus (Chapter 2): Race, Salience, 88
and Willingness to Pay
Appendix II. Study 2 Stimulus (Chapter 2): Need for Status 96
and Racial Identification Moderate Willingness
to Pay
Appendix III. Study 1 Stimulus (Chapter 3): Status 113
Congruent Behavior
Appendix IV. Study 2 Stimulus (Chapter 3): Status 119
Congruent Behavior Elevates Prestige
Appendix V. Study 3 Stimulus (Chapter 3): Identity 130
Salience, Status Congruent Behavior and Prestige

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Regression Coefficients for Room Upgrade 29
Table 2-2. Regression Coefficients for Flight Upgrade 33
Table 3-1. Reasons for Choosing Elite Queue 50
Table 3-2. Design Summary (Chapter 3) 55
Table 3-3. Need for Status - Descriptive Statistics 58
Table 3-4. Positive Emotions - Descriptive Statistics 59
Table 3-5. Prestige - Least Squares Means 60
Table 3-6. Need for Status (Mean Centered) – Status and 67
Status Congruent Behavior
Table 3-7. Logistic Regression Coefficients - Status and Salience 67
Table 3-8. Decision to Engage in Status Congruent Behavior - 68
Status and Salience
Table 3-9. Regression Coefficients: Status Congruent Behavior 69
Impacts Prestige
Table 3-10. Least Squares Means: Status Congruent Behavior 70
Elevates Prestige

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Conceptual Model (Chapter 2) 17
Figure 2-2. Mean (with Standard Errors) of Willingness 21
to Pay for Headphones
Figure 2-3. Least Squares Means (with Standard Errors) of 26
Willingness to Pay for the Room Upgrade
Figure 2-4. Least Squares Means (with Standard Errors) of 27
Willingness to Pay for Room Upgrade by Need for Status
Figure 2-5. Least Squares Means (with Standard Errors) of 28
Willingness to Pay for Room Upgrade by
Racial Identification
Figure 2-6. Least Squares Means (with Standard Errors) of 30
Willingness to Pay for Flight Upgrade
Figure 2-7. Least Squares Means (with Standard Errors) of 31
Willingness to Pay for Flight Upgrade by Need for Status
Figure 2-8. Least Squares Means (with Standard Errors) of 32
Willingness to Pay for Flight Upgrade by
Racial Identification
Figure 3-1. Conceptual Model (Chapter 3) 46
Figure 3-2. Choice of Elite Queue 49
Figure 3-3. Design Summary with Screen Captures 55
Figure 3-4. Choice of Special Event – High Status 64
(Screen Capture)
Figure 3-5. Choice of Special Event – Low Status 64
(Screen Capture)

x

ABSTRACT
Society is vertically stratified on many dimensions (e.g., race, gender, income,
education) in which every individual has a well-established place. Status hierarchies
permeate society and they are an integral part of our social system. Whether achieved
through individual merit or endowed through birth into a particular social group, status
hierarchies are manifested in how individuals feel, how they are treated and consequently
how they behave. People often define themselves in relation to others and one‘s relative
position or status is of great importance because knowing one‘s place can impact an
individual‘s self-concept. Status is most often accompanied by a variety of economic,
social, and emotional benefits and hence it can be beneficial to have a higher rank than
others. Being at the top of the ladder is significantly more beneficial than being at the
bottom. As such, individuals exert a significant amount of energy in order to maintain
and to enhance their status. In this dissertation, I explore how status affects how
individuals feel as well as the consumption behaviors in which they engage.
Consumption allows individuals to express themselves and portray their status to
others. A significant amount of research has examined how individuals purchase and
wear status-conveying products (e.g., designer watches, handbags) in order to signal that
they belong to a high status group and to present an image of high status. My research
extends beyond the use of status-conveying products for the purpose of status
enhancement as well as beyond the social signaling benefits which generally accompany
status. In two essays, I examine how individuals who have (do not have) high status,

xi
either achieved through personal merit or endowed through birth, engage (do not engage)
in certain behaviors (e.g., wait longer for exclusive services, pay more for products) in
order to affirm or to enhance their status. I find that engaging in such behaviors allows
individuals to fulfill their status needs and to affirm their high status position. Further, I
find that such behaviors result in an ‗intrinsic‘ benefit of status which is distinct from the
social and material benefits that often accompany one‘s elevated position.
In the first essay, I examine how invoking the endowed race-based status
hierarchy affecting African Americans and Caucasians influences how much individuals
are willing to pay for products and services. Money is closely tied to social status and for
African Americans, who are often stereotyped as being poor, paying more allows them to
fulfill a need for status. I find that it is the act of paying money and not the status of the
product which is being purchased that enables African Americans to enhance their status
perceptions.
In the second essay, I explore behavior among individuals who achieve high
status (through spending) within a firm‘s loyalty program. In some firms, individuals‘
spending patterns leads to them be categorized as ‗high status,‘ which affords them both
social and material benefits. In this essay, I find that those who attain high status
willingly engage in certain costly behaviors (e.g., pay more, wait longer), in order to
affirm their status and to enhance their self-concept. I find that engaging in these
behaviors results in a previously un-explored ‗intrinsic‘ benefit, elevated feelings of
prestige. This research contributes to literature by showing that there is an important
outcome of having and using status that is neither social nor material.

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
“Status is a fundamental motivation of human behavior” – Robert H. Frank
People are social beings and define themselves in relation with others. As humans
evolved they classified themselves into groups where some groups were seen and are still
seen as having higher status than others. Status is a fundamental dimension of social
inequality in human societies (Weber 1968). It has been defined as one‘s position on a
socially recognized and relevant dimension, as determined by respect, deference and
social influence (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006; Ridgeway &
Walker, 1995). While initially endowed through birth or assignment (e.g., race, gender,
caste, nobility), it later became acceptable for individuals to achieve status based on their
personal merits (e.g., profession, education).
Individuals began evaluating others on differences based on socio-economic
characteristics such as income, occupation and education as well as groups organized
around race, ethnicity or gender (Weber, 1968). In addition to having greater access to
resources, those at the top (e.g., ethnic majorities, the wealthy) were treated with more
respect and deference than those at the bottom (e.g., ethnic minorities, the poor). Hence,
one‘s relative position became very important because it affected the way people were
evaluated and treated. Therefore, striving for status became a primary and universal
motive of individual behavior (Barkow, 1975).
Individuals often engage in behaviors which allow them to either affirm or to
enhance their status (Anderson, John, Keltner, & King, 2001; Jackson, Sullivan, Harnish,

2
& Hodge, 1996; Kemper, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In general, people seek out and
interpret situations that are consistent with their existing self-conceptions (e.g., high
status) (Goffman, 1970). As such, individuals do whatever is contextually feasible in
order to protect or to enhance the valence of a particular social identity (Hogg, 2001).
Because having and achieving status has profound implications for how individuals are
treated, how they feel, and consequently how they behave, it is important to understand
more completely how status influences behavior.
1.1 Endowed Status
One of the earliest ways of stratifying society into status tiers was based on
endowed characteristics such as race, gender, caste or nobility (Blau & Duncan, 1967).
Individuals were born into these non-malleable groups and therefore inherited a relatively
‗fixed‘ position. For example, men and ethnic majorities (e.g., Caucasians) were seen as
having higher status compared with women and ethnic minorities (e.g., African
Americans) (Webster & Driskell, 1978). Those with high status were afforded more
economic benefits (e.g., monetary resources), social benefits (e.g., preferential treatment)
and emotional benefits (e.g., respect) than those who were born into social groups
traditionally categorized as having low status (Thoits, 1991; Webster & Driskell, 1978).
These status hierarchies still prevail in society and they have significant repercussions for
how individuals who have lower endowed status are treated and, in turn, how they
behave.
While race relations in the U.S. have improved significantly since the Civil Rights
Movement, more than 40 years ago, there still exists a deeply entrenched status hierarchy
affecting African Americans and Caucasians. The former are said to have lower endowed

3
status than the latter and this is reflected in their economic situation as well as how they
are treated by others. The median income for African Americans places them in the
bottom third of Caucasians‘ income distribution and it would take a 50-percent increase
for African American earnings to reach comparable Caucasian earning levels (Spriggs,
2008). Further, as of 2008, compared with Caucasians, African Americans face almost
twice as high unemployment rates and they have three times the likelihood of living in
poverty than Caucasians (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
In addition to disparities in economic situations, African Americans frequently face
discrimination in the marketplace. They are often treated in line with common group
stereotypes such as being poor or uneducated (Lee, 2000). Unfortunately, this well-
established racial hierarchy still persists, and while it may be more subtle than in the past,
it still affects the manner in which African Americans are treated as well as the
consumption behaviors in which they engage. In the first essay of my dissertation, I
explore the effect of making their lower endowed status salient on African Americans
spending behavior, a mechanism for fulfilling a need for status.
1.2 Achieved Status
While endowed status was the earliest form of attaining status, not everyone was
born into nobility or an ethnic majority. Hence, by the middle of the 18
th
century, it
became acceptable for individuals to achieve status through their own merit and
accomplishments (Blau & Duncan, 1964). An individual could achieve status
professionally as some professions (e.g., doctors, lawyers) were deemed as having more
status than others (e.g., laborers, janitors) or through education whereby the more
education one had, the higher her status (e.g., Ph.D. vs. high school graduate). As with

4
endowed status, those at the top were privy to more benefits (e.g., the corner office,
higher incomes, more respect) than those at the bottom.
Towards the close of the 19
th
century, renowned economist Thorstein Veblen
(1899) suggested that individuals could display high status through their consumption
behavior. He coined the term conspicuous consumption to describe spending undertaken
mainly to demonstrate to others the spender‘s ability to pay. He proposed that people
purchased goods that represented high status (e.g., fine china, silverware) not because
they were functionally better than cheaper counter-parts, but to simply signal that they
had the monetary means to do so. As such, money became the new marker of status
whereby individuals could spend money to purchase products that allowed them to
display their status to others (de Botton, 2004). In line with this theorizing, today
individuals purchase and consume symbolic products in order to display their status to
others and to enhance their status perceptions (Belk, 1988; Celsi, Rose, & Leigh, 1993;
Eastman, Goldsmith, & Flynn, 1999; Lynn & Harris, 1997).
Money and the consumption of symbolic products are still an important
component of social status; however, a new form of status is emerging whereby
individuals can attain status by demonstrating their loyalty towards a firm (Drèze &
Nunes, 2009; Lacey, Suh, & Morgan, 2007). Many companies stratify their customers
into different tiers based on their spending habits. As individuals concentrate their
purchases towards a firm, they achieve high status and join a group of elites who are
awarded many material and social benefits. For example, Continental Airlines classifies
members of its frequent flier program into Silver, Gold and Platinum tiers. Passengers
must fly a minimum of 25,000 miles to become a Silver member and 100,000 miles to

5
become a Platinum member. Those at the top receive both material (e.g., complimentary
tickets, invitations to special events) and social benefits (e.g., preferential treatment,
exclusive check-in lines). Achieving this type of status has been shown to influence
behavior. Attaining high status has also been shown to increase intentions of future
purchase, the speed with which purchases are made, positive word of mouth and firm
satisfaction (Drèze & Nunes, 2010; Homburg, Droll, & Totzek, 2008; Lacey, Suh &
Morgan, 2007; Nunes & Drèze, 2007).
1.3 Objective
My main research question is the following: How does status influence
consumption behavior? In this dissertation (in two separate essays), I explore how
individuals who either have or do not have status engage in a variety of ‗costly‘ consumer
behaviors (e.g., spend money, utilize exclusive privileges) in order to fulfill their status
needs.
1.4 Overview
In the first essay (Chapter two), I examine how, for individuals who are endowed
with low status (i.e., African Americans), the act of spending money at will is a manner
in which they attempt to enhance their status. Past research has shown that individuals
purchase and display status products in order to enhance their status perceptions. My
research highlights the notion that status-conveying products are not the only manner in
which individuals can fulfill their status needs. I show that merely spending more money,
regardless of the status of the product, allows individuals who are socially characterized
as having lower endowed status (race-based status hierarchy), to alleviate their status

6
concerns. It is the notion that they can spend at will which enables African Americans to
fulfill their status needs, rather than the types of products they purchase.
In the second essay (Chapter three) I explore how status that is achieved within a
loyalty program changes behavior and affects how individuals feel. Status attained in a
loyalty program affords individuals both material and social benefits. In this essay, I
identify a third, distinct benefit from having and using status – an intrinsic benefit of
elevated feelings of prestige. I show that individuals who have high status willingly incur
a cost (greater expenditure, longer wait) in order to affirm their status position and to
enhance their self-concept. This results in an intrinsic benefit of status which is neither
social nor material, which suggests that individuals may value status for more than the
traditional material and social benefits that traditionally accompany one‘s elevated rank.
In Chapter four, I summarize the implications of how status shapes consumption
patterns. I also suggest some avenues for future research.

7

CHAPTER 2: STATUS, RACE AND MONEY: THE IMPACT OF RACIAL
HIERARCHY ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY
1

2.1 CHAPTER ABSTRACT
High status is coveted by many but attained by few. Some individuals attain
higher status through birth (e.g., men, ethnic majorities) while others do so through
individual merit (e.g., education, profession). There exists a deeply entrenched status
hierarchy among African Americans and Caucasians whereby the former are classified
typically as lower in status and are treated as inferior. African Americans frequently face
marketplace discrimination where, among other things, they are assumed not to have the
monetary means to purchase high-end products and services. Because having and
spending money are recognized signs of high status, an intricate relationship between
status, race, and money arises. In this research, we explore these complex links and
examine a tendency among African Americans to elevate their willingness to pay for
products in order to fulfill status needs. In two studies we find that an explicit activation
of race leads African Americans to pay more: more than what they would normally pay
and more if compared with Caucasians will pay. Individual differences in need for status
and racial identification moderate this result.

1
A paper co-authored with Jennifer R. Overbeck and Joseph C. Nunes is based on this
essay as per the details below.
Aarti S. Ivanic, Jennifer R. Overbeck, and Joseph C. Nunes (2010), ―Status, Race and
Money: The Impact of Racial Hierarchy on Willingness to Pay.‖ This paper is under
revision for Psychological Science.

8
2.2 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION
What is my status in society? Where do I stand relative to others? What can I do
to move up? Individuals often ask such questions because where one stands has
implications for one‘s self-conception (de Botton, 2004). Regardless of whether we
choose to acknowledge it, society is vertically stratified on a variety of dimensions (e.g.,
income, education, race) and status hierarchies persist. Formally, status is defined as the
prominence, respect, and influence that one holds in others‘ eyes (Anderson, Srivastava,
Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006). Whether achieved through individual merits, or
endowed through birth into a particular social group (e.g., race, gender), status
hierarchies are socially imposed and manifest themselves in the way certain groups of
individuals are treated and, in turn, how they behave. In this research, we examine how
the ingrained status hierarchy between African Americans and Caucasians affects
individuals‘ spending behavior. Specifically, we explore whether, when and why African
Americans may voluntarily pay more for products and services than: (1) they might
normally, and (2) more than Caucasians would pay.
Historically, African Americans are considered to have lower endowed status than
Caucasians (Webster & Driskell, 1978). Consequently, they are frequently treated as
inferior and fall victim to various forms of discrimination (Thoits, 1991; Webster &
Driskell, 1978). African Americans are often stereotyped as poor, lazy, and uneducated,
and are frequently treated as such (Judd, Park, Ryan, Brauer, & Kraus, 1995;
Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997). In the marketplace, African Americans report they are
‗skipped over‘ by sales associates who tend to serve Caucasian customers first. African
Americans feel that they are categorized as ‗low value‘ customers because of the

9
perception that they will not be able to afford purchases at upscale stores or boutiques
(Ainscough & Motley, 2000; Lee, 2000). Past work has demonstrated that members of
racial minorities respond by consuming status-related goods as a way of increasing their
status (Fontes & Fan, 2006; Lamont & Molnar, 2001). For example, Fontes and Fan
(2006) used data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey and found that African
Americans allocated a greater percentage of their household budget to a status-conveying
good, (i.e., apparel) compared with European Americans (i.e., Caucasians). Our
argument goes beyond the issue of status good consumption. Here, we propose that
paying more money itself constitutes a status-enhancing strategy. Thus, in order to negate
the perceptions of inferiority, African Americans may sometimes elevate their
willingness to pay for products and services.
The ability to spend money represents a sign of economic success, material
wealth and social status (Goldberg & Lewis, 1978; Veblen, 1899). It is well-recognized
that spending money can engender feelings of equality because money begets status and
respect from others (Goldberg & Lewis, 1978). In fact, in the early eighties, the NAACP
created ―Black Dollar Days,‖ which encouraged African Americans to spend money in
order to demonstrate economic parity with Caucasians and the strength of African
Americans‘ purchasing power (Boyer, 1985). In our work, we document how increasing
their willingness to pay (for both status- and non-status-conveying products) represents
some African Americans‘ effort to elevate their personal status. In other words, these
individuals may focus on individual mobility achieved through spending, rather than
trying to elevate the status of the racial group as a whole, or collective mobility (Wright,
Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990).

10
People do not spend their days consciously aware of their own race or ethnicity,
but they often find themselves in situations (e.g., being African American in a
predominantly Caucasian neighborhood) that make their race more or less salient.
Consequently this affects their shopping behavior (Lee, 2000). In our work, we show how
activating one‘s race, explicitly versus implicitly, affects how much individuals are
willing to pay for a product. We propose that when race –endowed status – is made
salient explicitly, African Americans elevate their willingness-to-pay for products and
services over what they would normally pay (i.e., their base rate) as well as over how
much Caucasians are willing to pay for the identical products and services.
Not all individuals consider their race to be an important source of their identity.
Brewer and Silver (2000) suggested a given social category (e.g., race, gender) may be a
more important source of identity for some individuals and a less important one for
others. Previous research has shown that the extent to which individuals identify with a
particular social category affects how they evaluate themselves, to what extent they self-
stereotype and the types of behaviors in which they engage (Hall & Crisp, 2008;
Schmader, 2002). For example, Schmader (2002) demonstrated that the more women
identified with their gender the worse they performed on a math test, assimilating to the
negative in-group stereotype. In other words, the stronger one‘s identity (e.g., race,
gender) the more likely one is to engage in identity-congruent behaviors. Hence, we
propose that the degree to which African Americans identify with their race will affect
how much they are willing to pay for products and services. We propose that African
Americans who are low racial identifiers will elevate their willingness to pay compared
with highly identified African Americans.

