University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

HOW DO CONSUMERS USE BRANDS FOR IDENTITY SIGNALING: IMPACT OF
BRAND PROMINENCE ON CONSUMERS‘ CHOICE AND SOCIAL
INTERACTION

by

Young Jee Han

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)

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Young Jee Han

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There were many people who contributed to the completion of this dissertation.
Writing a dissertation is a major accomplishment that would not have been possible
without the assistance and support of others.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor Joseph
Nunes for his patience and careful guidance. It has been an amazing experience being
your student. I would not have come to this point without you. I am so grateful to you for
giving me your very precious time (even when you were being stretched so thin) to sit
with me for countless hours to work through the document and discuss ideas. All that you
have done for me helped me grow and mature as a scholar.
Thanks to my committee members, Professor Kristin Diehl, Professor Lisa
Cavanaugh and Professor Wendy Wood, whose ideas, insights and suggestions helped
shape my dissertation. 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 and most importantly, I would like to thank my parents for their endless
love, support, and patience throughout my life, for giving me strength during the entire
journey of my graduate studies no matter how far away they are from me. I am also very
grateful for the love and words of encouragement from my sister, Eunji and my brother,
Deogkyu. Your help has been invaluable in helping me finish this degree.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE 1
1.1 Product and Brand Choices as Identity Signals 1
1.2. Research Questions 2
1.3. Overview 3

CHAPTER 2: SIGNALING STATUS WITH LUXURY GOODS: 5
THE ROLE OF BRAND PROMINENCE
2.1. Chapter Introduction 4
2.2. Taxonomy 8
2.3. Chapter Overview 12
2.4. Literature Review 12
2.4.1. Status, Signaling and Branding 12
2.5. Study 1: The Relationship between Brand Prominence and Price 15
2.5.1. Overview 15
2.5.2. Method 17
2.5.3. Results 18
2.5.4. Discussion 20
2.6. Study 2: Brand Prominence and Counterfeit Goods 21
2.6.1. Overview 21
2.6.2. Method 22
2.6.3. Results 23
2.6.4. Discussion 26
2.7. Study 3: Recognizing Subtle Brand Cues 27
2.7.1. Overview 27
2.7.2. Method 27
2.7.3. Results 31
2.7.4. Discussion 35
2.8. Study 4: Associative/Dissociative Motives and Brand Prominence 36
2.8.1. Overview 36
2.8.2. Method 36
2.8.3. Results 38
2.8.4. Discussion 42
2.9. Chapter Discussion 42

iv

CHAPTER 3: PLEASE READ THE SIGNAL BUT DON‘T 45
MENTION IT: HOW ACKNOWLEDGING IDENTITY SIGNALS
LEADS TO EMBARRASSMENT
3.1. Chapter Introduction 45
3.2. Chapter Outline 46
3.3. Literature Review 47
3.3.1. Identity Signaling, Compliments and Embarrassment 47
3.3.2. Social Anxiety, Self-discrepancy and Embarrassment 52
3.3.3. Social Evaluation and Signal Similarity 53
3.4. Study 1: Brand Prominence and Embarrassment 55
3.4.1. Overview 55
3.4.2. Layered Voice Analysis 55
3.4.3. Pre-test of LVA 57
3.4.4. Method 58
3.4.5. Results 61
3.4.6. Discussion 62
3.5. Study 2: The Role of Self-discrepancy and Social Anxiety 63
3.5.1. Overview 63
3.5.2. Method 64
3.5.3. Results 67
3.5.4. Discussion 73
3.6. Study 3: The Effect of Signal Similarity 74
3.6.1. Overview 74
3.6.2. Method 75
3.6.3. Results 76
3.6.4. Discussion 77
3.7. Chapter discussion 77

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION 81
4.1. Summary 81
4.2. Implications 81
4.3. Suggestions for Further Research 85
4.4. Final thoughts 88

REFERENCES 90

v
APPENDICES 100
APPENDIX A. (Chapter 2) Selected Claritas Segments 100
APPENDIX B. (Chapter 2) Study 3 Stimuli 101
APPENDIX C. (Chapter 2) Descriptions of Prototypes of the Four Classes of 102
Consumers
APPENDIX D. (Chapter 3) Study 2 Scenarios 103
APPENDIX E. (Chapter 3) Study 2 Measures of Three Potential Causes of 105
Embarrassment

vi
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1. Statistics for Relationship between Brand Prominence and 19
Price

TABLE 2- 2. Data Counts for Real and Counterfeit Gucci and Louis 23
Vuitton Handbags

TABLE 2-3. Brand and Prominence for Real and Counterfeit Bags 24

TABLE 2-4. Brand Prominence vs. Price for Counterfeit Goods 25

TABLE 2-5. Original Manufacturer‘s Price and the Price of Counterfeit 26
Bags

TABLE 2-6. Summary Statistics for Income and Need for Status Based on 39
Median Split

TABLE 2-7. Class and Associative/Dissociative Preferences Based on 40
Median Split

TABLE 3-1. Effects of Brand Prominence on Embarrassment 61

TABLE 3-2. Analyses of Interviewer‘s Emotional States 62

TABLE 3-3. Effect of Brand Prominence and Self-Discrepancy on 68
Embarrassment and Social Anxiety

TABLE 3-4. Mediating Effect of Social Anxiety on Embarrassment 72

TABLE 3-5. Bootstrap Results of Test for Putative Mediators of the 73
Interaction Effects of Brand Prominence and Self-discrepancy
on Embarrassment

TABLE A-1. (Chapter 2) Selected Claritas Segments 100

TABLE B-1. (Chapter 2) Study 3 Stimuli 101

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2-1. Brand Prominence of Car Brand 6

FIGURE 2-2. Brand Prominence of Sunglasses Brand 7

FIGURE 2-3. Framework 11

FIGURE 2-4. Patricians vs. Non-patricians Ability to Recognize Subtle 33
Signals

FIGURE 3-1. Conceptual Framework 54

FIGURE 3-2. Example of an Emotional Profile from LVA 56

FIGURE 3-3. Distribution of Brand Prominence 60

FIGURE 3-4. Manipulation of Brand Prominence 65

FIGURE 3-5. Interaction of Brand Prominence and Self-discrepancy on 70
Embarrassment and Social Anxiety

FIGURE 3-6. Interviewer‘s Handbags for Three Conditions 75

FIGURE 3-7. The Impact of the Brand Prominence of the Interviewer‘s 76
Signal on Respondents‘ Embarrassment

viii
ABSTRACT
Consumers communicate their identity to others through the use of products and
brands. Previous research has focused on either the messages being sent or the
interpretations made by recipients (e.g. Wernerfelt 1990, Richins 1994, Escalas and
Bettman 2005). However, no research to date has examined the interaction between the
signaler and the recipient. In two essays, my dissertation explores consumers‘ identity
signaling as a dyadic phenomenon and examines how consumers‘ product choices as
signals are influenced by the recipient‘s ability to recognize the signal and how the
signaler responds when the recipient acknowledges the signal.
My first essay examines why consumers prefer conspicuously versus
inconspicuously branded luxury goods. This essay introduces brand prominence, a
construct reflecting the conspicuousness of a brand‘s mark or logo on a product. I
demonstrate that consumers‘ preferences for conspicuously versus inconspicuously
branded luxury goods depend on whom they intend to signal to and on their target
recipients‘ ability to recognize the signal. When consumers use branded luxury goods to
signal their status, it is natural to expect that consumers would be willing to pay more for
luxury goods with prominent brand markings that help ensure recipients recognize the
status signal. However, an analysis of market data shows that a group of affluent
consumers (we call patricians) pay a premium for inconspicuously branded luxury goods,
which are not easily recognizable to most consumers. Field experiments document that
patricians use subtle signals because they intend to signal to members of their own group
who can recognize luxury goods without prominent brand markings. Conspicuously

ix
branded luxury goods are, on the other hand, used by those consumers (we call parvenus)
who try to signal to the less affluent that they are distinct. The irony is that while
parvenus believe they are saying to the world that they are not one of the have-nots, in
reality, they may also be signaling to patricians, a group of haves they want to associate
with, that they are not one of them.
In the second essay of my dissertation, I investigate the dynamic interaction
between the signaler and the recipient, in particular, how signalers respond when a signal
is acknowledged by others. Consumers who use products as a form of identity signaling
presumably want others to observe, recognize, and interpret their signals favorably.
Consequently, if a recipient provides positive feedback, the signaler should feel pleased.
However, my research shows that those who display more conspicuously branded goods
– and thus, those trying harder to say something about themselves with their product
choice – ironically become more embarrassed when others positively acknowledge their
signal (i.e. pay them a compliment). Across three studies, this research documents how
consumers of more conspicuously branded goods are more likely to feel embarrassed
when paid a complement because they are more concerned with unexpressed judgments
held by others. This effect is particularly strong for those people whose actual and ideal
self differ highly. While the use of products as signals has been studied for more than 50
years (Levy 1959), this research is the first to study how signalers respond to feedback on
their signal from others. This research is also the first to use Layered Voice Analysis
technology in a naturalistic setting to assess the emotional response of consumers in a
realistic and unobtrusive way.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE
1.1. Product and Brand Choices as Identity Signals
Contemporary research in marketing recognizes the symbolic role of possessions
in consumers‘ lives (Levy 1959; Solomon 1983; Belk 1988). It has been said that
individuals tend to consider certain possessions as symbols of their achievement and
evidence of their wealth (Veblen 1899). Product and brand choices can send meaningful
social signals to other consumers about the type of person using that brand (Wernerfelt
1990). In principle, even when the product itself has very low or even negative utility, the
suggested meaning of the signal can induce consumers to pay for the signal. In this
perspective, brands are seen as important in creating individual identity, a sense of
achievement and individuality for consumers. Wernerfelt (1990) argued that brand choice
can send meaningful social signals to other consumers about the type of person using that
brand.
This research extends Wernerfelt‘s regarding social signaling and fills the evident
gap in the literature regarding how a brand can signal one‘s self-identity. In addition,
while a great deal of work has been done on the critical elements constituting a brand,
from symbols and slogans (Aaker 1992) to the brand‘s physique (Kapferer 1992), little
work of which we are aware has examined the degree of prominence of the identifying
marks on the product. One exception has been Wilcox, Kim, and Sen (2008), who find
products without logos are less apt to serve the social functions of self-expression and
self-presentation.

2
The general assumption is that the brand must be displayed prominently not only
to tap into consumers‘ memory and reinforce the association between the product and the
firm, but to serve as a social signal. Our proposed construct of Brand Prominence is an
initial attempt at understanding how the conspicuousness of the brand‘s trademark or
logo influences the nature of the signal that a particular brand sends and explain why
sometime it is best not to make it obvious who the maker is even when the maker is
reputable and of high quality.
It is also widely accepted that people make inferences about others based on their
possessions (Belk, Bahn, and Mayer 1982; Richins 1994a, 1994b; Burroughs, Drews, and
Hallman 1991). Richins (1994b) also pointed out, those inferences can reflect others‘
success, measured by the things someone owns. Further, through the use of products and
brands, people look to garner others‘ attention in order to make the desired impression
and receive the desired response (Schlenker and Leary 1982).
Understanding how those who signal their identities to others and those who
receive the signals react to each other will help us better understand the consequences of
consumers‘ identity signaling behavior. The second essay of this dissertation will
examine the interaction between the signaler and the recipient and more specifically how
those who display their possessions to impress others respond when the signal recipients
actually acknowledge their signals.
1.2. Research Questions
My main research questions are the following: How do consumers use brands and
products to communicate something about themselves to others and how does such

3
behavior influence consumers‘ interaction with others? In two separate essays, I explore
why consumers choose products that display their brands prominently or not and how
they respond when others actually acknowledge their possessions as identity signals.
1.3. Overview
The first essay introduces brand prominence, a construct reflecting the
conspicuousness of a brand‘s mark or logo on a product. I propose a taxonomy that
assigns consumers to one of four groups based on wealth and need for status, and
demonstrate how each group‘s preference for conspicuously or inconspicuously branded
luxury goods corresponds predictably with their desire to associate or dissociate with
members of their own and other groups. Wealthy consumers low in need for status wish
to associate with their own kind and pay a premium for quiet goods only they can
recognize. Wealthy consumers high in need for status use loud luxury goods to signal to
the less affluent that they are not one of them. Those who are high in need for status but
cannot afford true luxury use loud counterfeits to emulate those they recognize to be
wealthy. Field experiments along with analysis of market data (including counterfeits)
support our proposed model of status signaling using brand prominence.
In the second essay, we show signalers who display more (less) conspicuously
branded goods become more (less) embarrassed when their signal is acknowledged,
specifically with a compliment. Further, their embarrassment depends not only on the
conspicuousness of the signal, but on the degree to which the signaler‘s actual and ideal
self-images diverge. The greater the divergence, the more likely it is that the signaler will
become concerned the compliment giver is judging him or her, and a compliment implies

4
the discrepancy has been exposed. This research is the first to investigate the interaction
between signaler and recipient and identify circumstances under which people feel more or
less embarrassed when receiving a compliment on a product.

5
CHAPTER 2: SIGNALING STATUS WITH LUXURY GOODS: THE
ROLE OF BRAND PROMINENCE
2.1.Chapter Introduction
In the middle ages, sumptuary laws specified in minute detail what each social
class was permitted and forbidden to wear, including the maximum price an article of
clothing could cost. For example, grooms could not wear cloth that exceeded two marks,
while knights could wear apparel up to six marks‘ value but were forbidden from wearing
gold, ermine, or jeweled embroidery (Berry 1994). The rationale was to reserve particular
fabrics and ornamentation for certain social classes in order to distinguish them and
uphold order within the social hierarchy. A case in point was the extravagant wardrobe of
Elizabeth I (1533-1603), which provided visible proof of her divinity and signaled her
special place in society (McKendrick, Brewer, and Plumb 1983, p. 76). By the 18
th

century, a blurring of partitions in social classes led to the demise of all sumptuary laws
(Berry 1994: p. 82), yet the use of personal effects as markers of status persists.
Today, anyone can own a purse, a watch, or a pair of shoes, yet specific brands of
purses, watches, and shoes are a distinguishing feature for certain classes of consumers.
A woman who sports a Gucci ―new britt‖ hobo bag ($695) signals something much
different about her social standing than a woman carrying a Coach ―ali signature‖ hobo
($268). The brand, displayed prominently on both, says it all. Coach, known for
introducing ―accessible luxury‖ to the masses doesn‘t compare in most people‘s minds in
price and prestige with Italian fashion house Gucci. But what inferences are made
regarding a woman seen carrying a Bottega Veneta hobo bag ($2,450)? Bottega Veneta‘s

6
explicit ―no logo‖ strategy (bags have the brand badge on the inside) makes the purse
unrecognizable to the casual observer and identifiable only to those in the know.
It is not uncommon for brands to mark their products differently to be more or
less visible. For example, Volvo wanted its newly introduced XC60 crossover ―to be
recognizable as a Volvo from twice the normal distance of 300 feet, so they added a
larger insignia‖ (Vella 2008; also, see Figure 1). We introduce a new construct we call
―brand prominence‖ to reflect this variation in conspicuousness. We define brand
prominence as the extent to which a product has visible markings that help ensure
observers recognize the brand. Manufacturers can produce a product with ―loud‖ or
conspicuous branding or tone it down to ―quiet‖ or discreet branding to appeal to
different types of consumers. Compare the Gucci sunglasses in Figure 2. The first
literally spells out the Gucci brand, while the second is far less explicit, utilizing only the
brand‘s subtle, yet distinctive bamboo hinges.
FIGURE 2-1. Brand Prominence of Car Brand

Volvo XC60 Volvo XC90

7
FIGURE 2-2. Brand Prominence of Sunglasses Brand
Gucci Loud Sunglasses Gucci Quiet Sunglasses

This research identifies the types of consumer who prefer loud versus quiet
products and offers an explanation why. While a great deal of research has been done on
the critical elements constituting a brand, from symbols and slogans (Aaker 1992) to the
distinctiveness of a brand‘s physique (Kapferer 1992), little work of which we are aware
has examined the prominence of a brand‘s identifying marks on the product. One
exception is Wilcox, Kim, and Sen (2009), who found that products without logos are
less apt to serve the social functions of self-expression and self-presentation. Our
construct of brand prominence clarifies how the relative conspicuousness of a brand‘s
mark or logo reflects different signaling intentions of the owner. In short, different
consumers prefer quiet versus loud branding because they seek to associate and/or
dissociate with different groups of consumers.

8
2.2. Taxonomy
We begin by proposing a taxonomy that assigns consumers to one of four groups
based on two distinct and measurable characteristics: wealth and need for status.
According to the Pew Center for Research (Allen and Dimock 2007), almost half of
Americans see their country divided into two classes: the haves and have-nots. Thus, we
first divide consumers into the relatively well-to-do and everyone else. Dubois and
Duquesne (1993) found the higher the income of an individual, the higher the propensity
to purchase luxury goods; hence, luxury goods manufacturers will be most concerned
with how preferences vary among those who have more.
Second, luxury goods are traditionally defined as goods such that the mere use or
display of a particular branded product brings prestige on the owner apart from any
functional utility (Grossman and Shapiro 1988). We therefore account for individual
differences in consumption-related need for status, defined as a ―tendency to purchase
goods and services for the status or social prestige value that they confer on their owners‖
(Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn 1999, p. 41). As such, consumers are further divided
according to the extent to which they seek to gain prestige by consuming luxury goods. In
summary, the taxonomy divides consumers into four groups according to their financial
means and the degree to which status consumption is a motivating force in their behavior.
An essential insight that emerges from our taxonomy is how the four groups differ
with respect to whom they seek to associate/dissociate, which corresponds predictably
with their preferences between conspicuously and inconspicuously branded luxury goods.
Consumers often choose brands as a result of their desire to associate with or resemble

9
the typical brand user (Escalas and Bettman 2003; 2005). Further, self-presentation
concerns lead consumers to avoid choosing a product associated with a dissociative
reference group (White and Dahl 2006; 2007). Associative and dissociative motives are
not necessarily opposite sides of the same coin; a desire to associate with one group does
not imply a desire to dissociate from opposing groups. For example, a Harley-Davidson
Riders Club member need not abhor Suzuki or Kawasaki motorcycles or want to distance
himself from their owners. We proceed by labeling each of the four classes of consumers
created by our taxonomy and describing their signaling motives based on their desire to
associate and/or dissociate from their own and the other three groups.
The first category we label patricians after the elites in ancient Roman times (for
mnemonic reasons, we label our four groups as the 4Ps of luxury signaling: patricians,
parvenus, poseurs, and proletarians). Patricians possess significant wealth and pay a
premium for inconspicuously branded products that serve as a horizontal signal to other
patricians. Feltovich, Harbaugh, and To (2002) used game theory to argue high types
sometimes avoid obvious signals that should separate them from low types because they
are concerned with separating themselves from medium types who use such signals. In
our model, however, patricians are principally concerned with associating with other
patricians as opposed to dissociating themselves from other classes of consumers. They
use subtle signals because only other patricians can interpret them, a byproduct of which
is that they avoid being misconstrued as someone who uses luxury brands to differentiate
themselves from the masses. In summary, patricians are high in financial means, low in
their need to consume for prestige‘s sake, and keen to associate with other patricians.