11
2.3 CHAPTER CONTRIBUTION
The current research explores the intricate relationship between status, race and
money and specifically how the ingrained racial hierarchy impacts spending behavior. In
so doing, it makes several contributions. First, we document how activating one‘s race,
explicitly or implicitly, impacts how much African Americans are willing to pay for
products. Past research has focused on the effects of making a particular identity salient
on test performance (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999),
attitudes towards individuals and political issues (Cohen & Reed, 2001; Newman, Duff,
Schnopp-Wyatt, Brock, & Hoffman, 1997) as well as individual attitudes towards
targeted advertising (Forehand, Deshpandé, & Reed II, 2002). To the best of our
knowledge, there has been no work that has studied how making the entrenched racial
hierarchy more or less salient, impacts how much individuals are willing to pay for
products and services.
Second, this work identifies how the act of paying money is a manner in which
consumers can fulfill status related needs. Past research has shown how individuals use
status-conveying products in order to portray a particular image to those around them
(Bagwell & Bernheim, 1996) and to feel unique and distinctive (Lynn & Harris, 1997;
Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001). Other work has shown that individuals purchase status-
conveying products in order to restore a sense of power or to repair self-integrity (Rucker
& Galinsky, 2008; Rucker & Galinsky, 2009; Sivanathan & Pettit, 2010). The current
work differs as we document how by paying more in general (i.e., for both status and
non-status conveying products) some African Americans attempt to alleviate status-
related concerns.

12
2.4 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
We proceed with a brief review of the literature on status, identity salience and
racial identification. In two studies we show that the manner in which one‘s race is made
salient impacts how much an individual is willing to pay for products and services, but
only for those lower in status. Study 1 demonstrates the differential effect of race salience
on how much African Americans are willing to pay for a product. In Study 2, we examine
the moderating role of need for status as well as strength of racial identification on
willingness to pay.
2.5 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.5.1 Status, Race, and Money
Status is a fundamental dimension of social inequality in society along with power
and material wealth (Weber, 1968). Historically, African Americans have been regarded
as having lower endowed status than Caucasians and they are evaluated and treated in
accordance with their low position (Webster & Driskell, 1978). It is widely reported that
African Americans often pay more for numerous goods and services, including food
(Grady & Robertson, 1999), cars (Henriques, 2001) and home loans (Fernandez, 2007).
In addition to disparities in pricing, it is not unheard for African Americans to wait longer
than Caucasians to be served at upscale stores or boutiques (Ainscough & Motley, 2000;
Lee, 2000). This has been attributed to the racial stereotype that African Americans are
poor and they will not be able to afford certain purchases (Crocket, Grier, & Williams,
2003). As such, many African Americans often use consumption to signify and acquire
equality, respect, acceptance and status (Lamont & Molnar, 2001).

13
Money is inherently symbolic as it is closely related to status, power, recognition
and achievement (Mitchell & Mickel, 1993; Prince, 1993). Several researchers have
proposed money and its wasteful spending represent a sign of economic success, material
wealth and social status (Coleman, 1990; Goldberg & Lewis, 1978; Tang, 1992; Veblen,
1899). Hence, for African Americans, who are often characterized as poor and thus to
have lower status than Caucasians, the ability to spend at will and thereby to pay more for
products and services is a manner in which they can demonstrate higher status. Paying
more can engender feelings of equality because money often begets status and respect
from others and it is frequently used to recognize accomplishments (Goldberg & Lewis,
1978). Some individuals may value status more than others which will affect their
purchasing behavior. For example, O‘Cass and Frost (2002) found that the more an
individual seeks status the more likely she is to purchase products and brands that
symbolize high status. Accordingly, we expect individual differences in status needs to
affect how much African Americans are willing to pay for products. More formally put,

H1: The higher the need for status, the more African Americans are willing to pay
for products and services.
2.5.2 Identity Salience
People do not spend their days consciously aware of their own race or ethnicity
but they often find themselves in situations which highlight their race. For example,
African Americans report being more aware of their race when shopping in
predominantly Caucasian neighborhoods because of both their lower numeric presence as
well as how they are treated (Lee, 2000).We propose that making race and thus a sense of

14
lower status more or less salient will differentially affect how much African Americans
are willing to pay for products. A significant amount of research has studied the
behavioral repercussions of how one‘s identity (e.g., race, gender) is activated (see
Wheeler & Petty, 2001 for a review). Researchers have found that individuals either
assimilate or behave in contrast to group-related stereotypes and this depends on whether
the stereotypes are implicitly or explicitly activated (Dijksterhuis et al., 1998; Kray,
Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001). When stereotypes are implicitly activated, the initial,
automatic response is for an individual to behave in congruence (i.e., assimilate to) with
the stereotype (Bargh & Pietromonaco, 1982; Devine, 1989; Moskowitz & Skurnik,
1999). However, when stereotypes are explicitly activated, individuals become more
mindful of the stereotype and consequently they are motivated to alter their behavior
resulting in behaviors which contrast the stereotype (Wheeler & Petty, 2001).
For example, Kray, Thompson, and Galinsky (2001) found that women performed
better than men on a negotiation task (i.e., in contrast to stereotypes of women as poor
negotiators), when they were explicitly reminded of their gender, and they performed
worse (i.e., assimilated to stereotypes) when gender was implicitly activated. Explicit
activation of gender led women to engage in counter-stereotypical behavior in an attempt
to overcompensate for the biasing information (i.e., women are poor negotiators) and
thereby dissociate themselves from the activated stereotypes (Martin, 1986).
Accordingly, we predict that, when race is explicitly activated, African Americans will,
on average, elevate their willingness to pay for products and services, and do so to
distinguish themselves from the stereotype that they have low status. However, implicit
activation of race will not lead African Americans to elevate their willingness to pay,

15
consistent with assimilation to the stereotype. We state this formally in the following two
hypotheses: 2a and 2b.

H2a: Explicit activation of race leads African Americans to pay more for
products than Caucasians.
H2b: Explicit activation of race leads African Americans to pay more for
products than when their race is implicitly activated.
2.5.3 Racial Identification
Racial identity relates to a sense of ‗people-hood‘ or strength of group affiliation
(Smith, 1989). The extent to which individuals identify themselves as group members is
important because it has been shown to have positive psychological consequences such as
a greater sense of self security as well as behavioral outcomes such as increased school
performance (Allen & Stukes, 1982). Smith (1989) suggested that a fragmented sense of
racial identity diminishes a strong sense of people-hood (p. 278). In other words, the
weaker one‘s level of racial identification, the less likely individuals are to affiliate with
their in-group.
Spears, Doosje, and Ellemers (1997) proposed that low racial identifiers may
view themselves more as individuals than as group members, especially if their group
identity is threatened. Being classified as having low status (e.g., African Americans) can
serve as a threat to one‘s identity. As such, when low identifiers are reminded of their low
status, these individuals will be more likely to engage in behaviors that allow them to
break away from their social group. In other words, low identifiers are more likely than
high identifiers to engage in individual mobility. High racial identifiers have been shown

16
to engage in behaviors which are more group-centric, rather than individualistic (Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). For high identifiers, dissociating from their
group would mean that they are denying an important part of their identity (Spears,
Doosje, and Ellemers, 1997).
Tajfel and Turner (1979) suggested that low status individuals may be more likely
to challenge the existing social ranking of the group, especially if they do not consider the
status of their group to be legitimate. We propose that highly identified African
Americans may challenge the imposed racial hierarchy and as such they will not elevate
their willingness to pay because by doing so they would validate the embedded racial
hierarchy. In the same vein, we propose that African Americans who are low racial
identifiers will be more likely to view themselves as individuals, rather than group
members, and consequently, they engage in behaviors (i.e., elevate their willingness to
pay) in order to enhance their perceived low status. Consequently, we predict that
individual differences in racial identification moderate the extent to which African
Americans act to contrast away from stereotypes and thus their willingness to pay.
Formally,

H3: African Americans who are low racial identifiers will elevate their
willingness to pay for products when reminded of their race.
2.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
To summarize, African Americans have been traditionally characterized as having
low status as compared to Caucasians (Webster & Driskell, 1978). When their race is
explicitly activated, we propose African Americans will demonstrate a greater

17
willingness to pay for products compared with (1) Caucasians, and (2) when their race is
implicitly activated. Both need for status (henceforth, NFS) and strength of racial
identification moderate how much African Americans are willing to pay (henceforth,
WTP) for products (See Figure 2-1).
FIGURE 2-1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL

2.7 STUDY 1: RACE, SALIENCE, AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY
2.7.1 Purpose
This study examines a specific occasion when African Americans are prone to
elevate their willingness to pay for a product, by examining the effect of race salience.
2.7.2 Participants and Design
The sample consisted of 113 individuals (72% African American, 53% men, M
age

= 36 years) who were approached in a shopping plaza in Los Angeles, California.
Individuals who completed the survey were entered into a drawing to win a prize retailing
for $120. The study used a 2 (Race: African American, Caucasian) x 3 (Salience:
Explicit, Implicit, Control) between-subjects full factorial design. Respondents were
randomly assigned to one of the three salience conditions.

18
2.7.3 Procedure
Respondents in the explicit condition were told we were interested in individual
perceptions of racial differences in behavior. We adapted our explicit manipulation from
Cialdini, Wosinska, Dabul, Whetstone-Dion, and Heszen (1998). In our study,
respondents were given a list of 10 behaviors (e.g., drink domestic beer, enjoy
gardening), and were asked their opinion of whom they thought the behavior best
characterized. They were instructed to circle ‗WA‘ if the behavior was more
characteristic of White Americans (i.e., Caucasians), ‗AA‘ if more characteristic of
African Americans and ‗ND‘ if they believed there was no racial difference. The
identification task made the participant‘s race salient to them explicitly.
The implicit salience manipulation was adapted from Shih, Pittinsky, and
Ambady (1999). Respondents were told we were interested in how people‘s self-
perceptions affect the types of behaviors in which they engage. They were given a list of
10 stereotypical African American behaviors (e.g., low performance on an academic test;
high athletic ability; see Wheeler & Petty, 2001) and they were asked to circle Yes or No
based on whether or not they thought the behavior was self-characteristic. By responding
to race-specific stereotypes, respondents were primed with subtle awareness of their race,
but it was not made explicit.
In the control condition, we used the same list of behaviors as in the explicit
condition. However, we asked respondents to circle whether they perceived the behaviors
as more characteristic of Los Angeles area residents (‗LA‘), residents of California,
excluding Los Angeles (‗CA‘), or if there was no difference (‗ND‘).

19
2.7.4 Measures
Willingness to pay. Respondents in all conditions were then shown a picture and
given a description of a pair of high-end Shure Noise-Canceling headphones (model
SE110). They were asked to indicate the amount they would be WTP for the headphones.
Purchase likelihood. In order to ensure there was no racial bias in consumption
tendency, respondents were also asked to indicate on a seven-point scale (1 = not at all, 7
= very much) how likely they would be to purchase the headphones.
Perceived rank. To confirm that the African Americans sampled believed they
ranked lower, on average, than Caucasians in the social hierarchy, all participants were
shown a picture of a vertical thermometer with lines indicating various percentiles (0 to
100, at 10 percent intervals). Participants were asked to circle the percentile which best
represented where they believed they ranked relative to others in society.
Demographics. Respondents were also asked to indicate their age, income and
gender. Participants were debriefed at the end of the study.
2.7.5 Predictions
Our hypothesizing leads to two predictions. First, we predict that explicit
activation of race would cause African Americans to pay significantly more than
Caucasians for the headphones (H2a). Second, explicit activation of race would lead
African Americans to pay more than when their race was implicitly activated (H2b). We
predict no difference in African Americans‘ versus Caucasians‘ willingness to purchase
the headphones, which would suggest it is not a greater desire to purchase the products
among African Americans that elevates their willingness to pay.

20
2.7.6 Results
Perceived rank. In general, African Americans (M
AA
= 51.31%, SE
AA
= 2.21%)
reported ranking lower on the social hierarchy than Caucasians (M
C
= 72.56%, SE
C
=
2.42%), t(111) = 5.54, p < .01. This result is in line with the notion that they have lower
endowed status. There was no difference in reported income level across the two racial
groups, t(93) =.03, p > .9.
Purchase likelihood. As expected, we found no difference in preference for the
product between African Americans (M
AA
= 4.41, SE
AA
= .15) and Caucasians (M
C
=
4.25, SE
C
= .24), t(110) = .57, p > .5 which suggests that any difference in willingness to
pay cannot be attributed to a difference in affinity for the product.
Willingness to pay. The data were analyzed with a 2 x 3 (Race x Race Salience)
General Linear Model (GLM). We found that gender, age, and income were not
statistically significant predictors of how much individuals were WTP for the
headphones, Fs(1, 81) < .75, ps > .15 and controlling for their effects did not change our
results. Hence, they are not discussed further.
As predicted, there was a significant interaction of race and salience on how much
individuals were WTP for the headphones, F(2, 107) = 7.76, p < .01 (see Figure 2-2).
When race was not primed (i.e., control condition), or was primed implicitly, there was
no difference in how much African Americans and Caucasians were WTP for the
headphones, ts(37) < 1.50, ps > .10. In support of hypothesis 2a, we found that when race
was explicitly activated, African Americans were WTP significantly more than
Caucasians were, t(36) = 3.90, p < .01, d = 1.55. Further, African Americans were WTP
more for the headphones when their race was explicitly activated than when it was

21
implicitly activated, t(51) = 6.62, p < .01, d = 1.83, supporting hypothesis 2b. Hence, it
appears that explicit activation of race leads African Americans to engage in behavior
(i.e., pay more) that contrasts the negative group-related stereotype (i.e., poor, low
status). In line with the assimilation effect, we found that African Americans were WTP
less for the headphones when their race was implicitly activated than when their race was
not activated (i.e., control condition), t(51) = 2.35, p < .05, d = .65.
FIGURE 2-2: MEAN (WITH STANDARD ERRORS) WILLINGNESS TO PAY
FOR HEADPHONES

2.7.7 Discussion
When race is explicitly activated, African Americans may become more aware of
their inferior status, and increasing their willingness to pay serves as an attempt to elevate
their personal status. The lack of a difference in propensity to purchase the headphones
$12.89
$22.75
$7.48
$13.36
$10.60
$11.64
$-
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
Control Explicit Implicit
Willingness to Pay
Salience
African American Caucasian

22
between African Americans and Caucasians supports this explanation as no difference in
product preference was observed.
2.8 STUDY 2: NEED FOR STATUS AND RACIAL IDENTIFICATION
MODERATE WILLINGNESS TO PAY
2.8.1 Purpose
In this study, we examine more directly the moderating role of NFS as well as
racial identification on how much African Americans are WTP for products. We also
replicate the effects of race salience from Study 1.
2.8.2 Participants and Design
The study was conducted online with participants who were part of an
independent survey panel. Of the 484 individuals invited, 344 participated (27% African
American, 67% women, M
age
= 45 years). This study utilized a 2 (Race: African
American, Caucasian) x 2 (Race Salience: Explicit, Implicit) between subjects design.
2.8.3 Procedure
Respondents were informed they would be participating in two unrelated studies.
The first part was framed as an attempt to understand how consumers perceive social
behaviors. This part contained explicit and implicit race salience primes identical to those
in Study 1. In the second part, participants were told the researchers were interested in
how individuals book online vacation packages. They were asked to imagine they were
planning a vacation in the U.S. and had decided to use a popular website to make their
travel arrangements. Further, they were considering a standard vacation package
including airfare and a hotel room. They were told they would have an opportunity to bid
on customizing the various components of the standard package in a fashion similar to

23
popular auction websites (e.g., ebay.com). The highest bidder would receive the chance
to alter their package.
The vacation package also included airfare and the default airline ticket was in
United Airline‘s Economy Plus section, which included standard amenities (e.g., extra
leg room, food for purchase) and a roundtrip price of $300. Respondents were then asked
to consider an offer to upgrade their ticket to Business Class, which included additional
amenities such as a separate cabin and exclusive check-in line. They were told that while
there was no stated price for the Business Class ticket, it would be more expensive than
the standard ticket. They were asked to indicate, on a seven-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 =
very much), how likely they would be to bid on upgrading to Business Class as well as
how much additional money (i.e., above the standard airfare of $300) they would be
willing to pay to upgrade.
The vacation package also included airfare and the default airline ticket was in
United Airline‘s Economy Plus section, which included standard amenities (e.g., extra
leg room, food for purchase) and a roundtrip price of $300. Respondents were then asked
to consider an offer to upgrade their ticket to Business Class, which included additional
amenities such as a separate cabin and exclusive check-in line. They were told that while
there was no stated price for the Business Class ticket, it would be more expensive than
the standard ticket. They were asked to indicate, on a seven-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 =
very much), how likely they would be to bid on upgrading to Business Class as well as
how much additional money (i.e., above the standard airfare of $300) they would be
willing to pay to upgrade.

24
Subsequently, participants answered questions measuring their NFS, strength of
racial identification, state affect and demographics (e.g. age, gender, income). They were
debriefed at the end of the study.
2.8.4 Measures
Affect. To account for individual differences in affect respondents were asked to
indicate on a seven-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) how they felt at that
particular moment. Four items measured positive affect (i.e., good, pleased, happy,
content) and four items measured negative affect (i.e., sad, bad, disappointed, deflated).
The negative items were reverse-coded. All eight items were highly correlated (α = .91)
and were averaged to create a composite affect score.
NFS. Individuals reported their NFS (e.g., extent to which they believed others
received more attention, had more status) on an eight item, seven-point (1 = not at all, 7
= very much) scale, adapted from Overbeck and Tansuwan (2010). The eight items were
averaged to create a composite NFS score (α = .94).
Racial identification. Respondents completed the four item, seven-point (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) identity subscale of Luhtanen and Crocker‘s
(1992) Collective Self Esteem scale as applied to racial groups (e.g., extent to which
racial group was an important part their self-image, reflection of who they were). The
four items were averaged to create a composite racial identification score (α = .70).
2.8.5 Predictions
Our hypothesizing leads to two key predictions. First, we predict that the higher
African Americans‘ need for status, the more they will be WTP for the product upgrades
(H1). We also predict that African Americans who are high racial identifiers will not

25
elevate how much they are WTP to upgrade when their race is explicitly activated (H3a)
while African Americans who are low racial identifiers will elevate how much they are
WTP to upgrade (H3b). As in Study 1, we expect that explicit activation of race will
cause African Americans to pay significantly more for the upgrades than: (1) Caucasians
(H2a), and (2) African Americans whose race is implicitly activated (H2b). We predict
no difference in African Americans‘ and Caucasians‘ willingness to upgrade which
suggests that it is not a greater desire to purchase the products that elevates willingness to
pay, but rather a need for status as hypothesized.
2.8.6 Results – Room Upgrade
The data were analyzed using a 2 (Race) x 2 (Salience) GLM, with an individual
model for each product upgrade (hotel room, flight). Because covariates (i.e., emotions,
gender, age, income) were included in our model, we report Least Squares Means (LSM).
Purchase likelihood. As in Study 1, African Americans (LSM
AA
= 4.49, SE
AA
=
.20) and Caucasians (LSM
C
= 4.13, SE
C
= .12) reported being equally likely to bid to
upgrade the hotel room, F(1, 331) = 2.37, p > .10. This suggests differences in
willingness to pay for the upgrade are unlikely to be attributable to product preference.
Bid amount. We excluded 15 respondents (4%) who did not report how much
they were WTP to upgrade. Gender and income were not significant drivers of how much
individuals were WTP to upgrade, ts(312) < 1.0, p > .40. Age had a negative impact on
how much individuals were WTP (b = -11.99, t(312) = 4.70, p < .01), consistent with
past research (Schau, Gilly, & Wolfinbarger, 2009).
As predicted, there was a significant interaction between race and salience, F(1,
312) = 7.81, p < .01. When race was explicitly activated, African Americans were WTP

26
significantly more to upgrade their room than Caucasians, t(178) = 4.32, p < .01, d = .76,
supporting hypothesis 2a (see Figure 2-3). As expected, African Americans were WTP
more when their race was explicitly rather than implicitly activated, t(86) = 3.40, p < .01,
d = .73, in support of hypothesis 2b. There was no statistical difference in bid amount
between African Americans and Caucasians when race was implicitly activated, t(150) <
.50, p > .50.
FIGURE 2-3. LEAST SQUARES MEANS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS) OF
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ROOM UPGRADE

NFS. Since we conducted a moderated regression, NFS was centered around its
grand mean (Aiken & West, 1991). As predicted and in line with hypothesis 1, we found
a significant three-way interaction between NFS, race and salience, F(1, 312) = 7.46, p <
.01 (see Figure 2-4). For African Americans with a higher (than average) NFS, explicit
$128.19
$62.33
$65.72
$60.34
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
Explicit Implicit
Willingness to pay
African American Caucasian

27
activation of their race increased how much they were WTP for the upgrade (b = 35.35,
t(312) = 2.73, p < .01).
FIGURE 2-4: LEAST SQUARES MEANS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS) OF
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ROOM UPGRADE BY NEED FOR STATUS

Note. For illustrative purposes ONLY, high NFS is defined as being greater than the
median NFS.