10
The second category we label parvenus (from the Latin perveniō meaning arrive
or reach). Parvenus possess significant wealth but do not possess the connoisseurship
necessary to interpret subtle signals, an element of what Bourdieu (1984) referred to as
the ―cultural capital‖ typically associated with their station. To parvenus, Louis Vuitton‘s
distinctive ―LV‖ monogram or popular Damier canvas pattern is synonymous with luxury
as these markings make it transparent the handbag is beyond the reach of those below.
They are unlikely to recognize the subtle details of a Hermès bag or Vacheron Constantin
watch or know their respective prices. Parvenus are affluent—it is not that they cannot
afford quieter goods—but they crave status. They are concerned first and foremost with
separating or dissociating themselves from the ―have-nots‖ while simultaneously
associating themselves with other ―haves,‖ both patricians and other parvenus.
The third class of consumers we call poseurs, from the French word for a ―person
who pretends to be what he or she is not.‖ Like the parvenus, they are highly motivated to
consume for status‘ sake. Poseurs, however, do not possess the financial means to readily
afford authentic luxury goods. Yet they want to associate themselves with those they
observe and recognize who have the financial means, the parvenus, and dissociate
themselves from other less affluent individuals. Hence, they are especially prone to
buying counterfeit luxury goods. If brand status is important to a person, as it is with
poseurs, but is unattainable, it has been shown that he or she is likely to turn to
counterfeit products as cheap substitutes for the originals (Wee, Tan, and Cheok 1995).
This implies, and we show, fake handbags should disproportionately be copies of luxury
handbags that are conspicuous or loud in displaying the brand, the kinds of goods that are

11
favored by the parvenus, but, due to their discounted price, are especially appealing to
poseurs.
We label our fourth and final class of consumer proletarians, a term commonly
used to identify those from a lower social or economic class but which we use more
narrowly to distinguish less affluent consumers who are also less status conscious. For
our purposes, proletarians are simply not driven to consume for status‘ sake and either
cannot or will not concern themselves with signaling by using status goods. They seek
neither to associate with the upper crust nor dissociate themselves from others of
similarly humble means and neither favor nor spurn loud luxury. Figure 3 provides a
pictorial representation of our complete framework.
FIGURE 2-3. Framework

12
2.3. Chapter Overview
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, we briefly summarize
the relevant literature on status goods, signaling, and branding. In Study 1, our analysis of
market data reveals inconspicuously branded luxury goods cost more on average than the
same manufacturer‘s goods with more conspicuous branding. This is consistent with
patricians paying a premium for understatement. In Study 2, we use market data again to
show that counterfeiters tend to copy the lower-priced, louder, luxury variants within the
product line of the brands they knock off, which would appeal to poseurs seeking to
emulate parvenus. Study 3 is a field study demonstrating only patricians can read subtle
brand cues correctly. Together with Study 1, Study 3 shows patricians pay a premium for
signals that only other patricians can decipher. In Study 4, preferences between loud and
quiet luxury goods are shown to differ predictably among our four groups, corresponding
to their social motives (i.e., with whom each group wishes to associate and disassociate).
Further, when provided the opportunity, poseurs are shown to be far more likely than
parvenus to buy counterfeits, the loud bags that appeal to these two groups. We conclude
by discussing implications of our work for managers and suggesting avenues for future
research.
2.4. Literature Review
2.4.1. Status, Signaling, and Brand
Status has its roots in ancient society where every person had a ―place‖ in the
social hierarchy. Historically, this place was attained either through birth (e.g., born into
nobility or an upper class in the caste system) or by ordainment (e.g., knighted by the

13
king). This changed during the Age of Enlightenment (roughly the beginning of the 18
th

century) as a man‘s worth began to be judged according to his achievements, which
frequently brought great wealth (de Botton 2004). A reliable connection was made
between merit and worldly success; well-paid jobs were secured primarily through
intelligence and ability. The rich were not just wealthier, they were ―better.‖ They
merited their success, and as such, affluence increasingly became a marker of social
status. Wealth and social status have been inextricably linked ever since.
In his classic treatise The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), economist and
sociologist Thorstein Veblen argued that the accumulation of wealth is not really what
confers status. Rather, what confers status is the evidence of wealth, which requires its
wasteful exhibition—behavior he described as conspicuous consumption. As examples,
Veblen noted the leisure class used silverware, hand-painted china, and high-priced table
linens at meals (p. 87) when less expensive substitutes could work as well or better.
People buy fine silverware, Veblen wrote, not to convey food into their mouths but to
display that they can afford such things. Veblen noted that the examples he put forth,
including manicured lawns, the latest fashions, and exotic dog breeds, confer prestige to
owners due to their lofty price tags.
Contemporary research in marketing recognizes the symbolic role of possessions
in consumers‘ lives (Levy 1959; Solomon 1983; Belk 1988). It is widely accepted that
people make inferences about others based on their possessions (Belk, Bahn, and Mayer
1982; Richins 1994a, 1994b; Burroughs, Drews, and Hallman 1991). Further, Richins
(1994b) pointed out, those inferences can reflect others‘ success, measured by the things

14
someone owns. The objects that symbolize success tend to be high priced in absolute
terms or expensive relative to the average cost of items in the product category (see also
Fournier and Richins 1991). Charles, Hurst, and Roussanov (2007) argued that status
goods surface in highly visible categories where greater expenditures are generally
associated with higher income, such as cars (e.g., Bentley), fashion (e.g., Dior), and
jewelry (e.g., Tiffany & Co.).
Marketers understand a common way to add ―snob appeal‖ to an otherwise
pedestrian product is to attach a high price (O‘Cass and Frost 2002; Eastman, Goldsmith,
and Flynn 1999). Consumers will pay a higher price for a functionally equivalent good
because they crave the status brought about by such material displays of wealth (Bagwell
and Bernheim 1996). In some ways, higher prices themselves make consumers feel
superior as one of the few who can afford to buy the product (Garfein 1989). In this
research, we take the view that a product or brand‘s potential to signal status through the
use of a luxury good depends in large part on the observer‘s ability to decipher the signal
correctly, which, as demonstrated in Study 3, equates to assessing the relative price of the
good with some degree of accuracy.
While price connotes status, price itself, however, does not determine the
desirability of a status brand. Brand choice can send meaningful social signals to other
consumers about the type of person using that brand (Wernerfelt 1990). The symbolic
meaning consumers derive from a particular brand is often based on associations between
the brand and its users or the ―type‖ of consumer who buys that brand (Muniz and
O‘Guinn 2001). Consumers are influenced by their own group (Bearden and Etzel 1982;

15
Whittler and Spira 2002), those they aspire to be like (Escalas and Bettman 2003; 2005)
and those with whom the individual wishes to avoid being associated (White and Dahl
2006; 2007). In other words, who uses a brand is integral to the brand image and helps
explain why consumers are attracted to certain brands and shy away from others (Sirgy
1982).
The relationship between parvenus and poseurs reflects the classic Veblen
argument that members of a higher class consume conspicuous goods in order to
dissociate themselves from the lower class (―invidious comparison‖), while members of
the lower class consume conspicuously in order to associate and be thought of as a
member of the higher class (―pecuniary emulation‖). Poseurs favor loud signals to mimic
parvenus; they may stretch to buy a loud good but in contrast to parvenus are prone to
buy fake luxury goods. Our theorizing posits there is a group of haves who are less
concerned with dissociation and more concerned with associating with their own kind.
They are our patricians, who pay a premium for subtly branded products only other
patricians recognize. We test this indirectly in Study 1 by offering empirical support for
the notion that less conspicuously branded luxury goods offered by the same brand cost
more, on average.
2.5. Study 1: The Relationship between Brand Prominence and Price
2.5.1. Overview
In Study 1, we look at the relationship between price and brand prominence for
three categories of luxury goods: designer handbags, luxury cars, and men‘s shoes. We
focus first on designer handbags. We chose this category in part because ―handbags are