Racial identification. Like NFS, the racial identification score was centered
around its grand mean. In general, African Americans (M
AA
= 3.98, SE
A
= .14) reported
identifying with their race significantly more than Caucasians did (M
C
= 2.97, SE
C
= .09),
t(323) = 6.09, p < .01. As hypothesized (H3), there was a significant three-way
interaction of racial identification, race and salience, F(1, 312) = 6.73, p < .01 (see Figure
2-5). African Americans who were stronger (than average) racial identifiers reported
being WTP less to upgrade their room when their race was explicitly activated (b = -
$164.17
$68.57
$63.89
$58.56
$86.43
$81.38
$65.73
$58.87
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
African American - Explicit
Salience
African American - Implicit
Salience
Caucasian - Explicit
Salience
Caucasian - Implicit
Salience
Willingness to pay
Race and Salience
High NFS Low NFS

28
39.34, t(312) = 2.59, p < .01; see Table 2-1). When race was explicitly activated, African
Americans may have become more aware of the societal categorization of having low
status. As shown, paying more provides an opportunity for individuals to fulfill a need for
status. We argue that, when race is explicitly activated, highly identified African
Americans behave in a way that withholds endorsement of the societally-imposed
hierarchy. In other words, high identifiers do not use paying more to elevate status,
because they reject the notion that they are inferior.
FIGURE 2-5: LEAST SQUARES MEANS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS) OF
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ROOM UPGRADE BY RACIAL
IDENTIFICATION

Note. For illustrative purposes ONLY, high racial identification is defined as being
greater than the median racial identification score.

$99.17
$71.40
$71.36
$64.90
$150.00
$94.09
$60.01
$54.48
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
African American - Explicit
Salience
African American - Implicit
Salience
Caucasian - Explicit Salience Caucasian - Implicit Salience
Willingness to pay
Race and Salience
High Racial Identification Low Racial Identification

29
TABLE 2-1: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR ROOM UPGRADE
Parameter Estimate Standard
Error
t Value Pr > |t|
Intercept 55.62 29.92 1.86 0.064
Race: African American 1.91 16.43 0.12 0.907
Salience: Explicit 5.37 10.00 0.54 0.591
Race* Salience: African
American - Explicit
61.00 21.82 2.80 0.006
Gender: Female 6.84 9.06 0.76 0.451
Age -11.99 2.55 -4.70 <.0001
Income 2.06 3.15 0.65 0.514
Affect 8.69 5.49 1.58 0.114
NFS 0.89 4.88 0.18 0.856
NFS*Race: African American -7.03 8.86 -0.79 0.428
NFS* Salience: Explicit -1.52 6.19 -0.25 0.806
NFS*Race* Salience: African
American – Explicit
35.35 12.94 2.73 0.007
Racial Identification 1.33 5.67 0.24 0.814
Racial Identification*Race:
African American
5.43 10.88 0.50 0.618
Racial Identification* Salience:
Explicit
0.38 7.33 0.05 0.959
Racial Identification*Race*
Salience: African American –
Explicit
-39.34 15.16 -2.59 0.010

2.8.7 Results – Flight Upgrade
Purchase likelihood. As expected, there was no difference between African
Americans (LSM
AA
= 3.82, SE
AA
= .20) and Caucasians (LSM
C
= 3.48, SEc = .12) in their
likelihood to bid to upgrade the flight, F(1, 331) = 2.09, p > .10.
Bid amount. We excluded 13 respondents (4%) who did not report how much
they were WTP to upgrade. Gender was not a significant driver of how much individuals
were WTP to upgrade, t(311) = 2.48, p > .10. As before, age had a negative impact on
how much individuals were WTP (b = -7.03, t(311) = 1.92, p < .10). We also found that

30
individuals who had a higher income were WTP more for the flight upgrade (b = 7.79,
t(311) = 1.92, p < .10). We controlled for the affects of age and income in our analyses
and hence we report Least Squares Means.
When race was explicitly activated, African Americans were WTP significantly
more to upgrade than Caucasians, t(187) = 3.44, p < .01, d = .58, again replicating our
results from Study 1 and in support of H2a. Supporting H2b, we find African Americans
were WTP more when their race was explicitly as opposed to implicitly activated, t(90) =
2.15, p < .01, d = .73. There was no difference in bid amount between African Americans
and Caucasians when race was implicitly activated, t(155) < .50, p > .50 (see Figure 2-6).
FIGURE 2-6: LEAST SQUARES MEANS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS) OF
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FLIGHT UPGRADE

$131.34
$77.38
$66.81
$67.84
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
Explicit Implicit
Willingness to Pay
African American Caucasian

31
NFS. We found a significant three-way interaction between NFS, race and
salience, F(1, 311) = 5.23, p < .05, (see Figure 2-7). For African Americans with a higher
(than average) NFS, explicit activation of their race increased how much they were WTP
for the flight upgrade (b = 41.96, t(311) = 2.51, p < .05), in support of hypothesis 1. This
suggests that paying more allows African Americans who are high in NFS and sensitized
to their race, an opportunity to elevate their personal status.
FIGURE 2-7: LEAST SQUARES MEANS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS) OF
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FLIGHT UPGRADE BY NEED FOR STATUS

Note. For illustrative purposes ONLY, high NFS is defined as being greater than the
median NFS.

$197.11
$71.79
$71.98
$65.26
$110.89
$105.82
$65.53
$67.87
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
African American - Explicit
Salience
African American - Implicit
Salience
Caucasian - Explicit Salience Caucasian - Implicit Salience
Willingness to Pay
Race and Salience
High NFS Low NFS

32
Racial identification. Directionally, we found support for hypothesis 3. African
Americans who were stronger (than average) racial identifiers reported being WTP less to
upgrade their room when their race was explicitly, rather than implicitly, activated (b = -
21.51, t(311) = 1.10, p > .25; see Figure 2-8; Table 2-2).
FIGURE 2-8: LEAST SQUARES MEANS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS) OF
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FLIGHT UPGRADE BY RACIAL
IDENTIFICATION

Note. For illustrative purposes ONLY, high racial identification is defined as being
greater than the median racial identification.
$126.67
$87.47
$76.12
$84.58
$179.41
$115.91
$62.71
$54.02
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
African American - Explicit
Salience
African American - Implicit
Salience
Caucasian - Explicit
Salience
Caucasian - Implicit
Salience
Willingness to Pay
Race and Salience
High Racial Identification Low Racial Identification

33
TABLE 2-2: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR FLIGHT UPGRADE
Parameter Estimate Standard
Error
t Value Pr > |t|
Intercept 17.73 38.71 0.46 0.647
Race: African American 9.45 21.22 0.45 0.656
Salience: Explicit -1.03 12.94 -0.08 0.937
Race* Salience: African
American - Explicit
55.32 28.19 1.96 0.051
Gender: Female 18.45 11.71 1.58 0.116
Age -7.03 3.31 -2.13 0.034
Income 7.79 4.07 1.92 0.056
Affect 9.57 7.09 1.35 0.178
NFS 0.11 6.30 0.02 0.987
NFS*Race: African
American
-12.26 11.44 -1.07 0.285
NFS* Salience: Explicit 0.15 8.00 0.02 0.985
NFS*Race* Salience:
African American – Explicit
41.96 16.71 2.51 0.013
Racial Identification 5.83 7.32 0.80 0.426
Racial Identification*Race:
African American
2.84 14.05 0.20 0.840
Racial Identification*
Salience: Explicit
-0.97 9.51 -0.10 0.919
Racial Identification*Race*
Salience: African American
– Explicit
-21.51 19.60 -1.10 0.273

2.8.8 Discussion
Our findings indicate that when status, vis-à-vis race, is explicitly activated,
African Americans are WTP considerably more to upgrade, compared both with
Caucasians and with the case when race was implicitly activated. While there is no racial
difference in likelihood to bid to upgrade, African Americans are willing to bid
considerably more than Caucasians in dollar terms. For African Americans, paying more
may likely be a strategy to elevate personal status, as demonstrated by the moderating
role of NFS on willingness to pay. We also found that more highly identified African

34
Americans were willing to bid less to upgrade. For these individuals, paying less may be
a group-focused strategy to reject the status hierarchy and accompanying stereotypes.
2.9 CHAPTER DISCUSSION
African Americans are subject to many forms of discrimination in the
marketplace, with one of the most well-known being racial disparities in pricing for
products and services. Our work shows that African Americans, who are said to have
lower endowed status than Caucasians, sometimes increase their willingness to pay for
products as a means to fulfill their personal status needs. As Austin (1994) suggested,
―blacks use money to purchase what they cannot earn, namely status‖ (p. 232).
It is important to note that our work does not advocate price discrimination, nor
does it attempt to validate asking African Americans to pay more. Our goal is to raise
awareness that some individuals may sometimes support an unfair system through their
own behavior. By highlighting how an entrenched status hierarchy, which no one can
rightfully condone, may create internalized imperatives for African Americans to pay
more, we provide insight into race-based status dynamics and how they affect
consumption patterns.
On a broader scale, our work extends research on system justification and status-
legitimizing ideologies, which propose that low-status individuals (e.g., women, ethnic
minorities) are motivated to sustain the belief that the social system is fair and that status
hierarchies are justified (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Wright, Taylor,
and Moghaddam (1990) suggest that the slightest possibility of individual mobility, due
to personal merit, causes low-status individuals to legitimize objectively unjust status
hierarchies (e.g., race or gender based). As such, African Americans may pay more in an

35
attempt at individual mobility. This payment differential, however, can also reify an
unjust status hierarchy that oppresses African Americans as a group.
Previous researchers have suggested that high ethnic-group identifiers are less
likely than low identifiers to legitimize status hierarchies (Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, &
Frederico, 1998). Our findings support this by showing that highly identified African
Americans do not elevate their willingness to pay for products when their race is
explicitly activated. We argue that this results from their identifying more as true group
members than as individuals for whom the group is an imposed social-category label.
Rather than struggling for individual mobility through spending, these African Americans
simply reject their group‘s subordination.
2.10 CHAPTER CONCLUSION
People want to be recognized and acknowledged. Having high status has many
benefits such as preferential treatment, respect in others‘ eyes, and feelings of superiority.
While status can be endowed by birth, it can also be attained through individual effort
and achievements. As such, low status individuals can engage in behaviors that elevate
their status. When unjustly classified as having low status (e.g., by a race-based
hierarchy), low status group members may attempt to elevate their individual positions.
For African Americans, this may entail voluntarily spending more money to personally
disconfirm the stereotype that they are poor. Our work shows that, while elevating
personal status seems advantageous, it may come at a cost—literally.

36

CHAPTER 3: THE INTRINSIC BENEFITS OF STATUS
2

3.1 CHAPTER ABSTRACT
There is an emerging trend whereby consumers can attain high status by
demonstrating their loyalty (through their spending) towards a firm. This work
documents intrinsic benefits consumers derive while utilizing exclusive privileges that
accompany elite status. These purely psychological benefits are separate and distinct
from previously documented social and material benefits known to accompany elevated
rank. Across three studies, we find consumers who attain high status in a loyalty program
engage in ―status congruent behavior,‖ which conforms to role expectations. We find
when consumers engage in status congruent behavior even at a cost to themselves, such
as a longer wait or an additional expenditure they enhance their self-concept and derive
an intrinsic benefit – elevated prestige. Making a consumer‘s high status role more salient
further increases their propensity to engage in this behavior.
3.2 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION
Imagine a frequent flier possesses elite status on an airline, which entitles her to
access exclusive check-in and security queues at her local airport. As she enters the elite
security queue, she notices the non-elite queue is both shorter and moving faster. Does

2
A paper co-authored with Joseph C. Nunes is based on this essay as per the details
below.
Aarti S. Ivanic and Joseph C. Nunes (2010), ―Because I Can, I Must! Exercising One‘s
Status to Affirm One‘s Place.‖ The paper is being prepared for submission to the Journal
of Marketing Research.

37
she switch? Casual observation suggests many people don‘t, despite the fact the
screening process at the end of the queue is identical for all passengers. Similarly, many
hotel ―club floor‖ guests choose to have their complimentary breakfast in the executive
lounge rather than the main restaurant despite the former‘s often limited menu, simply
because the privilege is theirs. Why would someone with high status insist on utilizing an
exclusive privilege even when it comes at a cost? This research shows many consumers
utilize exclusive privileges that accompany one‘s high status and engage in some ―costly‖
behaviors to derive an intrinsic benefit, an elevated sense of prestige.
Companies increasingly rank customers, using loyalty programs to award their
best customers with exclusive rewards and recognition. In doing so, a new form of
stratification is emerging in consumption settings; customers are obtaining special status
in the marketplace by demonstrating their loyalty to a firm (Drèze & Nunes, 2009). For
example, Regent Cruise Lines categorizes customers based on the number of days per
year a passenger is aboard one of their ships. Silver members are entitled to a range of
perks from free internet access on board to private events on shore. Diamond members at
Harrah‘s casino in Las Vegas are given an exclusive registration room, free valet parking,
and entrance into a variety of leading local night clubs. These perks have obvious
material benefits and can also act as a signal to others that the recipient is part of an elite
class of consumers.
Apart from, or in addition to these material and social benefits, our research
suggests consumers take advantage of exclusive privileges as doing so positively impacts
their self-concept. It has been shown that individuals use products to enact certain
identities (Kleine III, Kleine, & Kernan, 1993), and consumption objects help form a

38
person‘s self-concept (Belk, 1988; Escalas, 2004). We propose the utilization of
exclusive rewards helps reinforce an individual‘s positive self-concept vis-à-vis his or
her role identity.
An individual can have multiple role identities such as employee, student, athlete,
and consumer. Each role identity is transient and many are embedded in an implicit
hierarchy. For example, a role identity of a business professional is associated with a
specific hierarchy, and an individual achieves a certain rank within the hierarchy (e.g.
president, manager, analyst, etc.). Consumers who attain status within a loyalty program
are similar to professionals who climb the ranks of their company, officers who ascend
the ranks of the military, or students whose academic achievements place them at the top
of their class. As such, we conceptualize consumer as a ―role identity‖ and status as a key
facet or ―role element‖ that helps govern how consumers of different ranks will behave.
When an individual‘s high status role is made salient, associated role-specific
expectations are activated, which impact behavior. For example, a vice president is
expected to act a certain way when in situations highlighting her role (e.g., at work,
professional events). Successful enactment of a role identity that entails acting in
congruence with role expectations is important in the development and maintenance of an
individual‘s self-concept, psychological well-being, and self-esteem (Thoits, 1991). We
propose that when an individual categorizes herself as a high status consumer, she
engages in what we term ―status congruent behavior,‖ behavior in line with expectations
associated with her high status role, enacted to enhance her positive self-concept. In
doing so, a high status consumer derives an intrinsic benefit of status, an elevated sense
of prestige.

39
3.3 CHAPTER CONTRIBUTION
We offer both theoretical and practical contributions to the marketing literature.
First, we demonstrate the impact of status within the consumer role identity on behavior.
Research on role identity theory has studied the hierarchy of different roles an individual
holds or how some roles are more a part of the self than others (e.g., father first, employer
second etc.; Callero, 1985; McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1980). Our work is
different as we study how one‘s position in the hierarchy within a particular role (e.g.,
airline frequent flier: elite flier vs. non-elite flier) impacts behavior.
Second, we identify and isolate a strictly psychological and hence intrinsic benefit
garnered from exercising the privileges afforded to someone with high status. This
benefit is distinct from the more widely studied social and material benefits that
accompany one‘s elevated rank. A significant amount of research on loyalty programs
has explored the impact of material or economic benefits (e.g., free upgrades, discounts)
on consumers‘ repurchase intentions and satisfaction with the firm (Homburg, Droll, &
Totzek, 2008; Lewis, 2004), including how consumers in different status tiers respond to
rewards (Lacy, Suh, & Morgan, 2007). Other research has demonstrated how individuals
engage in specific consumption behaviors (i.e., own or use particular products) for social
reasons: to signal their high status to others (Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982; Kleine III,
Kleine, & Kernan, 1993), to fit in with a group (Ross, Bierbrauer, & Hoffman, 1976), and
to feel unique (Simonson & Nowlis, 2000).
The current research differs as we show how consumers who attain high status
engage in role consistent behaviors, aside from purchasing or consuming products, even
if such behaviors come at a cost, in order to enhance their self-concept. In doing so, they

40
derive an intrinsic benefit: an elevated sense of prestige. By prestige, we refer to the
cognitive and valuative phenomenon that accompanies a sense of achievement (Wegener,
1992), which is consistent with our focus on a role identity associated with status attained
within a loyalty program. It is important for marketers to recognize the purely
psychological effects that awarding status can have on consumers because, as we show,
they can alter behavior significantly.
Finally, our work reveals ―action‖ is a key component required to elevate prestige,
and making one‘s status role highly salient makes this action more likely. Making one‘s
identity salient has been shown to bring to mind behaviors associated with that identity,
which leads individuals to behave in a manner consistent with the associations tied to that
particular identity (Forehand, Deshpandé, & Reed II, 2002). Since the consumer role is
transitory, only if an environment highlights the consumer role (e.g., frequent fliers at an
airport) and its associated status (e.g., elite flier vs. non-elite flier) can consumers be
expected to engage in status congruent behavior. We show making a consumer‘s status
more salient utilizing special cues significantly alters his or her propensity to engage in
status congruent behavior. While merely occupying a high status role or possessing high
status may provide individuals a sense of prestige, we show when consumers exercise the
privileges accompanying their status and engage in status congruent behavior, they
receive a boost to their prestige.
3.4 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
We proceed by reviewing relevant research on role identity, status, and identity
salience. In Study 1, we show that people expect consumers occupying a high status role
to engage in behavior that provides no economic or social benefits. We also show

41
individuals who acquire high status (i.e., status awarded based on consumption) engage
in this very behavior, even when doing so is costly. In Study 2 we demonstrate how, by
engaging in status congruent behavior, high status consumers derive an intrinsic benefit -
elevated prestige - distinct from material or social benefits. In this study, we parse out the
separate impact on prestige garnered from merely possessing high status versus
exercising the privileges accompanying one‘s high status. In Study 3, the salience of the
status associated with a role identity is shown to moderate consumers‘ propensity to
engage in status congruent behaviors.
3.5 LITERATURE REVIEW
3.5.1 Role Identity, Status, Behavioral Expectations
Research in sociology has taken multiple views of identity. While identity refers
to one‘s sense of self, a social identity refers to a person‘s knowledge that he or she
belongs to a social category or group (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Identity theorists refer to
the distinct selves, each designated for a position or role a person holds in society, as role
identities (Stryker, 1980). A key difference between a role identity and the broader class
of social identities is that when an individual occupies a particular role, he or she
differentiates himself or herself from an individual occupying a counter-role (e.g., high
status consumers vs. seller or low status consumer). On the other hand, when adopting a
social identity, an individual ensures uniformity between oneself and the social group to
which one belongs (e.g., female/women) (Stets & Burke, 2000).
Role identities are initially situation-specific and come to be known and
understood through interactions in that particular role (Callero, 1992). Each role has a set
of behavioral expectations that are considered appropriate by others (Simon, 1992). Any

42
role identity‘s expectations are derived from both cultural norms (i.e., how society
expects one to act in a particular role) as well as an individual‘s own interpretation and
understanding of what the role means to them. For example, over time, an individual
develops an understanding of what it means to be a mother, a doctor, or political activist.
The meaning and expectations for each role are internalized for future use in particular
situations requiring specific behavioral responses. Unlike stereotypes, which are defined
in terms of attributes associated with a social category (e.g., women are modest) (Amodio
& Devine, 2006), behavioral expectations are directly tied to role-specific actions (e.g.,
plumbers fix leaking faucets). In this work, we study the role identity of a consumer and
hence focus on how role specific expectations impact consumers‘ behavior.
There is an inherent ―status hierarchy‖ built into many role identities because
one‘s role (employer) is defined in relation to counter-roles (employees) in well-defined
status structures. Status structures are ―patterned inequalities‖ among a group of people
represented by a hierarchy among individuals resulting in differential deference to and
influence on others (Goffman, 1970; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995). Research in animal and
human social organization suggests status permeates group structures because ranking
allows an individual to retain a set of expectations about her own role and the role of
others (Ridgeway & Diekma, 1992). Rather than focus on social status in general, our
research focuses on status associated with one‘s role as a consumer, specifically within
the domain of loyalty programs but applying to business transactions more broadly.
Given individuals frequently assume the role identity of ―consumer‖ and
behavioral expectations associated with this particular role can depend on the embedded

43
status hierarchy, we propose acting in line with behavioral expectations is dependent on
one‘s position within that hierarchy. This leads us to our first formal hypothesis:

H1: High status individuals conform to role-specific expectations by choosing to
engage in status congruent behavior, even in the absence of material and social
benefits.
3.5.2 The Intrinsic Benefit
For a high status consumer, engaging in status congruent behavior helps validate
his or her standing as a high status role member, which is expected to positively impact
his or her self-concept (Callero, 1985; Riley & Burke, 1995). We propose, by engaging in
status congruent behavior, high status consumers enhance their sense of self. Swann,
Pelham, and Krull (1989) defined ―simple self-enhancement‖ as the process whereby
people strive systematically to promote the perception that others think well of them.
Research in this stream has studied self-presentational strategies (Baumeister, 1982) and
the targets with whom people compare themselves (Wills, 1981) as self-enhancement
strategies. We identify a process of self-enhancement that is not directly dependent on the
perceptions of others. We propose individuals with high status frequently engage in
certain behaviors in order to feel better about themselves aside from altering others‘
perceptions of their standing. In turn, they receive a distinct intrinsic benefit, elevated
prestige, from acting in a status congruent manner.
We propose prestige is a multi-faceted construct composed of how much ―pride,‖
―importance‖ and ―esteem‖ an individual experiences after he or she attains high status
and engages in status congruent behavior. When an individual attains high status through

44
competence, he or she generates a feeling of satisfaction or ―pride‖ (Kemper, 1978).
Accompanying high status and ranking is deference from others, which makes the high
status individual feel ―important.‖ Further, Wegener (1992) proposed ―esteem‖ is a
theoretical foundation of prestige. As engaging in status congruent behavior allows an
individual to enhance his or her self-concept, we believe ―esteem‖ is a critical component
of prestige. Hence, when an individual attains high status and engages in status congruent
behaviors, he or she may experience a heightened sense of pride, importance, and esteem.
People want to believe that they are better than others (Taylor & Brown, 1988)
and often engage in downward comparisons in order to enhance their subjective well-
being (Locke & Nekich, 2000; Suls, Martin, & Wheeler 2002). We acknowledge that, for
some, the simple act of engaging in social comparison or thinking about one‘s position
(i.e., merely occupying a high status role) may contribute to a heightened sense of
prestige. Yet, we propose that exercising one‘s high status by engaging in ―status
congruent behavior,‖ which does not rely on comparing oneself to others, allows
individuals to further enhance their self-concept. We state this more formally as
hypotheses 2a and 2b:

H2a: The mere possession of high status elevates prestige.
H2b: High status individuals who engage in status congruent behavior elevate
prestige compared to high status individuals who do not engage in status
congruent behavior.

45
3.5.3 Identity Salience
Up to this point, we have argued high status individuals will be prone to engage in
status congruent behavior and by doing so elevate their sense of prestige. When the status
(high or low) associated with a consumer role is made salient, individuals become
mindful of the behavioral expectations tied to their position. Research has shown that
activating one‘s social identity often leads an individual to behave in a manner consistent
with the associations tied to that particular identity. For example, Shih, Pittinsky, and
Ambady (1999) demonstrated how making different social identities (i.e., gender versus
ethnicity) salient can differentially impact test performance. Asian women, when their
Asian heritage (gender) was made salient, performed better (worse) than a control group
on a math exam. The results suggest individuals conform to social stereotypes that Asians
(women) possess above (below) average math skills. Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady (1999)
focused on the distinct social identities of gender and ethnicity and not on the implicit
hierarchy within these identities. Further, they measured the impact of identity salience
on a change in performance.
In contrast, our work explores the impact of making status embedded within a
consumer role identity salient and the subsequent impact on behavior, in particular
choice. This distinction is important theoretically but is also relevant to marketers
because our effects pertain to uniquely market-related behaviors such as deciding which
queue to enter and whether to attend select promotional shopping events. We propose that
when status within a consumer role is made particularly salient, high status individuals
are more likely than low status individuals to engage in status congruent behavior. For
high status individuals, doing so enhances their self-concept. Low status individuals who

46
engage in status congruent behavior are merely reminded of their low rank, which may be
detrimental to their self-concept. The moderating effect of role identity salience forms the
basis of hypothesis 3.

H3: When status is made salient, high status individuals are more prone than low
status individuals to engage in behavior that conforms to the expectations
associated with their role.
3.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY
To summarize, we propose and show how status is an integral component of a
role identity. High-status individuals are expected to and thus engage in status congruent
behavior, which enhances their self-concept. Doing so elevates their prestige, an intrinsic
benefit of status distinct from the social benefits and material benefits widely studied.
Finally, making the status associated with a role identity particularly salient, through
additional cues in a consumption environment, moderates the likelihood of engaging in
status congruent behavior (see Figure 3-1).
FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL

47
3.7 STUDY 1: STATUS CONGRUENT BEHAVIOR
3.7.1 Purpose
In Study 1, we demonstrate that people expect individuals with high status to go
out of their way to take advantage of the special privileges afforded them, even when
doing so is costly. Further, we show consumers who possess high status themselves are
even more prone to behave in line with role-specific expectations, thus conforming to
expectations while implying personal motivations drive choice.
3.7.2 Respondents and Design
Respondents were 202 business undergraduate students. This study was
conducted as a single-factor between subjects design. Our dependent measure was the
choice of check-in queue (elite vs. non-elite). We designed the study such that it was
clear to respondents that they would receive no material or social benefits from choosing
the elite check-in queue.
3.7.3 Procedure
In a paper-and-pencil task, respondents were instructed to imagine an
acquaintance or they themselves had accumulated 25,000 miles on an airline and thus
they had attained ―Elite‖ status in the airline‘s loyalty program with one benefit being a
special check-in queue. Participants were shown an illustration showing four identical
airline self-service kiosks (A, B, C, and D). Kiosk A was marked ―Elite Only,‖ while the
remainder had no such designation. There were no passengers or airline representatives
present at any of the four kiosks. Respondents were informed explicitly all counters were
open for service. We imposed a cost by highlighting that the individual was standing

48
farthest away from the elite line. Hence, to choose the elite counter would require a walk
across the airport and therein a cost.
3.7.4 Measures
Respondents were asked to make a choice of which counter they expected their
acquaintance or they themselves would check-in. After this, they were asked to list some
thoughts explaining the rationale behind their decision. Respondents were also asked to
indicate on a seven-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) whether they expected any
service differences across the four kiosks. On the same scale, they were also asked to
indicate whether they thought they would receive additional benefits from checking in at
Kiosk A.
3.7.5 Predictions
We have two predictions. First, a majority of respondents expect someone with
high status to choose the elite queue, even at a cost. Second, the vast majority of
respondents who possess high status will choose the elite queue, in line with behavioral
expectations.
3.7.6 Results
As expected, a significant majority of respondents expected the individual with
high status to choose the elite kiosk A (53%, χ
2
(3) = 72.90, p < .01). Similarly, the
majority of individuals who assumed a high status role saw themselves engaging in this
very behavior (53%, χ
2
(3) = 83.33, p < .01).

49
FIGURE 3-2: CHOICE OF ELITE QUEUE

Of those who responded, the most common response for choosing the elite queue
was engaging in status congruent behavior (e.g., ―because he is / I am elite‖, ―go to
something reserved for you‖). Forty-nine percent of respondents felt that the
acquaintance would go to the elite kiosk to engage in status congruent behavior while
43% reported this as the reason for their behavior. Other reasons included using benefits
that were earned (acquaintance: 12%, self: 6%) and expectation of better service
(acquaintance: 9%, self: 27%). See Table 3-1 below for all responses.
53%
1%
5%
41%
53%
2% 2%
43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Kiosk A (Elite
queue)
Kiosk B Kiosk C Kiosk D
Other Self

50
TABLE 3-1: REASONS FOR CHOOSING ELITE QUEUE
Acquaintance Self
Reasons for
Choosing Elite
Queue
Counts Percent Counts Percent
Status Congruent
Behavior (behave in
line with
expectations).
21 49% 21 43%
Signal status to others. 5 12% 1 2%
Use benefits that are
earned.
5 12% 3 6%
Better service. 4 9% 13 27%
Get additional
benefits.
2 5% 3 6%
It makes me feel
unique.
2 5% 0 0%
Get respect from
employees.
1 2% 0 0%
Miscellaneous 1 2% 2 4%
Employees will
prevent mistakes.
1 2% 0 0%
Employees will
provide help.
1 2% 0 0%
It is more exclusive. 0 0% 1 2%
It is the ‗rational‘
thing to do.
0 0% 4 8%
It is more valuable. 0 0% 1 2%
N 43 100% 49 100%

Despite four respondents saying they expected better service, on average,
respondents did not expect service differences across the four kiosks (M = 3.60 vs. M = 4,
t(201) = 3.16, p < .05). Further, despite a few expecting better service, the vast majority
did not expect to receive additional benefits from checking in at kiosk A (M = 4.16 vs. M
= 4, t(201) = 1.27, p > .10).

51
3.7.7 Discussion
Study 1 demonstrates an expectation exists for high status individuals to go out of
their way to take advantage of an exclusive privilege, even when it comes at a cost with
no discernible material or social benefit. Further, we find that when individuals achieve
status, they too are prone to engage in status-congruent behavior which is in line with role
expectations. In Study 2, we identify and measure an ―intrinsic‖ benefit of exercising
one‘s status, specifically elevated prestige.
3.8 STUDY 2: STATUS CONGRUENT BEHAVIOR ELEVATES PRESTIGE
3.8.1 Purpose
Study 2 was designed much like Study 1, such that respondents would incur the
cost of a longer wait if they chose to wait in an exclusive queue designated only for those
with high status. We added a cost to insure a net negative outcome resulted from
exercising the privilege accompanying one‘s high status. Further, the online nature of this
study eliminated any possibility of social signaling driving behavior - no one would
observe any individual participant‘s behavior and thus acknowledge his or her high
status. This allowed us to clearly isolate the non-material, non-social and hence intrinsic
benefit associated with engaging in status congruent behavior. This study also
distinguished between the benefits derived from engaging in status congruent behavior
and the benefit derived from possessing high status.
3.8.2 Respondents and Design
Participants were 83 individuals between the ages of 18 and 55 who responded to
an e-mail solicitation asking them to participate in an online study of shopping behavior.
Respondents were sent a web-link providing access to the survey. We manipulated two

52
factors between subjects. First, participants were told either they had attained high status
based on their spending patterns in a loyalty program (HS: high status) or nothing at all
about status (NS: no status). We also manipulated whether or not the online store featured
a special queue for high status shoppers (SQ: special queue available) or whether no such
queue was present (NSQ: no special queue available). Participants were randomly
assigned to one of four groups (HS/SQ, HS/NSQ, NS/SQ, NS/NSQ).
3.8.3 Procedure
Participants logging into the web site were told the purpose of the study was to
better understand how consumers make shopping decisions online. The study simulated
an online retailer selling a variety of books, DVDs, and CDs.
Respondents assigned to the two high-status conditions (i.e., HS/SQ, HS/NSQ)
were told the website had a frequent shopper club. Participants were instructed to imagine
that due to their frequent purchases they had earned ―Platinum‖ status, which came with
the following material benefits. Members with Platinum status would earn double points
for every dollar spent, receive a $10 reward after earning 200 points, free shipping for six
months after earning 250 points, and a special gift on their birthday. Note, however, that
respondents understood they were participating in a single, simulated shopping
experience and never actually expected to receive or benefit from any of these perks.
Respondents in the no-status conditions (i.e., NS/SQ; NS/NSQ) were not given any
information upfront concerning the retailer‘s status program or their lack of status.
After entering the site, participants were told there was an unavoidable delay
before they would be re-directed to the actual website where they would be able to begin
shopping. We manipulated whether or not the online store featured a special queue for

53
high status shoppers that would direct them to the website. When such a queue was
available, respondents in the HS/SQ and NS/SQ conditions saw two buttons on screen
that offered a choice between a special queue reserved for high status members labeled
―Platinum Members Only‖ and a general queue for all shoppers labeled ―All Shoppers:
Including Platinum Members.‖ It is important to note that the general queue explicitly
conveyed that this queue was for shoppers both with high status and no status. The high
status queue offered no apparent benefit other than its exclusivity. For those in the
HS/SQ, condition choosing the high status queue allowed them to exercise their status
and engage in status congruent behavior. Individuals in the no-status condition who saw
both buttons (NS/SQ) could not select the high status queue; they simply saw the button,
but it was not highlighted and clicking on it did nothing. They did, however, become
aware of the presence of a high status group to which they did not belong. Respondents in
the no special queue conditions (i.e., HS/NSQ, NS/NSQ) were not aware there was a
special queue for high-status individuals. Yet, individuals in the HS/NSQ condition could
infer that there existed a group with no status, based on the typical tiered structure of
status programs.
A pre-test indicated waiting 65 seconds compared to waiting 43 seconds to be
redirected to a server when shopping online was both more painful (M
65 seconds
= 6.39 vs.
M
43 seconds
= 5.63, t(60) = 3.70, p < .01) and more frustrating (M
65 seconds
= 6.26 vs. M
43
seconds
= 5.73, t(60) = 2.65, p < .01), as measured on a seven-point scales (1 = not at all, 7
= extremely). Hence, to make it costly for individuals to utilize the special queue, the high
status only queue indicated a longer wait time (65 seconds) than the queue permitting all
shoppers (43 seconds) to access the virtual store. When the virtual storefront did not

54
feature a special queue, respondents were simply instructed to wait. Individuals with high
status and individuals without status were told the wait time was 65 seconds and 43
seconds, respectively.
Participants were provided 200 points with which to shop for different items
simulating an actual online shopping task, the ostensible purpose of the study. For high
status members, a platinum-colored star and the words ―PLATINUM MEMBER‖
appeared on each screen while shopping. Those without status did not have any such
symbol. While the buttons and star manipulation ensured high status was salient to all
high status individuals, we examine the impact of differential salience of one‘s status on
behavior more directly in Study 3. After completing the shopping task, participants were
asked a series of questions designed to measure the intrinsic benefit of status,
specifically, the level of prestige they experienced at the time.
3.8.4 Design Summary
To summarize, our design resulted in four groups (see Figure 3-3, Table 3-2).
Note, through their own choice, the high status group with access to a special queue
(HS/SQ) was divided into those who exercised their status by choosing the special queue
(HS/SQ-CSQ), thereby engaging in status congruent behavior and those who did not
exercise their status by not choosing the special queue (HS/SQ-DNCSQ). Again, given
the non-orthogonal nature of our design, a priori comparative predictions between these
five distinct groups formed the basis of our analysis.