16
the engine that drives luxury brands today‖ (Thomas 2007, p. 168). Handbags had
estimated sales of $7 billion in the U.S. alone in 2007 (Wilson 2007) with the average
American woman purchasing four handbags per year (Thomas 2007). In addition, purses
don‘t require sizing as do shoes or prêt-à-porter (ready-to-wear fashion). The absence of
sizes suggests women have far more choice, and consequently handbags are a category
where manufacturers carry an extremely large number of SKUs. For example, at any
point in time, Louis Vuitton typically offers more than 200 different handbags but fewer
than 20 different pairs of men‘s shoes. Thus, we focus our analysis on the handbag
category but replicate our results using data in the men‘s shoe market (Louis Vuitton) and
the car market (Mercedes), albeit with much smaller data sets.
If our premise is correct, we expect to observe quieter or more subtle brand
identification on the more expensive products and louder, more conspicuous brand
identification on the relatively less expensive products. Thus, we predict a negative
correlation between price and brand prominence, the extent to which the product
advertises the brand by displaying the mark in a more visible or conspicuous manner (i.e.,
larger logos, repeat prints, etc.). Our hypothesis is that for luxury goods, on average, as
the price goes up, brand prominence will go down.
In January 2008, we downloaded information on all of the handbags offered by
both Louis Vuitton (LV) and Gucci from the companies‘ respective websites. Louis
Vuitton ($21.6 billion) and Gucci ($8.2 billion) are number one and number two,
respectively, in Interbrand‘s ranking of the leading luxury brands of 2008 (Interbrand
2009). In addition, they are rated #2 and #3, respectively, on the Luxury Institute‘s list of

17
the most familiar luxury handbag brands (see www.luxuryinstitute.com). Our data
include pictures, price information, and product descriptions for 236 bags from Louis
Vuitton and 229 from Gucci that were available online at the time. The average price for
an LV handbag was $1,240 (median $1,090), while the average price for a Gucci
handbag was $1,448 (median $1,150). The range spanned from $225 to $3,850 for LV
and $295 to $9,690 for Gucci. Our data set, of course, does not include all purses sold by
LV or Gucci historically but is representative of what was being sold by these firms in
early 2008. Personal discussions with Gucci and LV managers support our belief that
bags sold online do not constitute a skewed sample. Louis Vuitton‘s selection online was
said to be identical to what is sold in their stores (special offerings excluded). Gucci‘s
selection online is nearly identical, with the exception of a few unique items offered
through each channel.
2.5.2. Method
We coded each handbag according to brand prominence and several control
variables, such as the bags‘ material and size. There were three categories of primary
material used to construct the purses: (1) fabric (e.g., denim, canvas), (2) leather, and (3)
exotic hide (e.g., ostrich). We relied on the manufacturers‘ dimensions of the bag as a
proxy for surface area or the amount of material necessary to manufacture the bag.
Our notion of brand prominence was intended to capture how the different SKUs
varied in the extent to which they displayed the brand logo or identifying marks
conspicuously to observers. To this end, three independent judges rated each bag on a

18
seven-point scale (anchored at the extremes by ―Not at all‖ and ―A great deal‖) on the
following criteria:
1. How prominently does this bag display its trademark? (A trademark is a
distinctive name, symbol, motto, or emblem that identifies a product, service, or
firm.)

2. To what extent would this bag be recognizable as a Gucci (Louis Vuitton)
product?

Each judge was trained as to the standard identifying marks of the two brands (e.g., the
classic green and red striped pattern originated by Guccio Gucci signifies Gucci). Intra-
rater reliability was high (Cronbach α > .97 for all three judges). Inter-rater reliability was
also high (α > .9 across all pairs of raters). Therefore, we combined the judges‘ ratings
into a composite measure of brand prominence ranging from 1 = Quiet to 7 = Loud.
2.5.3. Results
The results are shown in Table 1. Consistent with our predictions, the most
important findings are those for the variable ―prominence‖ (β = -122.26, p < .01) and for
the interaction between prominence and brand (β = 95.89, p < .01) such that the slope for
Gucci is -122.26 and LV is -26.37 (i.e., -122.56 + 95.89). The significant interaction
indicates that these slopes are different from each other. The interpretation is that, on
average, an increase in brand prominence of 1.0 on the 7-point scale equates to a $122.26
decrease in price for Gucci, and a $26.27 decrease for Louis Vuitton ($856 and $185,
respectively, when going from one extreme to the other). In addition, as expected, the
grade of the material matters. Further, there is an interaction between ―surface‖ and
―canvas‖ such that large canvas bags are more expensive than small ones while this is not
true for leather and exotic bags.

19
TABLE 2-1. Statistics for Relationship between Brand Prominence and Price

Variable Parameter t-stat p-value
Intercept 4401.83 15.34 <.01
Surface -.24 -.50 .61
Canvas -3039.76 -9.83 <.01
Leather -2534.13 -8.38 <.01
Surface*Canvas 1.10 2.15 .03
Surface*Leather .90 1.74 .08
Louis Vuitton -481.60 -3.20 <.01
Prominence -122.26 -4.95 <.01
prominence*LV 95.89 3.44 <.01
N = 417 R
2
= .54 F = 60.05

We replicated these results by examining the size of the Mercedes emblem (aka
the Mercedes ―star‖) on available cars and SUVs. Assessing brand prominence was
straightforward; we utilized the size in centimeters of the tri-star Mercedes logo displayed
on the grill of the vehicles. We collected the data in January 2009, at which time
Mercedes offered 47 different models of vehicles ranging from 2-door coupes to SUVs
(we did not include the SLR in our analysis because it is co-branded with McLaren). The
vehicles ranged in price from $33,775 to $199,825 while the emblem size ranged from
7.6 cm to 18.5 cm.
As in the study of handbags, our dependent variable was the price of the car. Our
independent variables included brand prominence as well as a set of seven body type
dummies (e.g., coupe, sedan, wagon…) included to account for the fact that different
vehicles have different grill sizes and different price points. The results reveal a
significant overall effect of body type (F = 3.51, p < .01) and a significant main effect of

20
emblem size (β = -5,215.58, F = 8.72, p < .01) such that an increase in emblem size of
one centimeter is associated with a decrease in price of the car of slightly more than
$5,000. In summary, controlling for body type, less expensive Mercedes vehicles in the
U.S. tend to boast a larger emblem.
To support the generalizability of these results, it was important to replicate our
findings in a category catering exclusively to men. To this end, we utilized Louis
Vuitton‘s 2009 men‘s shoe collection. The collection comprises 13 different pairs of
shoes ranging in price from $485 to $1,170. Using photos drawn from the company‘s
catalog, brand prominence was rated by the same trained judges who rated the handbags
using the same scales. Price remained our dependent variable, while brand prominence
and leather quality (3 levels: calf, patent, python) served as independent variables. The
results reveal a significant effect of leather quality (F = 10.48, p < .01) as well as a main
effect of brand prominence (β = -43.90, F = 5.57, p < .05) such that, controlling for
leather quality, an increase in brand prominence of 1 on our scale is associated with a
decrease in price of $43.90.
2.5.4. Discussion
The data support our hypothesis that luxury brands Gucci and Louis Vuitton
charge more on average for quieter handbags and shoes—those that display the brand less
prominently. Similarly, Mercedes places larger emblems on its lower-priced cars, which
is de facto evidence suggesting that those who purchase different classes of automobiles
value brand prominence differently. These results support our prediction that a class of
consumer exists that is willing to pay a premium for luxury goods that display the brand

21
name less conspicuously, which we call patricians. The policy of lowering price while
making the brand name more prominent appears to apply regardless of gender (men‘s
shoes, women‘s handbags) and whether the category is considered more faddish (fashion
goods) or durable (vehicles). In the next study, we expand the scope of our investigation
of marketplace phenomena by examining how the market for counterfeit luxury goods
compares in terms of brand prominence.
2.6. Study 2: Brand Prominence and Counterfeit goods
2.6.1. Overview
Counterfeits allow consumers to unbundle the status and quality attributes of
luxury goods and pay less to acquire the status by not having to pay for the quality
(Grossman and Shapiro 1988). Counterfeiters serve customers who aspire to own luxury
goods but who are unable or unwilling to pay for the real thing. Among those of limited
means in our framework, poseurs rather than proletarians crave the status associated with
prestigious brands. And poseurs take their cues from the parvenus who use signals that
are easily decipherable, even to the uninitiated. This implies the counterfeit market
should consist primarily of the louder handbags parvenus carry rather than the quieter
handbags patricians carry. Although there is no reason that counterfeiters can‘t copy the
pricier, quieter handbags as cheaply or easily as others in the manufacturer‘s product line,
we hypothesize that counterfeit goods will tend to be copies of lower-priced, louder
luxury goods because they will be what poseurs demand.

22
2.6.2. Method
To test our hypothesis, we combine the data collected on authentic handbags in
Study 1 (handbags offered by Louis Vuitton and Gucci online in January 2008) with
additional data from two distinct sources. First, we acquired a dataset from intellectual
property enforcement officials who confiscated counterfeit goods locally produced and sold
in Thailand. Thailand is a manufacturing and distribution hub for fake goods and as a
consequence has been on the U.S. Trade Representative‘s watch list for more than 10 years.
The dataset contains pictures of 254 individual items that were confiscated as part of a raid
on a manufacturer and seller of counterfeit Gucci goods. Therefore, the data are
representative of the Gucci knockoffs that an Asian counterfeiter would produce and
distribute to U.S. resellers (their Gucci knockoff product line). Because these data contain
information only on Gucci, we augmented them with data from a website specializing in
the sale of counterfeit handbags called knockoffbag.com.
From that website, we collected data on all of the handbags offered that were
replicas of Gucci and LV products. There were 428 data points, 287 copies of LV bags
offered for sale and 141 copies of Gucci bags offered at the time we collected the data
(April 2008). From the website, we collected pictures of the goods offered online, the price
at which these counterfeit bags were offered, and any other information the seller posted
about the goods. All together, we have 682 data points representing counterfeits of both
Gucci and Louis Vuitton handbags. The data include the entire selection from a single
producer and distributor (the Thai data) as well as individual items deemed desirable and

23
thus offered for sale on a popular website. This provides perspectives from both the
producer‘s and the consumer‘s vantage point.
Not all of the bags in our data on counterfeits are copies of actual bags in our data
set from Study 1; some are original designs created by the counterfeiters to look like Gucci
or LV products. Because these are fake bags with fake designs, we call these ―fake-fakes.‖
Hence, our data can be broken into different classes, as displayed in Table 2. Counterfeiters
copied 211 of the 465 existing styles (45% of handbags were knocked off at least once).
Counterfeiters were responsible for another 386 fake-fakes (original creations). Therefore,
there were a total of 851 different styles of bags in our dataset (211 copies of current bags,
386 fake-fakes and the remaining 254 bags from LV and Gucci not copied). Judges coded
all the fake-fake bags in the exact same fashion as the authentic bags in Study 1 (correlation
across judges for composite measure greater than .8 for all judges).
TABLE 2-2. Data Counts for Real and Counterfeit Gucci and Louis Vuitton
Handbags

Brand

Originals

Counterfeits
Not copied by
counterfeiters
Copied by
counterfeiters
Copies of current
original handbags
Fake-Fakes
LV 97 139 175 112
Gucci 157 72 121 274
Total 254 211 296 386

2.6.3. Results
Table 3 summarizes the brand prominence (average rating) for the data in Studies 1
and 2. The data were analyzed using a 3 (type: Original Not Copied, Original Copied,
Fake-Fakes) x 2 (brand: LV, Gucci) ANOVA. We find significant main effects of bag type

24
(F = 53.48, p < .01) and brand (F = 4.37, p < .05) but no interaction between the two (F
= .53, p = .59). The analysis shows counterfeiters choose to copy bags that are significantly
louder than the ones they do not copy (M
LV_Copied
= 5.41 vs. M
LV_Not Copied
= 3.79, p < .01;
M
Gucci_Copied
= 5.50 vs. M
Gucci Not Copied
= 4.08, p < .01). Further, when the counterfeiters
create their own variety of LV or Gucci bags, what we call fake-fakes, their creations are
also loud—on average just as loud as the ones they copy (M
LV_Copied
= 5.41 vs. M
LV_Fake_Fake

= 5.31, p = .71; M
Gucci_Copied
= 5.50 vs. M
Gucci Fake_Fake
= 5.79, p = .30). These results support
our hypothesis that counterfeit handbags tend to be copies of the lower-priced, louder items
in a luxury brand‘s product portfolio.
TABLE 2-3. Brand Prominence for Real and Counterfeit Bags

Originals

Counterfeits

Not
Copied
Copied Overall

Copies
a

Fake-
Fakes
Overall
LV

3.79 5.41 4.75

5.48 5.31 5.42
Gucci

4.08 5.50 4.53

5.71 5.79 5.76
Note:
a
The average rating of ―Copies‖ does not equal the average rating of the copied bags
because some bags were copied multiple times.

In Study 1, we found brand prominence is negatively correlated with price.
Therefore, one might argue that counterfeiters pick the products to counterfeit based on
price and not brand prominence. To test whether brand prominence is truly the factor that
drives counterfeiters‘ decisions about which styles to copy, we looked at the probability
of original handbags being copied as a function of price, brand, and brand prominence. In
a first logistic regression (columns 2 and 3 of Table 4), we include price and brand
information but omit brand prominence. In a second regression (columns 4 and 5 of

25
Table 4), we include brand prominence information. The results show that when price is
taken alone, the parameter is only marginally significant (p = .09), and when brand
prominence is added, the parameter for price becomes non-significant (p > .5) while the
parameter for brand prominence is significant (p = .03). Further, there are no significant
interactions between brand prominence and price. The results suggest that price is not the
decision variable for counterfeiters when deciding which styles to copy. With no
discernible reference to price, counterfeiters appear to produce and sell louder handbags.
As this analysis indicates, the louder an original handbag, the more likely it is to be
knocked off by counterfeiters.
TABLE 2-4. Brand Prominence vs. Price for Counterfeit Goods

Price Only Price and Prominence
Parameter Estimate p-value Estimate p-value
Intercept .10 .63 -1.52 <.01
Price -.0002 .09 -.0002 .56
Louis Vuitton .50 .01 .62 .20
LV x Price .00004 .75 -.00002 .94
Prominence .20 .03
Prominence x Price .0001 .13
Prominence x LV -.004 .96
Prominence x LV x Price 1.2E-6 .99
N = 465 LR χ
2
= 39.86, p < .01 LR χ
2
= 87.03, p < .01

The data we collected from knockoffbags.com included price information for the
counterfeit bags (we did not get any price information on the confiscated bags from the
producer in Thailand). To examine how counterfeiters set prices, we looked at the
relationship between the price of counterfeit goods from knockoffbags.com and the price of

26
the bag as listed by the original manufacturer, our brand prominence measure, and brand
(LV or Gucci). The results (see Table 5) show that once counterfeiters choose which styles
of handbags to copy, they determine the price of their offerings based on the price charged
by the original manufacturer (β = .03, p < .01). In other words, counterfeiters price their
knock-offs higher for bags that sell at higher prices by the original manufacturers
regardless of how loud the bag is (β = -.84, ns). While counterfeiters limit themselves to
selling relatively loud bags, they subsequently set prices in accordance with the original
manufacturer‘s product line.

TABLE 2-5. Original Manufacturer’s Price and the Price of Counterfeit Bags

Parameter Estimate F p-value
Intercept 193.35
LV -1.58 .16 .69
Brand volume -.83 1.12 .29
Price of the original product .03 130.30 < .01
N = 228 R
2
= .48 F = 54.38

2.6.4. Discussion
In Study 2, we show that the bags counterfeiters choose to copy are the loud ones
(i.e., their product line is driven by brand prominence). These are the bags parvenus favor.
It appears poseurs who would be most inclined to buy the fakes demand what the parvenus
are showing off: the loud handbags, in line with a desire to prominently associate
themselves with this group.

27
2.7. Study 3: Recognizing Subtle Brand Cues
2.7.1. Overview
Our theorizing presumes patricians are more attuned to the distinguishing traits of
luxury goods and therefore can recognize products and their price without the need for
conspicuous brand displays. In contrast, non-patricians (parvenus, poseurs, and
proletarians) cannot recognize the subtle cues and require loud signals to recognize a
brand and the connotations of status. If this is the case, then patricians can use subtle cues
to signal each other when parvenus must use loud cues to dissociate from the poseurs and
proletarians.
In Study 3, we test this directly by studying the impact of brand and brand
prominence on signal recognition vis-à-vis brand recognition and price knowledge among
patricians and non-patricians (i.e., parvenus, poseurs, and proletarians). Patricians are
expected to be more likely to recognize subtle brand cues than members of the other
groups and are therefore less reliant on prominent brand placement to infer the relative
price of a luxury handbag. We expect non-patricians to view prestige bags with
prominent branding as more expensive than similar bags (i.e., same manufacturers
costing as much or more) with subtle and hence unrecognizable brand cues. Conversely,
we expect patricians to correctly recognize these similar but subtly-marked bags for the
brand they are, and thus properly assess their relative prices.
2.7.2. Method
Respondents. Participants in this study were 120 consumers comprising two
distinct groups of 60 survey respondents. The first group was selected based on the