55
FIGURE 3-3: DESIGN SUMMARY WITH SCREEN CAPTURES

TABLE 3-2: DESIGN SUMMARY
No Special Queue Available
(NSQ)
Special Queue Available (SQ)
No Status (NS) (1): NS/NSQ
Are never aware of status
differences
(2): NS/SQ
Are aware that status differences
exist and that they do not have
status
High Status
(HS)
(3): HS/NSQ
Know they have high status,
but cannot exercise status in the
study.
(4): HS/SQ
Know they have high status and can
exercise status by choosing the
special queue
(4 a): HS/SQ-
CSQ
Choose
special queue
(4b): HS/SQ-
DNCSQ
Did not choose
special queue

3.8.5 Measures
Prestige. Respondents were asked to what extent they felt ―pride,‖ ―importance,‖
and ―esteem,‖ each measured on seven-point scales with higher values indicating greater

56
subjective experiences. These items were averaged to create the composite prestige
measure (α = .95).
NFS. Respondents completed an abbreviated three-item need-for-status scale
derived from Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn et al. (1999) to account for status-
consciousness. On seven-point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = very much), respondents
indicated their interest in products with status, how likely they would be to pay more for
products with status, and how relevant the status of a product was to them. Items were
averaged to form a composite need-for-status measure (α = .82), which was included as a
covariate in our analysis.
Positive emotions. Because attaining high status may lead some participants to
generate positive feelings, we measured positive emotions associated with achievement
(e.g., ―happiness,‖ ―delight‖) drawn from Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer (1999). These
emotions were measured on seven-point scales with higher values indicating greater
intensity. Items were averaged to form a composite measure of positive emotions (α =
.80) and like need-for-status was included in our analysis as a covariate.
3.8.6 Predictions
Our hypothesizing leads to two principal predictions. First, we expect individuals
who possess high status (HS/NSQ) to feel a greater sense of prestige than individuals
who do not have status but know there exists a high status group to which they do not
belong (NS/SQ; H2a). Individuals in the HS/NSQ and those in the NS/SQ groups both
have knowledge there exist two groups of differing status, yet individuals in the HS/NSQ
should feel more prestige by merely occupying a high status role. Individuals who

57
possess high status will also feel a greater sense of prestige than individuals without
status who do not have knowledge of a high status group (NS/NSQ; H2a).
Second, high status individuals who engage in status congruent behavior (HS/SQ-
CSQ) feel an elevated sense of prestige. Their reported sense of prestige should be
significantly higher than those who possess high status but do not choose to exercise their
status (HS/SQ-DNCSQ) and those who cannot exercise their high status (HS/NSQ) as
predicted by H2b.
3.8.7 Results
Status congruent behavior. First and foremost, consistent with H1, of those high
status individuals who were afforded the choice of a special queue, 67% willingly
incurred the cost (longer wait) to engage in status congruent behavior despite knowingly
receiving neither material nor social benefits.
NFS. Need-for-status was a marginally significant predictor of choice of special
queue (b = .75, χ
2
(1) = 3.42, p = .06). We found high status individuals who engaged in
status congruent behavior (M
HS/SQ-CSQ
= 4.21) displayed a higher need-for-status than
individuals with high status who did not engage in status congruent behavior (M
HS/SQ-
DNCSQ
= 2.95), F(1, 19) = 4.21, p = .05 (see Table 3-3). Therefore, we controlled for the
effect of need-for-status in subsequent analyses.

58
TABLE 3-3: NEED FOR STATUS - DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Group

N

Mean Standard
Error
High status/special queue-chose special queue
(HS/SQ-CSQ)
14 4.21
a
.30
High status/ special queue-did not choose special
queue (HS/SQ-DNCSQ)
7 2.95
b
.59
No status/special queue (NS/SQ) 21 3.43
a, b
.32
High status/no special queue (HS/NSQ) 22 3.80
a, b
.22
No status/no special queue (NS/NSQ) 19 3.11
a
.38
*a’s and b’s are significantly different at p < .5
*Same subscripts are not significantly different, p > .10

Positive emotions. Before analyzing our planned contrasts, we tested the impact
of possessing and exercising status on positive emotions. We expected that both
possessing high status as well as engaging in status congruent behavior would generate
positive emotions. We found individuals who possessed high status but lacked the
opportunity to exercise their status (M
HS/NSQ
= 4.0) felt significantly stronger positive
emotions than those without status who had knowledge of a high status group to which
they did not belong (M
NS/SQ
= 3.29), F(1, 78) = 4.50, p < .05 and marginally higher
positive emotions than those without status who had no knowledge of a high status group
(M
NS/NSQ
= 3.42), F(1, 78) = 2.81, p = .10. In addition, exercising one‘s high status
(M
HS/SQ-CSQ
= 4.82) resulted in stronger positive emotions than possessing high status but
choosing not to exercise one‘s status (M
HS/SQ-DNCSQ
= 3.57), F(1, 78) = 5.99, p < .05. It
also resulted in stronger positive emotions than those who possessed high status without
an opportunity to exercise it (M
HS/NSQ
= 4.0), F(1, 78) = 4.74, p < .05. As possessing and
exercising status were both shown to impact positive emotions, we controlled for positive
emotions in subsequent analyses (see Table 3-4).

59
TABLE 3-4: POSITIVE EMOTIONS - DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Group

N

Means Standard
Error
High status/special queue-chose special queue
(HS/SQ-CSQ)
14 4.82
a
.25
High status/ special queue-did not choose special
queue (HS/SQ-DNCSQ)
7 3.57
c
.47
No status/special queue (NS/SQ) 21 3.29
b
.21
High status/no special queue (HS/NSQ) 22 4.00
c
.29
No status/no special queue (NS/NSQ) 19 3.42
c
.23
*Different subscripts are significantly different at p < .05
*Same subscripts are not significantly different, p > .10
Prestige. We analyzed our data using a General Linear Model that included five
groups: (1) no status/no special queue (NS/NSQ), (2) no status/special queue (NS/SQ),
(3) high status/no special queue (HS/NSQ), (4) high status/special queue-chose the
special queue (HS/SQ-CSQ), and (5) high status/special queue-did not choose the special
queue (HS/SQ-DNCSQ).
Need-for-status and positive emotions were used as covariates. Positive emotions
(b = .71, t(76) = 6.51, p < .01) had a significant effect on feelings of prestige, although
need-for-status (b = .03, t(76) = .37, p > .50) did not. To test differences between groups
while controlling for the effect of positive emotions, we utilized and report the least
squares means (LSM).
Supporting our first prediction and H2a, we found respondents who merely
possessed high status (LSM
HS/NSQ
= 3.90) reported a significantly higher sense of prestige
than those without status who were aware of a high status group (LSM
NS/SQ
= 2.98), F(1,
76) = 7.54, p < .01 as well as those without status who did not have a choice of special
queue (LSM
NS/NSQ
= 3.29), F(1, 76) = 3.12, p = .08. This implies that occupying a high
status role elevates an individual‘s sense of prestige.

60
Supporting H2b, we found high status individuals who engaged in status
congruent behavior (LSM
HS/SQ-CSQ
= 4.72) felt a sense of prestige significantly higher than
high status individuals who violated their high status role expectations by choosing the
faster queue open to all shoppers (LSM
HS/SQ-DNCSQ
= 3.41), F(1, 76) = 6.25, p < .05. As
predicted, we found engaging in status congruent behavior (LSM
HS/SQ-CSQ
= 4.72)
elevated prestige over simply possessing high status but with no choice to exercise one‘s
high status (LSM
HS/NSQ
= 3.90), F(1, 76) = 4.72, p < .05. These findings indicate
possessing high status makes individuals feel good about themselves, but engaging in
status congruent behavior makes them feel better. Engaging in status congruent behavior
allows high status individuals to enhance their self-concept and elevate their sense of
prestige (see Table 3-5).
TABLE 3-5: PRESTIGE - LEAST SQUARES MEANS
Group

N

Least
Squares
Means
Standard
Error
High status/special queue-chose special queue
(HS/SQ-CSQ)
14 4.72
a
.31
High status/ special queue-did not choose special
queue (HS/SQ-DNCSQ)
7 3.41
b, c
.41
No status/special queue (NS/SQ) 21 2.98
b
.24
High status/no special queue (HS/NSQ) 22 3.90
c
.23
No status/no special queue (NS/NSQ) 19 3.29
b
.25
*a is significantly different from b and c at p < .05
*b is significantly different from c at p < .10
*same subscripts are not significantly different; p > .10

3.8.8 Discussion
Study 2 further validates our conceptualization that individuals derive an intrinsic
benefit from engaging in status congruent behavior. We demonstrate this while

61
controlling for both the social and material benefits that often accompany one‘s high
rank. We find that high status individuals who fulfill their role expectations and engage in
status congruent behavior elevate their prestige compared to those who choose not to
exercise their high status and those who possess high status but are not afforded a choice.
In Study 2, only high status individuals were given a choice to engage in status
congruent behavior. In Study 3, we utilize a balanced design wherein all individuals (high
status and low status) are given the opportunity to engage in status congruent behavior by
attending an exclusive shopping event. This allows us to test for differences in prestige
for both high and low status individuals who either choose or decline to engage in status
congruent behavior.
3.9 STUDY 3: IDENTITY SALIENCE, STATUS CONGRUENT BEHAVIOR,
AND PRESTIGE
3.9.1 Purpose
In this study, we explore the impact of making one‘s status role particularly
salient on a consumer's propensity to engage in status congruent behavior (H3),
specifically, his or her likelihood of attending a special shopping event. Just as we did in
Study 2, we test the impact of acting in a status congruent manner on prestige (H2b).
3.9.2 Respondents and Design
Respondents were 279 undergraduate business students who participated in this
study along with others in exchange for course credit. The study was designed as a 2
(Status: high, low) x 2 (Salience: high, low) between subjects factorial. We manipulated
whether or not an individual attained high status in a loyalty program (high status/low
status) as well as the extent to which his or her status was made highly salient (high

62
salience/low salience). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of these four
conditions. We had two dependent variables of interest: first, the decision to engage in
status congruent behavior, measured by the percentage of respondents choosing to attend
a shopping event exclusive to one‘s status group and second, prestige after individuals
either or chose pr did not choose to engage in status congruent behavior.
3.9.3 Procedure
The study was conducted in a computer laboratory. The stated purpose was to
study internet shopping behavior. Participants were asked to imagine they were a
frequent shopper at Best Buy, a well-known national electronics store chain. Consistent
with an actual program, respondents were told the retailer maintains a loyalty program
called Reward Zone
®
whose members accumulate points for every dollar spent in the
store and receive a variety of in-store and online rewards. The rewards include a 45-day
return policy, a gift during the month of their birthday, and membership to the store‘s
exclusive magazine Best. Participants were informed that Reward Zone members who
spent more than $1,000 per year achieved ―Premier Silver‖ status. They were asked to
imagine that, due to their spending patterns, they either possessed Premier Silver status
(high status) or did not (low status). Participants in all conditions were told they had an
accumulated 600 reward points in their account.
Respondents were then given a choice involving exclusive online shopping
events. All respondents saw three buttons indicating three different special events: one
event was restricted to ―Premier Silver Members Only‖ (henceforth, ―PSMO‖); a second
was restricted to ―Non Premier Silver Members Only‖ (henceforth, ―NPSMO‖); while the
third was open to ―All Reward Zone Members (both Premier Silver and Non Premier

63
Silver Members)‖ (henceforth, ―ARZM‖). Consequently, all participants recognized that
there was a group with high status (Premier Silver) and one with low status (Non Premier
Silver). While everyone saw three possible events, each status group (high status/low
status) was given a choice between only two events, one restricted to their status group
(―PSMO‖/ ―NPSMO‖) and one open to both groups (―ARZM‖). Respondents were
informed explicitly that the same products and prices would be available at all events. To
make it costly to engage in status congruent behavior (i.e., choose the event restricted to
one‘s status group), admission to the exclusive event (either ―PSMO‖ or ―NPSMO‖) cost
350 reward points, while the event open to ―ARZM‖ cost 50 points less at 300 reward
points. Participants made the choice of which event they preferred to attend.
While being presented with the choice of an exclusive shopping event made one‘s
high status or low status salient, we further manipulated salience by varying the
frequency with which respondents were exposed to an additional visual cue reminding
them of their status (see Figures 3-4, 3-5). This is consistent with what consumers
commonly encounter in environments highlighting their status (e.g., special red-carpets at
the airport). Commencing on the initial screen of the study, those in the high salience
conditions saw either ―Premier Silver Member‖ or ―Non Premier Silver Member‖ on six
screens prior to making their shopping event selection. Those in the low salience
condition were informed whether or not they had status on the initial screen, but no other
mention of their status was made.
After making their choice of shopping event, participants were informed that they
either had 250 reward points (if they chose the exclusive ―PMSO‖/―NPSMO‖ shopping
event) or 300 reward points (if they chose the event open to ―ARZM‖), which could be

64
used to shop for products. Participants then completed the shopping task, the stated
purpose of the study. After the task was complete, individuals were asked to fill out a set
of items identical to that in Study 2 that measured their prestige.
FIGURE 3-4: CHOICE OF SPECIAL EVENT – HIGH STATUS
(SCREEN CAPTURE)

FIGURE 3-5: CHOICE OF SPECIAL EVENT – LOW STATUS
(SCREEN CAPTURE)

65
3.9.4 Measures
Controls. Prior to the main study, participants completed a five-item need-for-
status scale (Eastman et al., 1999) as well as the same measures of positive emotions
associated with achievement (e.g., ―happiness,‖ ―delight‖) utilized in Study 2. The items
measuring status needs were highly correlated and were averaged to create a composite
need for status score (α = .82). Similarly, positive emotions measures were averaged to
create a composite emotions measure (α = .80). Means for both need for status as well as
positive emotions were centered around the grand mean as suggested by Aiken and West
(1991).
Prestige. After respondents completed the shopping task, we measured their
overall prestige utilizing the same individual scales (‗pride,‘ ‗importance,‘ and ‗esteem‘)
as in Study 2. The three were averaged to create a composite prestige measure (α = .90).
In this study, we also included a measure asking respondents to rate how ―prestigious‖
they felt per se on a seven-point scale. We found no difference in our results whether
analyzing the composite score or this single-item measure and hence, for consistency and
brevity, report results based on the composite measure only.
3.9.5 Predictions
Our predictions are as follows. We predict high status individuals are more likely
to engage in status congruent behavior (i.e., choose shopping event restricted to high
status individuals – ‗PSMO‘ event) than individuals with low status (i.e., choose
shopping event restricted to low status individuals – ‗NPSMO‘ event). Second, making
one‘s status salient increases the propensity for high status individuals to engage in status
congruent behavior while decreases the likelihood for low status individuals to engage in

66
status congruent behavior (H3). Third, high status individuals who engage in status
congruent behavior elevate their sense of prestige over high status individuals who do not
engage in status congruent behavior (H2b). Low status individuals who engage in status
congruent behavior show no change in their sense of prestige.
3.9.6 Results
Choice. To test our first and second predictions as well as provide support for H3,
we examined the simultaneous impact of status and salience on choice. As in Study 2, we
accounted for individual differences in need-for-status and positive emotions by
including them as controls in our model. The results revealed that positive emotions
(b
positive emotions
= .06, χ
2
(1) = .21, p > .50) and status seeking tendencies (b
need-for-status
= -
.06, χ
2
(1) = .01, p > .50) were not statistically significant drivers of choice. However,
high status individuals who engaged in status congruent behavior displayed a higher (than
average) need for status compared to all else (see Table 3-6). As such, we found a
significant interaction of status with need for status wherein high status individuals who
displayed a higher than average need for status were more likely to engage in status
congruent behavior (b
status*need-for-status
= .40, χ
2
(1) = 7.40, p < .01).
Controlling for positive emotions, need for status and the interaction of status
with status seeking tendencies, the results revealed a main effect of status (b = .71, χ
2
(1)
= 36.46, p < .01) and a significant interaction of status and salience (b = .30, χ
2
(1) = 4.27,
p < .05) on the decision to engage in status congruent behavior. In line with our first
prediction, we found that high status individuals (46%) were significantly more likely to
engage in status congruent behavior than those with low status (18%), χ
2
(1) = 30.20, p <
.01). Results indicated that when one‘s high status was made highly salient, the

67
probability of engaging in status congruent behavior increased by an average of .11 as
calculated using our logistic regression coefficients (See Tables 3-6, 3-7).
TABLE 3-6: NEED FOR STATUS (MEAN CENTERED) – STATUS AND
STATUS CONGRUENT BEHAVIOR
Status
SCB N Mean Standard
Error
High Status Status Congruent Behavior
(Choose ―PSMO‖ event)
62 0.13
a
0.96
High Status Status Incongruent Behavior
(Choose ―ARZM‖ event)
72 -0.17
b
1.03
Low Status Status Congruent Behavior
(Choose ―NPSMO‖ event)
26 -0.36
b
1.27
Low Status Status Incongruent Behavior
(Choose ―ARZM‖ event)
119 0.11
a
0.90
*a is different from b at p < .10
*same subscripts are not significantly different
TABLE 3-7: LOGISTIC REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS – STATUS AND
SALIENCE
Parameter DF Estimate Error Chi-
Square
p-value
Intercept 1 -0.89 0.15 36.46 <.0001
Status: High Status 1 0.71 0.15 22.95 <.0001
Salience: High Salience 1 0.13 0.15 0.79 0.37
Status*Salience: High
Status - High Salience
1 0.30 0.15 4.27 0.04
Need for status 1 -0.06 0.15 0.20 0.66
Status*Need for status:
High Status
1 0.40 0.15 7.40 0.01
Positive Emotions 1 0.06 0.11 0.29 0.59
Status*Positive
Emotions: High Status
1 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.95
*Modeled the likelihood to engage in Status Congruent Behavior. Specifications: High
Status = 1, No Status = -1; High Salience = 1, Low Salience = -1

68
Validating H3, we found that when one‘s status was made explicitly salient, 56%
of high status individuals engaged in status congruent behavior compared to 15% of
individuals with low status, χ
2
(1) = 19.28, p < .01 (See Table 3-8).
TABLE 3-8: DECISION TO ENGAGE IN STATUS CONGRUENT BEHAVIOR -
STATUS AND SALIENCE
Status Salience Engage in Status
Congruent
Behavior
N
High Status High Salience 56%
a
73
Low Salience 34%
b
61
Low Status High Salience 15%
b, c
75
Low Salience 21%
b
70
*a is different from b and c at p < .05
*b is significantly different from c at p < .10
Prestige. In H2b, we propose that engaging in status congruent behavior enhances
prestige. We tested the impact of status and status congruent behavior on overall prestige
while controlling for positive emotions and need-for-status. Ten respondents failed to
complete the prestige measures, so our analysis was based on the 269 who did. Our
overall model was significant, F(9, 259) = 7.21, p < .01. We found a significant effect of
positive emotions where those who felt higher than average positive emotions reported
higher feelings of prestige (b = .35, t(257) = 6.59, p < .01). As in Study 2, status seeking
tendencies were not statistically significant (b = .07, t(259) = 1.03, p > .30; see Table 3-
9). Because we controlled for positive emotions and status seeking tendencies, we report
Least Squares Means (LSM) in all subsequent analyses.

69
TABLE 3-9: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS: STATUS CONGRUENT
BEHAVIOR IMPACTS PRESTIGE
Parameter Estimate Standard
Error
t Value Pr > |t|
Intercept 3.67 0.15 24.26 <.01
Status: High Status -0.04 0.24 -0.16 0.87
Salience: High Salience 0.22 0.21 1.06 0.29
Status Congruent Behavior:
SCB
-0.50 0.36 -1.39 0.17
Status*SCB: High Status-
SCB
1.23 0.48 2.58 0.01
Status*Salience: High Status-
High Salience
-0.12 0.34 -0.35 0.72
Status*Salience*SCB: High
Status-High Salience-SCB
-0.32 0.41 -0.79 0.43
Status*Salience*SCB: No
Status-High Salience-SCB
0.61 0.51 1.20 0.23
Positive Emotions 0.35 0.05 6.59 <.01
Need for status 0.07 0.07 1.03 0.30

In line with our third prediction and strengthening support for H2b, we found a
significant interaction of status and status congruent behavior on prestige, F(1, 259) =
5.39, p < .05. High status individuals who engaged in status congruent behavior enhanced
their self-concept, exhibited through significantly higher prestige (LSM
high status-PSMO
=
4.26), than high status individuals who chose not to engage in status congruent behavior
(LSM
high status-ARZM
= 3.69), t(130) = 2.79, p < .05. As predicted, low status individuals did
not enhance their self-concept by choosing their exclusive event, resulting in no
difference in prestige derived from engaging in status congruent behavior (LSM
low status-
NPSMO
= 3.59 vs. LSM
low status-ARZM
= 3.79, t(141) = .76, p > .30; see Table 3-10).

70
TABLE 3-10: LEAST SQUARES MEANS: STATUS CONGRUENT BEHAVIOR
ELEVATES PRESTIGE
Status Event Choice N Least
Squares
Means
Standard
Error
High Status Status Congruent Behavior
(Choose ―PSMO‖ event)
61 4.26
a
.15
Status Incongruent Behavior
(Choose ―ARZM‖ event)
71 3.69
b
.13
Low Status Status Congruent Behavior
(Choose ―NPSMO‖ event)
24 3.59
b
.23
Status Incongruent Behavior
(Choose ―ARZM‖ event)
119 3.79
a,b
.10
*a is significantly different from b at p < .05
*same subscripts are not significantly different, p > .10

3.9.7 Discussion
The results of this study support H1, H2B, and H3 and lend additional support to
our general theorizing regarding the intrinsic benefit of status. Most importantly, we find
a significant interaction of status and status congruent behavior on prestige, such that
engaging in status congruent behavior allows high status individuals an opportunity to
enhance their self-concept and receive a boost to their prestige. Low status individuals
who engage in status congruent behavior do not receive this boost as for them, acting in a
status congruent manner may merely remind them of their low rank. We also find making
one‘s high status role especially salient through additional visual cues in the environment
increases the propensity for a high status individual to engage in status congruent
behavior while decreasing the likelihood that a low status individual will engage in status
congruent behavior. This is an important finding for marketers who use special symbols
and signs to highlight a consumer‘s high status.

71
3.10 CHAPTER DISCUSSION
On a daily basis, individuals occupy various roles. For example, while at home
they may be in a familial role (e.g., mother), at work in a professional role (e.g., doctor,
manager), and in the evening while at a child‘s soccer game in a sports role (e.g., coach).
A role that in our opinion has been under-studied is that of ―consumer.‖ Role identities
are situation specific, and for every role there exists a counter-role. Our shopping
experiences require us to take on the role of a consumer, and during its enactment, we
may interact with sales people, other shoppers, and store managers just to name a few of
the counter roles. We are reminded of our role of consumer when we are in a situation
that highlights it by the presence of counter-role members or situational cues (e.g. POP
displays, sales signage, etc.). Intentionally going shopping as well as observing the
multitude of advertisements and promotions that surround us also prompts us into
assuming our role as consumers.
Some roles are embedded in an explicit hierarchy that is accompanied by
prescribed sets of behavioral expectations. A consumer domain where this is prevalent is
that of status programs commonly embedded within loyalty programs. Customers can
attain different levels of status, creating a distinct hierarchy based on their demonstrated
loyalty toward a firm. For example, a Platinum member on Continental Airlines is higher
than a Gold member on the same airline, based on both the invested effort to attain status
as well as the resulting benefits. Status of this type is made salient when an individual is
in a situation that highlights his or her rank (e.g., Platinum only airport check-in or flight
boarding lines). It is these situations that evoke a consumer‘s status role, causing them in
turn to behave in accordance with the expectations associated with that particular role. On

72
the surface, we may imagine the high status consumer observing others around her while
gloating inside that ―I am better than you.‖ Our work suggests a previously unseen
process is occurring that makes individuals feel special but does not require the presence
of others. While reveling in their own sense of superiority among others may occur, we
show that it is not necessary to drive high status consumers to exercise their privileges.
3.10.1 Chapter Findings
In this work, we study how one‘s position within a hierarchy associated with a
specific role identity impacts behavior. We activate status in a consumer domain and
show that individuals with high status are prone to act in a status congruent manner by
waiting in an elite line or attending an exclusive shopping event, despite it taking longer
or being more costly while offering no special services. We show that individuals are pre-
disposed to act in status congruent ways as prescribed by role-specific behavioral
expectations. In doing so, they derive an intrinsic benefit of status, elevated prestige.
These effects are heightened when consumers‘ status roles are made especially salient by
visual cues in the environment.
3.10.2 Chapter Implications
Our findings have significant implications for marketers. We believe it is critical
for marketers to make note of the intrinsic benefits, in addition to social or material
benefits, associated with status programs and provide high status customers various
opportunities to exercise their status. Firms with status programs must recognize that
some of their unseen services (e.g., elite phone lines, special websites) are appreciated by
customers (intrinsically) regardless of whether or not they provide superior service.
Marketers should focus on highlighting consumers‘ status (when they have high status).

73
This can be done, for example, through signage for special check-in lines, ―red carpets‖
such as those in front of airline boarding gates, insignias on websites, premiums such as
special luggage tags, and invitations to special events. Our findings indicate that this will
increase the likelihood of role consistent behavior and in turn elevate the derived sense of
prestige.
3.10.3 Future Research
Our work sparks several avenues for fruitful future research. This work mostly
focuses on the behavioral expectations and subsequent behaviors of high status
individuals. It would be interesting to more fully explore role congruent behaviors for
individuals without status to better understand how these individuals respond to
expectations associated with their low status role. Anecdotal evidence suggests members
of a group without status would be willing to pass up the opportunity to attend exclusive
events geared toward high status members, even when invited. By so doing, they fulfill
the role expectations associated with not having status (i.e., distinguishing themselves
from those with high status). For example, a colleague was invited to attend a gala event,
although not as an official invitee but with a special invitation from one of the organizers.
While no one except her friend would have known, she declined the invitation, expecting
her experience would be marred by knowing internally she lacked the status to gain
official admittance. This causes one to wonder when and why individuals without status
would act differently from individuals with status and the resulting effect on prestige.
In our work, respondents did not have to exert any actual effort (e.g., spend
money) in order to attain their status. It is important to note that despite this, we still find
our effects. We expect our results to replicate in the real world and be stronger when

74
studying behaviors of individuals who have invested effort to achieve status. Future
research may replicate our effects using field studies or by examining secondary data.
3.11 CHAPTER CONCLUSION
A large number of loyalty programs provide unobserved benefits to customers
with high status, such as an exclusive phone line or special website. Utilizing these
benefits does not afford individuals an opportunity to signal their high status to others. In
lieu of any perceptible improvement in service, and perhaps in spite of a rude customer
service attendant or longer wait time, high status members may continue to use these
services simply because it makes them feel special. In this research, we controlled for
both the material and social benefits of status to demonstrate how individuals who act in
a status congruent manner (i.e., choose a service that we specifically set up to offer a sub-
par experience) experience elevated prestige. This result suggests a firm‘s offer of these
services may be a prudent one that heightens the sense of status associated with a loyalty
program. As status becomes more prevalent in the consumer domain, it is important for
marketers to better understand how consumers respond to achieved status and their
resulting behavior toward the firm. Our work provides one framework and helps
marketers better understand how making one‘s position in the hierarchy salient
differentially impacts behavior.

75

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
Status is an integral part of society. Whether or not through their own volition,
individuals are often placed into different status positions and every individual has a
place which is defined in relation to others. Some individuals are endowed with status
through birth into a particular social group (e.g., race, gender) while others exert an
incredible amount of effort (e.g., spending, educational) in order to achieve high status.
Regardless of how it is attained, status pervades society and it influences how individuals
feel and consequently how they behave. In this dissertation, I have explored how
individuals who have and do not have high status utilize various consumption strategies
in order to affirm and to enhance their status.
4.1 Main Findings and Implications of how Status Influences Behavior
African Americans are frequently characterized as being inferior and often
stereotyped as being poor. In Essay 1, I find that individuals who are endowed with low
status (i.e., African Americans) are able to enhance their perceived status by merely
spending money, regardless of the product status. A significant amount of past research
has examined how individuals purchase and display status-conveying products in order to
present a particular image and to show that they are better than others (Bagwell &
Bernheim, 1996; Mason, 1992; Veblen 1899). My results suggest that these individuals
utilize the act of paying money for products (in general) as a status enhancing strategy.
This is an important finding in two ways: first, the results show that the racial
hierarchy is still prevalent in society to the extent that African Americans have
internalized the perception that they are classified as poor and inferior and in turn they

76
change their behavior in order to negate this classification. In doing so, some African
Americans inadvertently legitimize the hierarchy and this perpetuates an unjust social
system. Second, this work documents a novel strategy, apart from the purchase and
display of status products, for enhancing status perceptions.
In a consumer domain, individuals are now able to achieve status based on their
individual merit. Many firms have loyalty programs which reward their best customers
with status. Individuals who attain high status in a firm‘s loyalty program receive both
‗hard‘ (e.g., upgrades) and ‗soft‘ (e.g., preferential treatment) benefits. In Essay 2, I find
that there is more to status than the traditional material and social benefits which
accompany elevated rank. In my work, I find that individuals who exercise their high
status are able to enhance their self-concept which results in an intrinsic benefit of status
– elevated feelings of prestige. Moreover, I find that individuals are willing to incur a
cost (i.e., wait longer, pay more) to enhance their self-concept despite not receiving
material or social benefits.
These findings are important in several ways. First, they suggest that firms should
create low-cost opportunities for high status individuals to exercise their status. Per my
results, these benefits need not be material (in that individuals do not need additional
frequent flier miles) or social (special lines at the airport). In fact, even cost-effective
benefits such as special websites, emails or dedicated phone line will make high status
customers feel ‗special,‘ which in turn may change their attitudes and behavior towards
the firm. Second, our findings indicate that high status individuals are willing to incur a
cost to utilize some benefits. This is important because it suggests that firms may not
have to spend as much time catering to the elites but rather they should focus their energy

77
on making individuals without status feel better. In doing so, firms may be able to attract
and retain more customers.
4.2 Suggestions for Further Status Research
There are several avenues for future research surrounding both endowed status
characteristics as well as status that is attained in a loyalty program. One such avenue is
to examine the relationship between race and gender and how activating one or the other
characteristic affects behaviors. African American women can be characterized as having
the lowest endowed status while Caucasian men the highest. It will be interesting to
examine whether making one or the other status characteristic salient changes behavior in
predictable ways. As an example, Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady (1999) showed that Asian
women performed worse on a math test when their gender was made salient and better
when their race was made salient. It will be interesting to examine whether these effects
prevail in a consumption setting. This is an important finding as it will shed light on both
race and gender based status hierarchies and whether one prevails over the other in
society today. In addition to purchasing behavior, it will be interesting to examine
whether the findings can be extended to other consumer behaviors such as loyalty
towards a firm, re-purchase intentions and word of mouth behavior.
It will also be interesting to study whether there are some behaviors in which high
status (i.e., Caucasians) individuals engage in order to affirm their high status position.
When Caucasians are made aware of their race, their higher status may be brought to
mind. This could make them somewhat uncomfortable because they do not want to
acknowledge the existing hierarchy. Perhaps this depresses how much they are willing to

78
spend on products. It will be interesting to probe the consumption behaviors of
individuals who are endowed with high status.
In the domain of loyalty programs, future research can examine how high status
individuals respond to service failures and service recovery techniques. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that individuals with high status are more forgiving of a firm‘s failures
(e.g., delayed flights, cancelled hotel rooms) than those without status. Further,
preliminary findings from a study conducted indicate that those with status prefer ‗soft‘
benefits (e.g., personal letter from CEO) as a service failure recovery measure, while
those with low status prefer ‗hard‘ benefits such as free upgrades and complimentary
tickets. It will be interesting to delve deeper into these effects as it will be beneficial to
firms to better understand strategies that they can use in order to better serve customers.
With the proliferation of loyalty programs with status tiers, one wonders whether
the benefits of attaining status have become diluted. Many firms are now introducing
‗super-elite‘ tiers in their loyalty programs where only a small percentage of individuals
are invited to join. For example, United Airlines‘ Global Services Program invites a few
individuals to join yet the admission criteria is kept ambiguous. It will be interesting to
examine how individuals respond to these invitations into super elite tiers and
consequently whether it changes their behavior towards the firm granting admission. In
other words, is this strategy viable in order to preserve the status of status programs?

79
4.3 Final Thoughts
Society is relational and individuals gain self-definition through comparison with
others. Status is an integral part of society and it has long affected the way individuals
feel and behave. The question: where do I stand relative to others is of great importance
and individuals go to great lengths in order to answer it. People often change their
behavior in order to protect, affirm or enhance their status. They willingly incur costs,
monetary and emotional, in order to fulfill a need for status. This just goes to show that
status has and for the foreseeable future will influence behavior.

80

REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ainscough, T. L., & Motley, C. M. (2000). Will you help me please? The effects of race,
gender, and manner of dress on retail service. Marketing Letters, 11, 129-136.
Allen, W., & Stukes, S. (1982). Black family lifestyles and the mental health of Black
Americans. In F. Munoz & R. Endo (Eds.), Perspectives on minority mental
health. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race
bias: evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 652-661.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & King, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status?
Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116-132.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006).
Knowing your place: Self perception of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1094-1110.
Austin, R. (1994). A Nation of Thieves: Consumption, commerce and the Black public
sphere. Public Sphere, 7, 225-248.
Bagozzi, R P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 184-206.
Bagwell, L. S., & Bernheim, D. B. (1996). Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous
consumption. The American Economic Review, 86, 349-373.
Bargh, J. A. & Pietromonaco, P. (1982). Automatic information processing and social
perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious
awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 437-449.
Barkow, J. H. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial approach. Current Anthropology
16, 553-572.
Baumeister, R M. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological
Bulletin, 91, 3-26.

81
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15, 139-68.
Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition of
consumption symbolism. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 4-17.
Blau, P., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Boyer, E. J. (1985, August 27). Project to demonstrate buying power of Blacks. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://www.articles.latimes.com.
Brewer, M. B., & Silver, M. D. (2000). Group distinctiveness, social identification and
collective mobilization. In S. Stryker & T.J. Owens (Eds.), Self, identity, and
social movements, (pp. 153-171). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Current Population Survey. http://www.bls.gov/CPS/
Callero, P. L. (1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 203-15.
Callero, P. L., (1992). The meaning of self-in-role: a modified measure of role-identity.
Social Forces, 71, 485-501.
Celsi, R. L., Rose, R. L., & Leigh, T. W. (1993). An exploration of high-risk leisure
consumption through skydiving. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 1-23.
Cheryan, S., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). When positive stereotypes threaten
intellectual performance: The psychological hazards of model minority status.
Psychological Science, 11, 399–402.
Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Heszen, I. (1998).
When social role salience leads to social role rejection: modest self-presentation
among women and men in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 473-481.
Cohen, J. B., & Reed, A., II. (2001). Dual attitudes: Object-centered vs.person-centered
bases for evaluation in a model of attitude generation and recruitment.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida.
Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Crocket, D., Grier S.A., & Williams, J.A. (2003). Coping with marketplace
discrimination: An exploration of the experiences of Black men. Academy of
Marketing Science Review, 4, 1-18.
de Botton, A. (2004). Status anxiety. New York, NY: Vintage Books, Random
House Inc.

82
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled
components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., Postmes, T., Stapel, D., Koomen, W., van Knippenberg, A.,
& Scheepers, D. (1998). Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in
automatic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 862-871.
Drèze, X. & Nunes, J. C (2009). Feeling superior: The impact of loyalty program
structure on consumers‘ perceptions of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 35,
890-905.
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., & Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in consumer
behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 7, 41-51.
Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 168-179.
Fernandez, M. (2007, October 15). Study finds disparities in mortgages by race. The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Fontes, A., & Fan, J. X. (2006). The effects of ethnic identity on household budget
allocation to status conveying goods. Journal of Family Economic Issues, 27,
643-663.
Forehand, M. R., Deshpandé, R., & Reed II, A. (2002). Identity salience and the
influence of differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising
response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1086-99.
Goffman, E. (1970). Strategic Interaction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goldberg, H., & Lewis, R. T. (1978). Money madness: The psychology of saving,
spending, loving, and hating money. London, U. K.: Springwood Books.
Grady, K., & Robertson, D. C. (1999). Fairness of pricing decisions. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 9, 225-243.
Hall, N. R. & Crisp, R. J. (2008). Assimilation and contrast to group primes: The
moderating role of ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 344-353.
Henriques, D. B. (2001, July 4). Review of Nissan car loans finds that Blacks pay more.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A Social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.

83
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, A. (1988), Social identifications: a social psychology of
intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Homburg, C., Droll, M., & Totzek, D. (2008). Customer prioritization: does it pay off,
and how should it be implemented? Journal of Marketing, 72, 110-30.
Jackson, L., A., Sullivan, L. A., Harnish, R., and Hodge, C. N., (1996), Achieving
positive social identity: Social mobility, social creativity, and permeability of
group boundaries‖, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 2, 241-
254.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and
the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33,
1–27.
Judd, C. M., Park, B., Ryan, C. S., Brauer, M., & Kraus, S. (1995). Stereotypes and
ethnocentrism: Diverging interethnic perceptions of African American and White
youth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 460-481.
Kemper, T. (1978). A Social interactional theory of emotions. New York: Wiley.
Kleine, R.E., III, Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the
self: Social-identity perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 209-35.
Kray, L.J ., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype
confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 942 - 958.
Lacey, R., Suh, J., & Morgan, R. M. (2007). Differential effects of preferential
treatment levels on relational outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 9, 241-
256.
Lamont, M., & Molnar V. (2001). How Blacks use consumption to shape their collective
identity. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1, 31-45.
Lee, J. (2000). The salience of race in everyday life: Black consumers‘ shopping
experiences in Black and White neighborhoods. Work and Occupations, 27, 353-
376.
Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity,
legitimizing ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry.
Political Psychology, 19, 373-404.
Lewis, M. (2004). The influence of loyalty programs and short-term promotions on
customer retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 281-92.
Locke, K. D., & Nekich, J. C. (2000). Agency and communication in naturalistic social
comparison. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 864-74.