28
likelihood they would qualify as patricians. Marketing research firm Claritas (a division
of A.C. Nielsen) classifies zip codes according to demographic traits, lifestyle
preferences, and consumer behaviors. The use of Claritas profiles allowed us to select
residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County in Southern California to
survey consumers. Zip code 90274 had the highest concentration (95.42%) of segments
that the firm identifies as Upper Crusts, Blue Bloods, and Movers & Shakers—segments
that best represent patricians (see Appendix 1). These segments comprised three of the
highest income groups (the top 4.12% of U.S. households) among the 66 segments
Claritas uses to categorize consumers. We recognize that Movers & Shakers might
straddle the boundary between patricians and parvenus. Even if we ignore this group, zip
code 90274 still provided one of the highest concentrations of Upper Crusts and Blue
Bloods nationally. If patricians wish to associate with patricians, we would expect to find
them living close to one another as well.
The second group was selected based on their geographic proximity to the first
(thus controlling for factors such as weather, local fashion trends, etc.) and the likelihood
they would not qualify as patricians and thus could be considered parvenus, poseurs, or
proletarians. They consisted of 60 people in Los Angeles County from zip codes 91371
(Woodland Hills), 91601 (North Hollywood), and 91607 (Valley Village), areas
determined using the Claritas data to include negligible concentrations of the
aforementioned groups (Upper Crusts, Blue Bloods, and Movers & Shakers). Residents
in these zip codes were diverse and ranged from Money & Brains (educated, well-to-do,
and sophisticated) to Bohemian Mix (upper middle-income, ethnically diverse, early

29
adopters) to Big City Blues (lower-Mid income, modest educations, ethnically very
diverse). Relying on respondents who reside in these zip codes provided us a sample of
consumers who would stand very little chance of qualifying as patricians but enough
affluent consumers to qualify as parvenus.
Researchers who were blind to our theorizing were contracted to survey residents
from each selected area. This included, for example, visiting the upscale shopping district
known as the Promenade on the Peninsula, which services four cities on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula: Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Rolling
Hills. Shoppers were prescreened to ensure they were residents of zip code 90274. Of
those surveyed, 60 met the thresholds for age, education, and household income
regarding these segments that Claritas provided and were thus included in the analysis as
―patricians.‖ The researchers also went to a variety of shopping malls in the San
Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles (e.g., Westfield Promenade in Woodland Hills) and
collected similar data from residents of zip codes 91371, 91601, and 91607.
Stimuli and design. Respondents were shown nine designer handbags, six of
which were the focal bags of interest. These six included three pairs of bags from
individual luxury brands Chanel (most expensive), Louis Vuitton, and Coach (least
expensive). For each brand, we selected a bag pre-tested to rate at the high end on the
prominence scale and one rated at the low end. The remaining three bags were
inexpensive fillers (one Ralph Lauren, one Kipling, and one Longchamp). For both LV
and Coach, the quiet handbag was more expensive than the loud handbag. For Chanel,
the loud bag was more expensive and the most expensive one in the set. While Coach‘s

30
position as a luxury brand is hotly debated, we included this brand because at the time of
the study it was by far the market leader in handbags and leather accessories in the U.S
(Hass 2008) and ranked number one in the Luxury Institute‘s ―Handbag Brands 2008‖
report that analyzed which of 26 brands luxury consumers are most familiar with (Hall
2008).
In one condition, pictures of these nine handbags were shown with the respective
brand names printed below each image. In the second condition, the brand names were
removed and the bags were shown without any additional information. As mentioned
above, we ran this study on two distinct populations described as patricians and non-
patricians. As such, the design was a 2 (class: patricians vs. non-patricians) x 2 (brand
prominence: loud vs. quiet) x 2 (identification: brand names provided, brand names not
provided). Class and identification varied between subjects while brand prominence
varied within subjects. Respondents were asked to rank the nine handbags from most to
least expensive.
We predicted a three-way interaction such that brand prominence would elevate
price perceptions (i.e., rankings) but only when the brand name was absent and
respondents were not patricians. Patricians should recognize the quieter prestige bags (the
quiet Chanel, Louis Vuitton, and Coach purses in the set) for what they are even without
the brand name present. However, the brand serves as a cue regarding price to the non-
patricians. Only when the brands were present were they expected to recognize the quiet
luxury bags for what they are and rank them appropriately. Therefore, we expected the

31
presence or absence of brand names to affect price rankings but only for non-patricians
who rely on overt branding as a signal.
Recall patricians are characterized by our typology according to their financial
means (high) and need for status (low). In terms of a manipulation check, we expected
the patricians to have a lower consumption-related need for status than the non-patricians,
because patricians are not as concerned with differentiating themselves vertically from
lower groups. Respondents completed Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn‘s (1999) need for
status scale, which is comprised of statements such as ―The status of a product is
irrelevant to me‖ and ―I would pay more for a product if it had status‖ to which
respondents indicated their level of agreement on a 7-point Likert scale. With respect to
financial means, we relied on income as a proxy, asking respondents to report their
annual household income on a 6-item scale (i.e., under $59,999, 60,000- 99,999,
100,000-139,999, 140,000-179,999, 180,000- 209,999, 210,000+). We also collected
other demographic variables such as age, race and gender.
2.7.3. Results
To test whether the screening of our sample of Palos Verdes Peninsula residents
was effective, we first compared their need for status to the San Fernando Valley
population. As expected, we find that those surveyed from zip code 90274 (i.e., patricians)
have a lower need for status on the Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn (1999) scale
(M
Patricians
= 3.59 vs. M
Non-patricians
= 4.51, F = 63.27, p < .01). For income, we compared
the average rank on our 6-tiered scale across the two groups, such that a higher number
corresponded to a higher income bracket (e.g., 6 = 210,000+). Patricians reported higher

32
annual household incomes than non-patricians (M
Patricians
= 4.12 vs. M
Non-patricians
= 2.15, F
= 45.91, p < .01). Taken together, differences in need for status and income allow us to
contrast distinct groups of consumers classified according to our typology as patricians
and non-patricians.
We analyzed the data using three separate ANOVAs (one for each brand) with
main effects for the type of purse (quiet vs. loud), the condition (brands vs. no brands),
and the respondent type (patrician vs. non-patricians) with all three two-way interactions
and the three three-way interactions. The three-way interactions for Louis Vuitton and
Chanel were significant (p
LV
< .01, p
Chanel
< .01); for Coach it was not significant (p
Coach

= .44). Most two-way interactions (six out of nine) were significant at p < .01; two others
were marginally significant (p = .07 and p = .09). The mean scores by population are
displayed in Figure 4. In this graph, the loud bags are depicted with bold lines and the
quiet bags with thin lines.

33
FIGURE 2-4: Patricians vs. Non-patricians Ability to Recognize Subtle Signals

Note: P-values derived from Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests between No Brands and Brands
cell for each product.
The pattern of results reveals clearly that patricians are more apt to recognize the
true value of the bags we tested. They correctly rank-ordered the bags from most
expensive to least expensive and did so with or without explicit brand names (none of the
rankings differed significantly when brand names were present or absent, p > .3 for all
bags). They even recognized correctly that the loud Chanel bag we chose for this survey
was more expensive than the quiet one, and for the LV and Coach handbags, it was the
opposite. Hence, they were not misled by the prominence of the brand names.

34
In contrast, non-patricians ranked all three loud bags higher than the quiet bags
when no brand names were present. When brand names were present, the quiet LV and
Chanel bags received a boost in rating, and the loud LV and Coach bags fell in the
ranking (all changes are significant at p < .01) such that the quiet bags rated higher than
their loud counterpart (differences are significant at p < .01 for LV and Chanel and p
= .06 for Coach). These results are substantively identical if we separate the wealthy
respondents (income > $99K) of our non-patrician sample (21 respondents) from the
other non-patricians. With a significantly higher need for status than the patricians
(M
Patricians
= 3.59 vs. M
High Income-Non Patricians
= 4.46, F = 26.9, p < .01), this group qualifies
as parvenus. Their rank ordering of the handbags is the same as the other non-patricians
(p > .05 for all six brands) while they are different from the rankings of the patricians.
Interestingly, we see that non-patricians erroneously rated the quiet Chanel bag as being
more expensive than the loud one while the patricians correctly rated the loud bag in this
instance as more expensive.
Given our dependent variable was ordinal (rank) rather than interval, and that the
rank given to a bag by one individual is not independent from the ranks given to the other
bags (no two bags can be ranked number one by the same individual), we checked the
robustness of our results using a series of Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. We use the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to compare the distribution of rankings for a single bag for a
single group (i.e., within patricians or within non-patricians) in the no-brand versus
brand-provided conditions. The p-value for each pairing is shown in Figure 4. As
expected, we find no change among patricians (their rankings did not change whether the

35
brand was present or not), while four out of six change significantly when the brands
were present for our non-patricians. This confirms patricians do not need to be told the
brand names of the bags to know their relative prices, while the non-patricians
significantly change their ordering when the brand names are revealed.
2.7.4. Discussion
Study 3 demonstrates that patricians do not require prominent brand markings to
judge the value of a bag. They are able to recognize bags from the subtle design features
of each of the manufacturers and accurately judge their relative price. In debrief
interviews, patricians told us about these subtle cues, including the shape of LV‘s handle
base, leather reinforced corners and removable key bell as well as Chanel‘s
Mademoiselle turn lock, interlaced chains and quilted stitching. These details are often
lost on non-patricians who need to see the brand prominently displayed to recognize a
bag as an expensive luxury brand. Recall our earlier discussion of the brand Bottega
Veneta, which turned its back on being easily recognizable to the masses by putting its
logo discreetly inside its creations. It would appear that this brand caters to patricians.
This differential ability to recognize signals is essential for explaining the
difference in behavior between patricians and other classes of consumers. Patricians can
read the subtle signals and thus can use quiet products to signal horizontally. In contrast,
parvenus, poseurs, and proletarians require coarser signals. Thus, parvenus use loud
products to signal to the groups below that they are distinct. They believe they are
indicating to the have-nots that they are elite and to the haves that they are part of their
group. The irony is, of course, that while many parvenus believe they are saying to the

36
world that they are not have-nots, in reality, they may also be signaling to patricians, a
group of haves they want to associate with, that they are not one of them.
2.8. Study 4: Associative/Dissociative Motives and Brand Prominence
2.8.1. Overview
In this study, we set out to test several predictions that emerge from our model.
First and foremost, our theorizing predicts patricians will prefer relatively quiet bags
while parvenus and poseurs will prefer relatively loud bags. Second, we propose that this
preference is due, in part, to whom they intend to signal, which would be reflected by
different associative/dissociative motives. We expect patricians to report that they want to
associate with other patricians but not have specific desire to dissociate from the other
three groups. In contrast, we expect parvenus will display a desire to dissociate from
poseurs and proletarians (the have-nots) while associating with parvenus and patricians
(the haves). Poseurs, like the parvenus, will seek the company of the haves but are not
expected to display the same desire to dissociate from the have-nots as the parvenus.
Finally, the proletarians are not expected to display any strong associative/dissociative
tendencies.
2.8.2. Method
Participants in Study 4 were 120 survey respondents initially screened in a
manner identical to that in Study 3. In this study, however, our researchers collected a
proportionally larger sample of non-patricians with the hope of insuring we had
significant representation from each of the three other classes of consumers. The zip
codes, along with these measures of income and need for status allowed us to classify

37
respondents as patricians, parvenus, poseurs, or proletarians. In addition, we pre-tested
four separate descriptions of individuals such that each one was seen as distinctly
representing someone from one of the four classes of consumers defined by our
taxonomy (see Appendix 2). As a further check, respondents were asked to read each
portrayal and to rank them in terms of how similar they were to the person being
described. We expected their self-categorization to be consistent with the classification
made based on wealth and need for status.
Next, respondents were asked to indicate their desire to associate/dissociate from
each of the four classes of consumers in our taxonomy using graphical images to measure
the relation between the self and groups developed by Schubert and Otten (2002). The
Overlap of Self, Ingroup, and Outgroup (OSIO) self-categorization scale includes seven
pictures each displaying a small circle (labeled ―self‖) in various stages of overlap with a
larger circle (labeled ―they‖) such that a 7-point scale is created based on the distance
between the midpoints of the two circles ranging from a long distance (coded as 1), to a
medium distance (4) to zero distance (7). The scale draws on a technique for measuring
interpersonal closeness developed by Aron, Aron, and Smollan (1992) and research
demonstrating that group identification can be measured by the degree to which a group
is included in the self (Tropp and Wright 2001; Coats et al. 2000).
Finally, each respondent chose their preferred handbag among three pairs of
purses, such that a picture of a loud luxury bag was coupled with a quiet handbag that
was virtually identical except for the degree of brand prominence. The use of ―twin‖ bags
was intended to control for influence of factors other than how loudly or quietly the brand

38
was displayed such as idiosyncratic preferences based on a specific bag‘s aesthetics.
While the bags were chosen to minimize any difference in price, respondents were
instructed to make their choice assuming either bag could be acquired for the same price.
Survey participants then completed measures similar to those collected in Study 3,
including Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn‘s (1999) need for status scale, as well as a
series of demographic questions including income, race, and gender, before being
debriefed regarding the true intent of the study.
A sub-sample of 65 respondents in the San Fernando Valley were surveyed
separately in much the same fashion, except they indicated their preference between a
loud and quiet handbag for only a single pair before being asked the following: ―Assume
your friend is traveling abroad and can purchase a counterfeit of your preferred handbag.
It would be indistinguishable from the authentic handbag to observers on the street. How
likely would you be to ask your friend to secure you a knockoff?‖
Respondents indicated the likelihood on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all
to 7 = extremely. They were also asked if they owned any fake handbags and if so to
indicate how many they owned. They too completed Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn‘s
(1999) need for status scale and also indicated their income, age, and gender.
2.8.3. Results
Table 6 presents basic statistics about the 120 respondents. The statistics are
broken down based on a classification of respondents into the four classes given a median
split on income (<=$99K a year vs. > $99K) and need for status (≤ 4.2 on 7 point scale vs.
> 4.2). The results are substantively identical when we use the self-classification into the

39
four groups rather than the classification based on the median split. In fact, 72% of
subjects self-classify themselves in line with the median split.
TABLE 2-6. Summary Statistics for Income and Need for Status Based on Median
Split

Class N Income NFS
Patrician 25 4.48
a
3.25
a

Parvenu 31 4.11
a
5.08
b

Poseur 32 1.41
b
4.99
b

Proletarian 32 1.36
b
3.65
c

Note: Numbers with the same superscript column-wise are not statistically different from
each other.
Self-report measures of income indicate that those who would be classified as
patricians have the highest income, followed by parvenus, poseurs, and proletarians. The
differences in income between poseurs and proletarians is not significant (p = .18) while
the difference between patricians and parvenus is (p < .05) as is the difference between
parvenus and poseurs or proletarians (p < .05 for both). While our taxonomy does not
specify an income difference between patricians and parvenus, we suspect this difference
occurred due to our collection methodology that sought out patricians from a zip code
where incomes are some of the highest in the nation. In terms of need for status,
consistent with our theorizing, we observe two groups: patricians and proletarians possess
a lower need for status while parvenus and poseurs possess a higher need for status.
Individual contrasts between high and low need for status groups are significant at p < .01
while contrasts within high or low need for status groups are not significant at p = .05.
In terms of each group‘s desire to associate/dissociate with their own and the
other three groups (see Table 7 and Figure 4), as expected, we find patricians seek to

40
associate with other patricians but do not seek to dissociate from the other groups.
Parvenus seek to associate with both patricians and parvenus (the haves) while they
exhibit a strong desire to dissociate from poseurs and proletarians (the have-nots). Akin
to the parvenus, the poseurs seek the company of the haves, but they do not show a
meaningful desire to dissociate from the have-nots. Finally, the proletarians seem happy
to associate with all four groups without any significant differences.
TABLE 2-7. Class and Associative/Dissociative Preferences Based on Median Split
Class
Mr. M
Patrician
Ms. A
Parvenu
MR. L
Poseur
MR. T
Proletarian
Patrician 5.69
a
3.76
b
3.83
b
3.72
b

Parvenu 5.19
a
4.78
a
3.22
b
3.00
b

Poseur 5.20
a
4.90
a
3.77
b
3.52
b

Proletarian 4.13
a
4.00
a
4.17
a
3.90
a

Note: Numbers with the same superscript row-wise are not statistically different from each
other.
Preference Between Loud and Quiet Luxury. The purpose of the study was to
determine if the likelihood of purchasing a loud rather than quiet bag varied by group.
Our theorizing predicts patricians would prefer quieter bags while the parvenus and the
poseurs would prefer louder bags. We do not make a prediction about proletarians. To
test our predictions, we ran a logit regression using the choices made by each respondent
when offered the choice between loud and quiet twin bags (three choices per respondent)
as our dependent variable and the respondents‘ self classification into one of our four
groups as the independent variable. We found no difference based on order (the handbags
appeared in the same order, so we originally included dummies to account for order), so

41
we collapsed the data. Again, the results are substantively identical if we used self-
categorizations instead of median splits to classify our respondents into the four groups.
We find that the least likely group to buy a loud bag is the patricians (β = -1.82, p
< .01, P(Buy Loud) = .14). Proletarians are indifferent between loud and quiet bags (β
= .01, p = .93, P(Buy Loud) = .50). The other two groups show a likelihood significantly
larger than 50% of purchasing a loud bag, with the parvenus exhibiting a likelihood of a
loud purchase at 71.60% (β = .93, p < .01) and 74.71% for the poseurs (β = 1.08, p < .01).
The difference between the parvenus and the poseurs is not significant (p = .65). These
results provide support for our model, demonstrating the usefulness of using our
taxonomy to classify consumers and how this classification is indicative of social motives
and thus preferences between quiet and loud luxury goods.
Finally, the subsample we asked about their likelihood of purchasing a counterfeit
bag was categorized in the same methodology described above. This revealed a relatively
small sample of patricians and proletarians (five of each group) that we excluded from
the analysis, given our focus is on the difference between poseurs (33) and parvenus (22).
First, as expected, these parvenus and poseurs exhibited a distinct preference for loud
handbags (84%), which makes them the prime market for counterfeit bags. Second,
poseurs expressed a significantly greater intent to purchase a counterfeit bag than
parvenus (88% vs. 18%, respectively; Wald χ
2
= 18.90, p < .01). In addition, they were
more likely to own a counterfeit bag (88% vs. 23%, respectively; Wald χ
2
= 20.58, p
< .01) and reported owning more counterfeit bags on average (µ
poseurs
= 1.72 vs. µ
parvenus

= .23, t
21
= 4.53, p < .01).

42
2.8.4. Discussion
In Study 4, we demonstrate the usefulness of our taxonomy for classifying
consumers both in predicting their social motives (associative and dissociative) and, more
importantly for marketers, predicting their preferences between loud and quiet products.
Further, we show how poseurs are significantly more likely to buy counterfeits than
parvenus. Intuitively, this follows from their high need for status and their low financial
means. We should note that, while the sample was small, not one of the five patricians
surveyed was inclined to buy a counterfeit. Recent work by Commuri (2009) has
documented how, due to a proliferation of counterfeiting, the social elite in India and
Thailand gravitate preemptively toward brands that lower-income consumers find difficult
to detect. While this is not the primary motive here, our work suggests patricians may stick
with the brand but favor those items that are least likely to be copied—the quiet ones.
2.9. Chapter Discussion
Veblen‘s view of conspicuous consumption assumes the prevalence of a need for
status. Savvy luxury goods manufacturers apparently find enormous support for this idea as
a more than $200 billion global luxury industry has developed in part due to traditional
luxury houses including Dior, Cartier, and Chanel moving down-market (Gumbel 2007).
This recent large-scale foray of luxury brands into mass marketing has transformed
Veblen‘s two-tier society (haves/have-nots) into a more complex array of consumers who
use luxury to signal in many different ways and for many different reasons. A better
understanding of the luxury goods market requires a variety of discriminate methods

43
designed to capture the many motivations for conspicuous consumption. We propose a
classification of consumers into four groups based on their wealth and need for status.
It is important to note that while we speak of four classes as if consumers behaved
strictly according to our rules, in actuality, behavior may vary depending on the product
category and the usage occasion. A patrician might wear a Rolex (a classic parvenu brand)
while sailing because the Yacht-Master II is a dependable, indestructible watch.
Functionality prevails, although one might mistakenly infer a signaling motivation. A
proletarian might splurge once on a Louis Vuitton bag she‘s seen sported by a celebrity
as a lifelong dream, indulging in what Dubois and Laurent (1995) called an excursion
into luxury. Certainly, there are finer gradations of consumers that could be explored.
Our model does, however, speak to the empirical generalities observed in our real-world
data and the distinct affiliation desires as well as varied product and price knowledge
revealed by our field studies.
While branding experts typically advise marketers to insure their brand is clearly
and prominently displayed on products, this prescription may not hold for some luxury
goods, particularly those at the high end of the product line. With our handbag as well as
shoe data, it was often possible to buy a functionally equivalent good in either a loud or
quiet version. In fact, many of the purses and shoes in Study 1 included twins or
triplets—bags or shoes that were otherwise identical but differed in their exterior design
and hence brand prominence. One of the strengths of this research is that we demonstrate
how less expensive, louder products are geared to a different class of customer than
subtler, more expensive goods. We show how a luxury goods manufacturer can target

44
two types of customers simultaneously by making their brand more or less prominent and
vary price accordingly across products within a single line.

45
CHAPTER 3: PLEASE READ THE SIGNAL BUT DON’T MENTION IT:
HOW ACKNOWLEDGING IDENTITY SIGNALS LEADS TO
EMBARRASSMENT
3.1. Chapter Introduction
Imagine going to a party and meeting a friend you have not seen for a while. You
know your friend has just changed jobs, so you approach her in order to offer your
congratulations. Then you notice she is carrying a conspicuously branded, expensive
designer handbag. You offer a compliment saying, ―I like your bag. It is very nice.‖ Your
friend looks embarrassed, which surprises you. The choice of handbag says something
about her; conspicuously-branded luxury handbags attract attention while conveying the
owner can afford such extravagances. Further, you were saying something nice about it.
What should have been a pleasant exchange suddenly becomes awkward. Why would
someone feel embarrassed upon receiving a compliment on a product widely recognized
to signal something favorable about its owner?
Consumers engage in identity signaling to influence the way others perceive them
(Schlenker 1980) and often rely on products and brands for identity signaling (Escalas
and Bettman 2003, 2005; Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan 1993; Belk 1988). Consumers read
these signals and make inferences about the signaler based on the possessions and brands
s/he displays (Richins 1994a, 1994b; Burroughs, Drews, and Hallman 1991; Belk, Bahn,
and Mayer 1982). When people signal, they expect their signal to be noticed. For
example, Han, Nunes, and Drèze (2010) show how consumers who favor conspicuously
branded luxury goods frequently use these products to signal to the un-moneyed masses

46
that they are affluent and thus not one of them. While previous research has investigated
either: 1) how consumers signal with products; or 2) how recipients interpret these
signals, no work of which we are aware explores identity signaling as a two-way process,
examining the interaction between signaler and recipient.
This research investigates the dyadic aspects of identity signaling through
consumption. We focus on a specific type of interaction, what occurs when a signal is
acknowledged by a recipient with a compliment. We identify the circumstances under
which people feel more versus less embarrassment – a self-conscious emotion – in
response to a compliment on products commonly intended to serve as a form of self-
expression. In doing so, we link the literature on identity signaling with research on
emotions. Positive feedback confirms the intended message has been received. The
signaler should feel pleased, not uncomfortable. We show that this is not always the case.
We find signalers who display more (less) conspicuously branded goods become more
(less) embarrassed when their signal is acknowledged. Further, we show how the degree
of embarrassment depends not only on the conspicuousness of the signal, but also on the
extent to which the signaler‘s actual and ideal self-images diverge. The greater the
divergence, the more likely the signaler will become concerned the compliment giver is
evaluating her, which might expose her for advertising she is someone who she is not.
3.2. Chapter Outline
The remainder of this article proceeds as follows. First, we review the relevant
literature on identity signaling, compliments and embarrassment. We then discuss social
anxiety as the underlying process. A consumer complimented on a relatively loud signal

47
which reflects a breach between desired and actual identities will experience an increase
in social anxiety that leads to greater embarrassment. In Study 1, we document in a field
study how consumers displaying loud signals are more likely to feel embarrassed after
receiving a compliment than consumers displaying comparatively quiet signals. Study 2
is a laboratory study in which we document social anxiety as the mechanism mediating
the effect of conspicuousness on embarrassment and examine the moderating role of self-
discrepancy. Study 3 extends Study 1 by showing how a similarly loud signal from the
compliment giver moderates the effect of conspicuousness on embarrassment. The results
bolster our theorizing. If a compliment leads people to suspect they are being evaluated,
feedback from someone sending a similar signal should dampen the feeling of being
judged. We conclude by discussing the limitations of this work and offering several
avenues for future research.
3.3. Literature Review
3.3.1. Identity Signaling, Compliments and Embarrassment
People intentionally and unintentionally lay claim to particular self-images with
their behavior and appearance, which combine to comprise their identities. Whenever
people are in the presence of others, they consider how to convey themselves in ways that
are in their best interest (Goffman 1959; Jones and Pittman 1982). Through the
construction of desirable social identities, people attempt to bring their public selves
closer to their ideal selves, which influences the way in which others treat them
(Rosenfeld, Giacalone, and Riordan 1995). Previous research has shown that brand
choice is one way in which to send meaningful social signals to others about a person

48
(Wernerfelt 1990). And successful brands tend to be associated with identities with which
consumers would like to associate (Escalas and Bettman 2003, 2005).
In order to highlight brand-identity associations, manufacturers often feature their
brand, logo and other trademarks prominently on their products. These markers help
observers identify the brand and thus interpret the signal correctly. Han, Nunes, and
Drèze (2010) introduced the construct of brand prominence, which they define as ―the
extent to which a product has visible markings that help ensure observers recognize the
brand‖ (p. 15). When projecting images through the use of products and brands, people
look to garner others‘ attention in order to make the desired impression and receive the
desired response (Schlenker and Leary 1982). Intuitively, this implies consumers who
signal an aspect of their identity with prominently branded products should be pleased if
a recipient acknowledges his or her signal with a compliment. However, we show loud
signalers feel more embarrassed when they receive an acknowledgment on their signal. A
loud signal is more likely to draw others‘ attention and therefore the signaler is more
likely to feel exposed to others‘ evaluations. We discuss the mechanism and cause of
embarrassment in more detail later.
There are different ways in which a signal recipient could acknowledge a signal.
An acknowledgement might be verbal, such as with a compliment or a criticism, or non-
verbal, such as with a gesture or gaze. Compliments have been defined as a positively
affective speech act where the speaker ―explicitly or implicitly attributes credit to the
person addressed for some ‗good‘ (possession, characteristic, skill, etc.) which is
positively valued by the speaker and hearer‖ (p. 485, Holmes 1986). We focus on

49
compliments (positive, verbal feedback) as the form of acknowledgement in this work.
We do so because compliments are much more easily observable than non-verbal
acknowledgements and because social norms dictate that paying someone an unsolicited
compliment is a far more common occurrence than offering unsolicited criticism. To
understand why consumers who utilize more (less) prominently branded products as
conspicuous signals will feel more (less) embarrassed after receiving a compliment, we
look to the various reasons people become embarrassed.
Embarrassment