84
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self esteem scale: Self-evaluation of
one‘s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997), The desire for unique products: A new individual
differences Scale‖, Psychology and Marketing, 14, 601-616.
Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use/disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493-504.
Mason, R. S. (1992), Modeling the demand for status goods, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Materialism, Kingston, Ontario, eds. Rudmin, Floyd,
and Richins, 88-95
McCall, G.J., & Simmons, J.L. (1978). Identities and Interactions. New York:
Free Press.
Mitchell, T. R. & Mickel, A. E. (1999). The meaning of money: An individual-
difference perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 568-578.
Moskowitz, G. B., & Skurnik, I. (1999). The differing nature of contrast effects following
exemplar versus trait primes. Standard of comparison versus motivated correction
processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 911-927.
Newman, L. S., Duff, K., Schnopp-Wyatt, N., Brock, B., & Hoffman, Y. (1997).
Reactions to the O. J. Simpson verdict: ―Mindless tribalism‖ or motivated
inference processes? Journal of Social Issues, 53, 547–562.
Nunes, J. C. & Drèze, X. (2010). Recurring goals: The effect of divisibility and goal
attainment on self-efficacy and effort. Manuscript under review, Journal of
Marketing Research.
O‘Cass, A., & Frost, H. (2002). Status brands: Examining the effects of non-product-
related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 11, 67-88.
Overbeck, J. R., & Tansuwan, E. (2010). When jerks come out on top: Arrogance, status
prototypes, and status conferral. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Prince, M. (1993). Self-concept, money beliefs and values. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 14, 161-173.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Diekma, D. (1992). Are gender differences status differences?
Gender, interaction, and inequality, New York: Springer-Verlag, 157-80.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status Structures. In K. Cook, G. Fine, & J.
House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology, (pp. 281-310).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

85
Riley, A., & Burke, P.J. (1995). Identities and self-verification in the small group. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 58, 61-73.
Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G., & Hoffman, S. (1976). The role of attribution processes in
conformity and dissent. Revisiting the Asch situation. American Psychologist,
31, 148-57.
Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and
compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 257–267.
Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian
ideals: How different levels of power shape consumer behavior. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 549–555.
Schau, H., Gilly, M. C., & Wolfinbarger, M. (2009). Consumer identity renaissance: The
resurgence of identity-inspired consumption in retirement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 36, 255-276.
Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on
women‘s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38,
194–201.
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity
salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80-3.
Sidanius J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social
hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Simon, R. W. (1992). Parental role strains, salience of parental identity and gender
differences in psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33,
25-35.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in
consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27, 49-68.
Sivanathan, N., & Pettit, N. C. (2010). Protecting the self through consumption: Status
goods as affirmational commodities. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46,
564-570.
Smith, E. M. (1989). Black racial identity development: Issues and concerns. The
Counseling Psychologist, 17, 277-288.
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to
group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538-553.

86
Spriggs, W.E. (2008, September 22). The Economic Crisis in Black and White. The
American Prospect. http://www.prospect.org.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224-37.
Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park,
CA: Benjamin Cummings.
Suls, J. M., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social Comparison: Why, with whom, and
with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 159-63.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1989). Agreeably fancy or disagreeable
truth? Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 57, 782-91.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament. C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-78.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Inter-Group Relations,
33-47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tang, T. L. P. (1992). The meaning of money revisited. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 197-202.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54, 101-112.
Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O., & Hunter, G.L. (2001). Consumers‘ need for uniqueness:
scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50-66.
Turner, J. C, Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory, Oxford,
England: Basil Blackwell.
U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Educational attainment of the population 18 years and
over, by age, sex, race, and hispanic origin.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2006.html
Veblen, T. (2001). The theory of the leisure class. New York, NY: Random House.
(Original work published 1899).
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. Eds. G. Roth and C. Wittich, translated by E.
Frischoff, et al., New York: Bedminster Press.

87
Webster, M., Jr., & Driskell, J. E., Jr. (1978). Status generalization: A review and some
new data. American Sociological Review, 43, 220-36.
Wegener, B. (1992). Concepts and measurement of prestige. Annual Review of
Sociology, 18, 253-80.
Wheeler, C. S., & Petty, R. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A
review of possible mechanisms. Psychology Bulletin, 127, 797-826.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology.
Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-71.
Wittenbrink, B., Judd C. M., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial prejudice at the
implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 262-274.
Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership
in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 994-1003.

88

APPENDIX I. STUDY 1 STIMULUS (CHAPTER 2): RACE, SALIENCE, AND
WILLINGNESS TO PAY

Informed Consent
This research is sponsored by the Marketing Department at the Marshall School of
Business at the University of Southern California. Please note that your responses are
completely confidential and all results from this study will be reported on a rolled-up
level with no individual identifying information reported.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may choose not to
participate at any time. As compensation for your participation, you will be given a
chance to participate in a contest to win a prize worth approximately $120.
Thank you for your participation.
Condition 1: Explicit Salience
Political observers have labeled the past year a landmark political campaign season. For
the first time in American history, an African American has been chosen as the nominee
for the Democratic Party in the presidential race. In light of this, we are interested in
studying people‘s perceptions of racial differences in behaviors. Below is a list of 10
behaviors. We would like your opinion on whether you believe these behaviors are more
characteristic of African Americans (by circling ‗AA‘) or of White Americans (by
circling ‗WA‘). Please circle ‗ND‘, for no difference, if you think that the behavior is
equally representative of African Americans and Whites.
Drink domestic beer AA WA ND
Seek counseling when having personal problems AA WA ND

89
Go to the beach on weekends AA WA ND
Get an annual physical exam AA WA ND
Workout in the gym AA WA ND
Eat at a diner AA WA ND
Enjoy gardening AA WA ND
Play the guitar AA WA ND
Recycle / be environmentally friendly AA WA ND
Go camping AA WA ND

Condition 2: Implicit Prime
This is a study of self-perception. We are studying how people view themselves and how
their self-perception impacts the types of behaviors in which they engage. This survey
will help us get a preliminary understanding of self-perceptions and subsequent
behaviors. Below you will find a list of behavioral traits. Please circle the appropriate
response.
Do you think that you would perform well on a test of academic ability? Yes No
Do you consider yourself a good dancer? Yes No
If you were a lawyer, do you think it would be easy for you to get elected a partner at a
law firm, over someone with the same skill set? Yes No
Do you consider yourself as having a good sense of rhythm? Yes No
Do you believe that you are a good basketball player? Yes No
Did you grow up close to your cousins, aunts and uncles? Yes No
Would you sing in a church choir? Yes No
Do you think that others will look at you suspiciously if you were seen driving a
$100,000 car? Yes No

90
Condition 3: Control Prime
We are interested in studying people‘s perceptions of differences in behaviors of
individuals living in the city of Los Angeles compared to those living in the rest of
California (excluding Los Angeles). Below is a list of 10 behaviors. If you believe that
the behavior is more representative of Los Angeles residents, please circle ‗LA‘. If you
believe that a behavior is more representative of people living in the rest of California
(excluding Los Angeles), please circle ‗CA‘. Please circle ‗ND‘, for no difference, if you
think that the behavior is equally representative of those living in Los Angeles and the
people living in the rest of California.

Drink domestic beer LA CA ND
Seek counseling when having personal problems LA CA ND
Go to the beach on weekends LA CA ND
Get an annual physical exam LA CA ND
Workout in the gym LA CA ND
Eat at a diner LA CA ND
Enjoy gardening LA CA ND
Play the guitar LA CA ND
Recycle / be environmentally friendly LA CA ND
Go camping LA CA ND

HEADPHONE STUDY

We are interested in understanding people‘s preferences regarding a specific brand of
earphones. In particular, we are interested in how much individuals might be willing to
pay for a pair of Shure SE110 Sound-Isolating Earphones.

91

These earphones possess comfortable sound-isolating sleeves which block over 90
percent of ambient noise, enabling you to focus on your music. The SE110 earphones
come equipped with a Fit Kit which includes the sound isolating sleeves, to block out
ambient noise; a 3-foot modular cable to tailor your experience depending on activity and
application; a Carrying Case which provides a convenient, tangle-free solution to store
and travel with your earphones. It also comes with a two-year limited warranty on
materials and workmanship.

How much would you be willing to pay for these earphones?
$ ___________________

How likely would you be to purchase a pair of earphones such as these?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

We are also interested in people‘s emotions when they make shopping decisions.

92
At this moment,
To what extent do you feel a sense of esteem?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent do you feel important?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent do you feel a sense of achievement?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

To what extent do you feel a sense of pride?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
On the thermometer seen below, please indicate (by circling) where you believe you fall
in the social hierarchy of our society. For example, if you circle 50
th
percentile, you
believe that you rank higher than 50% of people in our society.

93

In general, do you believe that high status people pay: (Please check one of the following)
More than average for products and services _____
Less than average for products and services _____

Demographics
Please take a moment to answer a few general demographic questions.
How old are you?
< 18 ______
18 to 24 ______
25 to 34 ______
1
st
percentile
10
th
percentile
20
th
percentile
30
th
percentile
40
th
percentile
50
th
percentile
60
th
percentile
70
th
percentile
80
th
percentile
99
th
percentile
100
th
percentile
1
st
percentile
10
th
percentile
20
th
percentile
30
th
percentile
40
th
percentile
50
th
percentile
60
th
percentile
70
th
percentile
80
th
percentile
99
th
percentile
100
th
percentile

94
35 to 44 ______
45 to 54 ______
55 to 64 ______
> 64 ______

What is your gender? Please circle the appropriate response.
Male Female
Please indicate your race.
Caucasian ______
African American ______
Hispanic ______
Asian ______
Hawaiian / Pacific Islander ______
Other (please specify) ______
Decline to say ______

What is your level of education?
High School ______
Undergraduate ______
Post Graduate ______

95
Technical/Vocational School ______
Other (please specify) ______

Into which tax bracket do you expect to place this year?
< $8025 ______
$8025 to $32,449 ______
$32,550 to $78,849 ______
$78,850 to 164,449 ______
$164,550 to $357,700 ______
> $357,700 ______
Would rather not say ______

Thank you for your participation in our studies.

96

APPENDIX II. STUDY 2 STIMULUS (CHAPTER 2): NEED FOR STATUS AND
RACIAL IDENTIFICATION MODERATE WILLINGNESS TO PAY
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Professor Jennifer
Overbeck and PhD student Aarti Ivanic of the University of Southern California. You
were randomly chosen to participate in this study and your participation is voluntary.
Procedure
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more
about people‘s consumption behavior. You will be asked to participate in two un-related
studies. In the first study, we are examining how consumers perceive various social
behaviors. In the second study, we are interested in how people book vacation packages
when they travel. The two studies together should take you between 10 and 15 minutes to
complete.
Confidentiality
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study that can be identified
with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify you will not be
collected during this research study. When the results of the research are published or
discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your
identity.
Participation and Withdrawal
You can choose whether or not to be in this study. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. If the procedures of the
study are unacceptable to you for any reason, you may choose to not participate.

97
We appreciate your participation in our study as your responses will help us better
understand consumer behavior.

PART 1: SALIENCE PRIMES
Condition 1: Explicit Salience
In this first study, we are interested in better understanding people‘s perceptions of social
behaviors.
Below is a list of 10 behaviors. We would like your opinion on whether you believe these
behaviors are more characteristic of African Americans/Blacks or Caucasians/Whites.
Please click no difference if you think that the behavior is equally representative of
African Americans/Blacks and Caucasians/Whites
African
Americans/
Blacks
Caucasians/Whites
No
difference
Drink domestic beer
Seek counseling when having
personal problems

Go to the beach on weekends
Get an annual physical exam
Workout in the gym
Eat at a diner
Enjoy gardening
Play the guitar
Recycle / be environmentally
friendly

Go camping

98
Condition 2: Implicit Prime
This is a study of self-perception. We are studying how people view themselves and how
their self-perception impacts the types of behaviors in which they engage. This survey
will help us get a preliminary understanding of self-perceptions and subsequent
behaviors. Below you will find a list of behavioral traits. Please circle the appropriate
response.
Yes No
Do you think that you would perform well on a
test of academic ability?

Do you consider yourself a good dancer?
If you were a lawyer, do you think it would be
easy for you to get elected a partner at a law firm,
over someone with the same skill set?

Do you consider yourself as having a good sense
of rhythm?

Do you believe that you are a good basketball
player?

Did you grow up close to your cousins, aunts and
uncles?

Would you sing in a church choir?
Do you think that others will look at you
suspiciously if you were seen driving a $100,000
car?

PART 2: VACATION PACKAGE UPGRADES
Thanks! We are ready to move on to the second study.
In this study we are interested in consumers shopping habits as they book vacation
packages online.

99
Imagine that you are planning a beach vacation in the United States. There is a popular
travel website that you decide to use to book your vacation. The vacation package you are
considering includes airfare, a hotel room and car rental. There is a standard package
available however, you have the ability to customize your package as you like and make
desired changes to any of these components.
Similar to popular auction websites, you can state how much you are willing to pay for
various components of the package and your bid will either be accepted or rejected.
While you will not be spending any money during this exercise, we would like you to
make decisions as though you were really booking a vacation package online. This will
help us better understand how people think when they shop for vacations.

Upgrade Hotel
Thanks. As we enter your bid, let‘s move on to booking your hotel room.
The default room for the vacation package is a ―Standard‖ Room.
The ―Standard‖ room has a garden view that you can enjoy from a patio that you will
share with the patrons of the room next door.
The room includes one king-size bed or two double beds, a generous work table, and a
comfortable armchair. Bath amenities include a bathtub with shower, comfortable robes
and slippers and an assortment of bath products.
Additional room amenities include a standard television with access to basic cable,
movie and video-game rentals for a small fee, a multiple CD changer, and high speed
internet connection. With this room, you receive a complimentary daily newspaper and
have access to room service 24-hours per day.
The price for this room for two adults is $200 per night.

100
The hotel is offering you the opportunity to bid on upgrading your hotel room to a
―Luxury Club‖ room.
The ―Luxury Club‖ room has an ocean view that you can enjoy from your private,
furnished balcony.
The room includes a king-sized signature bed, a generous work table with enhanced
lighting, an arm chair and small sofa with cofee table. Bath amenities include a giant
Jacuzzi; double sink marble vanity, plush robes and slippers for you to use and deluxe
Portico bath products.
Room ammenities include a flat-screen LCD television with access to all cable channels
and wireless high-speed internet connection. With this room, you receive a
complimentary daily newspaper and 24-hour room service.
All guests of the "Luxury Club" will have their own special check in line in the hotel
lobby. They will also be treated to a special cocktail reception which is restricted to
Luxury Club guests. In the breakfast lounge, guests have their own special seating area,
separate from those who do not book "Luxury Club" rooms.
While there is no posted price for the ―Luxury Club‖ room, it will be more expensive
than the ―Standard‖ room. The hotel is offering you a chance to bid on the nightly rate to
upgrade to the ―Luxury Club‖ room. After all the bids are in, the room will be given to
the highest bidder.
How likely would you be to bid on upgrading to the "Luxury Club" room?
Very
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat
Unlikely
Undecided
Somewhat
Likely
Likely
Very
Likely

101
How much money would you bid to upgrade to the "Luxury Club" room? In other words,
since the "Standard" room $200 per night, how much additional money are you willing
to pay to upgrade to the "Luxury Club" room? Please enter a dollar amount.
How do you think upgrading to the "Luxury Club" room would impact the overall quality
of your vacation?
Upgrading to the "Luxury Club" room would make my vacation:
Much
Worse
Worse
Somewhat
Worse
About the
Same
Somewhat
Better
Better
Much
Better

Upgrade Flight
United Airlines is handling all flight reservations for this package.
The default ticket for this flight is a seat in United Airline‘s ―Economy Plus‖ section.
This seat has an additional 5 inches of leg-room than seats in the basic Economy class.
The seats are located at the front of the Economy cabin.
For entertainment options, you will have a personal video screen with a small
selection of movies and television programs. You will also get a pair of regular
headphones for free.

―Economy Plus‖ has a reasonable selection of food for purchase.
Finally, you will get to board the plane before basic Economy class passengers but
after Business Class.
The average price for a round-trip ―Economy Plus‖ ticket is $300.
As you consider booking the ―Economy Plus‖ ticket, please consider the following:

102
United Airlines is offering you the chance to bid on upgrading your seat to ―Business
Class‖. Business class has leather seats in its own cabin, separate from Economy and
Economy Plus. There are only 26 seats in this cabin. Every seat has considerably more
leg-room than Economy Plus and the seats fold down flat to make it more comfortable
for you to sleep.
There are several entertainment options in Business class. You will have your own
personal video screen and you will have access to a wide variety of movies, television
programs, video games and music channels.
Business Class passengers have a wide choice in food and drink options. They receive
a complimentary meal and beverage of their choice.
At the airport, Business Class passengers have an exclusive check-in counter and
security line. Further, they always board the plane before all other passengers.
How likely would you be to bid on upgrading to Business Class?
Very
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat
Unlikely
Undecided
Somewhat
Likely
Likely
Very
Likely

How much money would you bid to upgrade to Business Class? In other words, since the
basic Economy Plus ticket costs $300, how much additional money are you willing to
pay to upgrade to Business Class? Please enter a dollar amount.
How do you think upgrading to Business Class would impact the overall quality of your
vacation? Upgrading to Business Class would make my vacation:
Much
Worse
Worse
Somewhat
Worse
About the
Same
Somewhat
Better
Better
Much
Better

103
Study Measures
Need for status.
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
I feel that other people:
1: not
at all
2 3 4 5 6
7: very
much
Have access to social events and
parties which I do not

Are more well-known than me
Are more influential than me
Have more opportunities in life
than me

Get more respect than me
Receive more attention than me
Have more status than me
Get to do things that I do not

Status consumption scale.
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1:
Strongly
disagree
2 3 4 5 6
7:
Strongly
agree
I am interested in new products
with status

I would pay more for a product if
it had status

104
I would buy a product just
because it has status

The status of a product is
irrelevant to me

A product is more valuable to me
if it has status

Rosenberg self-esteem scale.
Please tell us how you feel when you think about yourself right now
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
On the whole, I am satisfied with
myself.

I think I am no good at all.
I feel that I have a number of good
qualities.

I am able to do things as well as most
other people.

I feel I do not have much to be proud
of.

I feel useless.
I feel that I‘m a person of worth, at
least on an equal plane with others.

I wish I could have more respect for
myself.

I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
I take a positive attitude toward myself.

105
Positive and negative affect.
Please tell us how you feel right now

1: not at
all
2 3 4
5: very
much
Sad
Happy
Pleased
Deflated
Bad
Disappointed
Content
Good

Racial identification.
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
My racial group:
SD D
SMWT
D
NA
SMWT
A
A SA
Has very little to
do with how I feel
about myself.

Is an important
reflection of who I
am.

Is unimportant to
my sense of what
kind of person I
am.

106
Is an important
part of my self-
image

SD = Strongly disagree; D = disagree; SMWTD = Somewhat disagree; NA = Neutral;
SMWTA = Somewhat agree; A = Agree; SA = Strongly agree

African
Americans/
Blacks
Caucasians/
Whites
No Difference
Who do you think is more
likely to upgrade their
airfare from Economy Plus
to Business Class?

Who do you think is more
likely to upgrade their hotel
room from the Standard
room to the Luxury Club
room?

Who do you think is more
likely to fly Business
Class?

Who do you think is more
likely to stay in a Luxury
Club room?

How important are each of these attributes to you when you fly?

N
IMP
V
UIMP
SMWT
UNIMP
Neutral
SMWT
IMP
V
IMP
E
IMP
Leg room
Entertainment
options

107
Food/Beverage
selection and price

Personalized
service (flight
attendant will
know your name)

Special check-in
counter

Being first on
board

Sitting in your own
section

NIMP = Not important; VUIMP = Very unimportant; SMWTUNIMP = Somewhat
unimportant; SMWTIMP = Somewhat important; VIMP = Very important; EIMP =
Extremely important
How important are each of these attributes to you when you stay at a hotel?

N
IMP
V
UIMP
SMWT
UNIMP
Neutral
SMWT
IMP
V
IMP
E
IMP
High end bath
ammenities (e.g.,
jacuzzi, bath
products)

Flat screen T.V.
View
Private patio
Wireless high-
speed internet

Cable, free movie
and game rentals

108
Special reception
Room on separate
floor

Special check-in
line

NIMP = Not important; VUIMP = Very unimportant; SMWTUNIMP = Somewhat
unimportant; SMWTIMP = Somewhat important; VIMP = Very important; EIMP =
Extremely important

General questions
How frequently do you travel?
Never
1 to 2 times per year
More than 2 times per year
1 to 2 times per month
More than 2 times per month
Every week
Multiple times in one week

For what purpose do you primarily travel?
Pleasure/Personal
Business
Other

109
How do you typically book your travel?
Travel websites (e.g., expedia, Travelocity)
Directly from hotel, airline, car rental website
Travel agent
I do not travel
Other
Someone else books my travel
Do you take advantage of upgrade offers?
Yes, always
Yes, sometimes
No, never
What is the primary reason you would upgrade?
1 2 3 4 5
Material/tangible benefits (e.g., more
leg room)

Social/intangible benefits (e.g.,
personalized service)

Other

Demographics
What is your race?
African American/Black Caucasian/White

110
What is your gender?
Male Female
What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
Graduate school
College or technical school
Some college or technical school
High school
Elementary school
What is your marital status?
Single, never married
Married
Living with partner
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
How many children do you have?
0
1
2
3+

111
What is your age?
18 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
70+
What is your household income?
< $25K
25K to 49K
50K to 74K
75K to 99K
100K to 149K
150K to 199K
200K+
Do you own or rent your home?
Own
Rent
Neither

112
In what region of the country do you live?
Northeast (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey)
Midwest (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri)
South (Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi,
Alabama,Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana)
West (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico,
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii)

Debrief
Thank you for your participation. In this study, we were interested in better
understanding how an individual's race impacted the products that they purchased.
Specifically, we were testing whether the manner in which one's race is activated
(explicitly or implicitly) impacted how much an individual would be willing to pay
for some products. You were randomly assigned to your condition.

113

APPENDIX III. STUDY 1 STIMULUS (CHAPTER 3): STATUS
CONGRUENT BEHAVIOR

CONDITION 1: PREDICTING FOR ACQUAINTANCE

Imagine that your friend‘s father (Bill) is a loyal patron of Stream Air. Over the past year
Bill has taken 12 round trip flights on full fare tickets and he has accumulated 25,000
miles. Therefore he has earned ―Elite‖ status in Stream Air‘s frequent flyer program.
There are several benefits associated with earning Elite status, one of which is expedited
Kiosk
A
Stream air
Bill
ELITE
Kiosk
B
Kiosk
C
Kiosk
D

114
check-in at the airport. Stream Air has a special check-in line reserved for customers who
have earned Elite status.

Imagine that Bill is going on a trip and he is at the airport to check-in for his flight. There
are four self-service check-in kiosk‘s (A, B, C, D) for Stream Air‘s customers. Kiosk A is
reserved for Stream Air‘s Elite members. There are no passengers being served at any of
the check-in kiosks. Elite members are allowed to check in at any of the four kiosks and
all four kiosks are open for service. There are no representatives from Stream Air present
when Bill goes to check-in at the airport.
At which kiosk would you expect Bill to check-in?
Kiosk A _____ Kiosk B _____ Kiosk C _____ Kiosk D _____
Please state some reasons explaining your choice.
Approximately how long do you think the waiting time would be to receive service at
each of the kiosks? (Please indicate a time in minutes)
Kiosk A _____ Kiosk B _____ Kiosk C _____ Kiosk D _____

To what extent do you believe the service received across the four kiosks would differ?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

115
To what extent do you believe the service received at the Elite kiosk (Kiosk A) would be
better than the service received at any of the non-elite kiosks (Kiosk B, C, D)?
Much
worse
No
difference
Much
better
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent do you believe one would receive additional benefits from checking in at
the Elite kiosk (kiosk A)?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In how many airline loyalty programs do you have elite status?
None ______
1 ______
2 ______
3+ ______

116

CONDITION 2: PREDICTING FOR SELF

Imagine that you are a loyal patron of Stream Air. Over the past year, you have taken 12
round trip flights on full fare tickets and you have accumulated 25,000 miles. Therefore
you have earned ―Elite‖ status in Stream Air‘s frequent flyer program. There are several
benefits associated with earning Elite status, one of which is expedited check-in at the
airport. Stream Air has a special check-in line reserved for customers who have earned
Elite status.

Kiosk
A
Stream air
You
ELITE
Kiosk
B
Kiosk
C
Kiosk
D

117
Imagine that you are going on a trip and you are at the airport to check-in for your flight.
There are four self-service check-in kiosks (A, B, C, D) for Stream Air‘s customers.
Kiosk A is reserved for Stream Air‘s Elite members. There are no passengers being
served at any of the check-in Kiosks. Elite members are allowed to check in at any of the
four kiosks and all four kiosks are open for service. There are no representatives from
Stream Air present when you go to check-in at the airport.
At which kiosk would you check-in?
Kiosk A _____ Kiosk B _____ Kiosk C _____ Kiosk D _____
Please state some reasons explaining your choice.
Approximately how long do you think the waiting time would be to receive service at
each of the kiosks? (Please indicate a time in minutes)
Kiosk A _____ Kiosk B _____ Kiosk C _____ Kiosk D _____
To what extent do you believe the service received across the four kiosks would differ?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent do you believe the service received at the Elite kiosk (Kiosk A) would be
better than the service received at any of the non-elite kiosks (Kiosk B, C, D)?
Much
worse
No
difference
Much
better
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

118
To what extent do you believe you would receive additional benefits from checking in at
the Elite kiosk (kiosk A)?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In how many airline loyalty programs do you have elite status?
None ______
1 ______
2 ______
3+ ______

119

APPENDIX IV. STUDY 2 STIMULUS (CHAPTER 3): STATUS CONGRUENT
BEHAVIOR ELEVATES PRESTIGE

Introduction and Informed Consent
Thank you for participating in this study. This study is part of research that is being
conducted at the University of Southern California, Marshall School of Business. Before
we start, we would like to let you know that your responses are completely confidential.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored on the investigator‘s computer for a period of 3 years after
the study has been completed, after which it will be destroyed.

You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don‘t want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
Purpose of Study
We are interested in how consumers make decisions when shopping on the internet.
Consumers shop for a variety of goods online including books, DVDs, music CDs and

120
video games. While at a retailer‘s website, consumers are often faced with a large
assortment of products on each page, from which they have to make their purchase
decisions. The goal of this study is to better understand how different product assortments
on a particular page impact how quickly consumers are able to choose products and how
satisfied they are with the shopping experience.
In this study, we will present you with a shopping scenario and then ask you to make
online purchase decisions. Please note that you will NOT be asked to spend any real
money during this exercise. This is a hypothetical exercise designed to better understand
online shopping behavior. However, please make your choices as if you were spending
real money.
On the screens follow you will be asked a series of questions regarding your shopping
preferences. Before we get started, please enter your ID.
Status Manipulation
High status.
Imagine that you are a frequent customer of passtime.com, an online store that sells a
variety of books, Music CDs, DVD‘s & VHS, and Video-games. Based on your shopping
history, the store has given you Platinum status for their online shopping club.

121
Some of the benefits associated with this status include earning double points for every
dollar that you spend at the store, a $10 reward after earning 200 points, free shipping for
6 months after you earn 250 points and a special gift on your birthday.

You are interested in making some online purchases and have decided to go to
passtime.com.

No status.
Imagine that you are a frequent customer of passtime.com, an online store that sells a
variety of books, Music CDs, DVD‘s & VHS, and Video-games.
You are interested in making some online purchases and have decided to go to
passtime.com.

Special Queue Manipulation
No special queue.
We are sorry but due to heavy shopping volume, at this time, you will have to wait to be
re-directed to the website. Your expected wait time is 65 seconds.

122
Once again, we apologize for the unavoidable delay.
Special queue available - no status.
Welcome to WWW.PASSTIME.COM
We are sorry but due to heavy shopping volume, at this time, you will have to wait to be
re-directed to the website. Please click on one of the buttons below to be connected to the
server. (The Platinum Members Only button was shaded out and respondents could not
click on it)

Special queue available - high status.
Welcome to WWW.PASSTIME.COM
We are sorry but due to heavy shopping volume, at this time, you will have to wait to be
re-directed to the website. Please click on one of the buttons below to be connected to the
server.

123

Shopping Event
Once again, we apologize for the wait time to direct you to our server.
We are now ready for you to begin shopping. For your shopping experience today we are
giving you 200 points that can be used towards your purchases. You can use all or some
portion of these points to purchase the items that you want.
Please choose one item from this screen. Click the ‗Add to shopping cart‘ to make your
selection.

Next Screen
50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points
Next Screen
50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points

124
Please choose one item from this screen. Click the ‗Add to shopping cart‘ to make your
selection.

Please choose one item from this screen. Click the ‗Add to shopping cart‘ to make your
selection.

Please choose one item from this screen. Click the ‗Add to shopping cart‘ to make your
selection.

50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points
Next Screen
50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points
Next Screen
50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points
Next Screen
50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points
Next Screen
50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points
Next Screen
50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points 50 Points
Next Screen

125
Measures
Thank you for participating in the shopping experience. Please take a few moments to
answer some questions for us.
How happy are you with the shopping experience?
Very unhappy Very happy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
If this were a real shopping experience how successful do you feel you would have been?
Very Unsuccessful Very Successful
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
While you were shopping,
How much esteem as a customer would you say you felt?
Very Little A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How much pride as a customer would you say you felt?
Very Little A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How important were you made to feel?
Very Little A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent did you feel a sense of achievement?
Very Little A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

126
How flattered would you say you felt?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How delighted were you with your shopping experience?
Very Little A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How confident do you feel about your product selections?
Very Little A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How decisive did you feel while you were making your purchases?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How satisfied do you feel with the shopping experience?
Very Little A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How satisfied do you feel with your service experience?
Very Little A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Need for Status
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements,
I am interested in products that help me convey my status to others
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

127
I would pay more for a product if it helped me convey my status
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would buy a status product even if I could not display the product for others to see
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would use a status product even if others cannot see me using it
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The status of a product is irrelevant to me
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
General Questions
How often do you shop online?
Very Infrequently Very Frequently
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
__ I never shop online
What is the average amount you spend on online shopping?
< $25
$25 to $50

128
$50 to $75
$75 to $100
> $100
How likely would you be to shop at a website such as pastime.com?
Very unlikely Very likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How old are you?
18 – 25
25 - 35
35 – 45
> 45
What is your Gender?
Female _________
Male _________
To what extent did the wait time impact your satisfaction with the shopping experience?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

129
Debrief
Thank you for participating in our study. The purpose of our study was to determine how
consumers feel when they are endowed with status by a firm. We have several conditions
in this study and you were randomly assigned to the no status condition.

130

APPENDIX V. STUDY 3 STIMULUS (CHAPTER 3): IDENTITY SALIENCE,
STATUS CONGRUENT BEHAVIOR, AND PRESTIGE
Thank you for participating in this study. In this study we are interested in better
understanding consumers‘ shopping behavior.
Pre-Measures
Need for Status
Please tell us to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements.
I would buy a product just because it has status
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am interested in new products in status
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would pay more for a product if it had status
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The status of a product is irrelevant to me
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

131
A product is more valuable to me if it has status
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Positive Emotions
Please tell us how you feel at this present moment, right now.
To what extent do you feel happy?
Not at all Extremely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent do you feel flattered?
Not at all Extremely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent do you feel delighted?
Not at all Extremely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prestige-Prior to Decision
Many companies have loyalty programs which reward their best customers (i.e. the ones
that buy from them the most), with a special membership category in their program. For
example, Continental Airlines has a loyalty program, OnePass, where as fliers
accumulate miles in the program, they achieve special membership levels (e.g., Silver,
Gold, Platinum) and specific benefits tied to each level. Hotel chains, Casinos and even
Cruise Lines have similar programs where a guest who purchases frequently from that
firm achieves different membership levels and associated benefits.

132
Please answer the following questions for us.
To what extent does achieving a special membership level from a company from which
you purchase goods and services make you feel important?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent does achieving a special membership level from a company from which
you purchase goods and services make you feel proud?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent does achieving a special membership level from a company from which
you purchase goods and services make you feel esteemed?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

General Set-Up
Imagine that you are a frequent shopper at Best Buy. Best Buy is a national chain that
sells electronics such as computers, TVs and small appliances, as well as CDs, DVDs and
video games. Best Buy has a loyalty program, Reward Zone®, where as members
accumulate points, they get a variety of in-store and online rewards. The Reward Zone®
program has two tiers. Members who spend more than $1000 per year achieve Premier
Silver status in the program.

133
Imagine that you purchase the majority of your electronics at Best Buy. Because of your
spending patterns last year, you have achieved Premier Silver status.
There are several benefits associated with being a Premier Silver Reward Zone member
such as: earning one point for every dollar spent in the store, 45 day return policy, a gift
during your birthday month, and membership to their exclusive magazine Best -.
Members also receive invitations to special deals and promotions.
Accumulated reward points can be redeemed at the store or online. Imagine that thus far
you have accumulated 600 reward points.
Status Manipulation
High Status
*PREMIER SILVER MEMBER*
Imagine that you are a member of the Reward Zone® Program. Because of your
spending patterns last year, you have achieved Premier Silver status.
There are several benefits associated with being a Premier Silver Reward Zone
member such as: earning one point for every dollar spent in the store, 45 day return
policy, a gift during your birthday month, and membership to their exclusive
magazine Best -. Members also receive invitations to special deals and promotions.
Low Status
*NON PREMIER SILVER MEMBER*
Imagine that you are a member of the Reward Zone® Program. Last year, you spent
less than $1000 at Best Buy and hence you have NOT achieved Premier Silver status.
Even though you have are a Non Premier Silver Member, you have accumulated
reward points which can be redeemed at the store or online. Thus far you have
accumulated 600 reward points.

134
Salience Manipulation

High Status – High Salience (respondents could choose between Premier Silver
Members Only or All Reward Zone Members event)
Which event would you like to attend?

*PREMIER SILVER MEMBER*

Low Status – High Salience (respondents could choose between Non Premier Silver
Members Only or All Reward Zone Members event)
Which event would you like to attend?

*NON PREMIER SILVER MEMBER*

135
High Status – Low Salience (respondents could choose between Premier Silver
Members Only or All Reward Zone Members event)
Which event would you like to attend?

Low Status – Low Salience (respondents could choose between Non Premier Silver
Members Only or All Reward Zone Members event)
Which event would you like to attend?

Shopping Event
Which camera would you like to purchase?

Kodak: 50 reward points Nikon: 50 reward points Samsung: 50 reward points

136
Please indicate which espresso machine you would like to purchase.

Breville: 50 reward points Bugatti: 50 reward points Delonghi: 50 reward points
Which GPS would you like to purchase?

Garmin: 100 reward points Pioneer: 100 reward points Samsung: 100 reward points

Measures
We hope you have enjoyed shopping at the Best Buy Reward Zone special event.
To assess your shopping experience, please take a few minutes to tell us how you feel
right now.
To what extent do you feel important?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

137
To what extent do you feel esteemed?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent do you feel proud?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To what extent do you feel prestigious?
Not at all Very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Debrief
Thank you for your participation. The purpose of this study was to better understand how
belonging to a particular membership level, in a loyalty program, impacts consumers'
choice of special events and their resulting shopping experience.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Society is vertically stratified on many dimensions (e.g., race, gender, income, education) in which every individual has a well-established place. Status hierarchies permeate society and they are an integral part of our social system. Whether achieved through individual merit or endowed through birth into a particular social group, status hierarchies are manifested in how individuals feel, how they are treated and consequently how they behave. People often define themselves in relation to others and one’s relative position or status is of great importance because knowing one’s place can impact an individual’s self-concept. Status is most often accompanied by a variety of economic, social, and emotional benefits and hence it can be beneficial to have a higher rank than others. Being at the top of the ladder is significantly more beneficial than being at the bottom. As such, individuals exert a significant amount of energy in order to maintain and to enhance their status. In this dissertation, I explore how status affects how individuals feel as well as the consumption behaviors in which they engage.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How do consumers use brands for identity signaling: Impact of brand prominence on consumers' choice and social interaction

PDF

Power, status, and organizational citizenship behavior

PDF

Creation and influence of visual verbal communication: antecedents and consequences of photo-text similarity in consumer-generated communication

PDF

Novelty versus familiarity: divergent effects of low predictability and low personal influence

PDF

Essays on understanding consumer contribution behaviors in the context of crowdfunding

PDF

Exploring the effects of Korean subject marking and action verbs’ repetition frequency: how they influence the discourse and the memory representations of entities and events

PDF

Staying ahead of the digital tsunami: strategy, innovation and change in public media organizations

PDF

How to be a social media influencer: the work process of the entrepreneurial labor force

PDF

Role of education system in supporting students and their families who identify as mixed-documentation status

PDF

How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions

PDF

Executive realness: examining the identity construction of black gay male educators and its influence on authentic identity expression in the K-12 workplace

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

Essays on consumer product evaluation and online shopping intermediaries

PDF

Essays on wellbeing disparities in the United States and their social determinants

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

The impact of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st century skills and STEM education in Costa Rica

PDF

Avoiding middle-class planning 2.0: media arts and the future of urban planning

PDF

Belonging matters: exploring the impact of social connectedness on the academic success of immigrant and refugee children in the American school system

PDF

Simulation modeling to evaluate cost-benefit of multi-level screening strategies involving behavioral components to improve compliance: the example of diabetic retinopathy

PDF

Mobilizing heritage conservation as a tool for urban resilience: linkages and recommendations

Asset Metadata

Creator Ivanic, Aarti Sriram (author)

Core Title How does status influence behavior? The impact of achieved and endowed status on consumption patterns

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Publication Date 08/05/2010

Defense Date 04/20/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag identity salience,loyalty programs,Money,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race,role identity,social identity,status,willingness to pay

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Nunes, Joseph C. (committee chair), Diehl, Kristin (committee member), Overbeck, Jennifer R. (committee member)

Creator Email ivanic@usc.edu,sriramaarti@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3290

Unique identifier UC1295346

Identifier etd-Ivanic-3826 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-368392 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3290 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Ivanic-3826.pdf

Dmrecord 368392

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ivanic, Aarti Sriram

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu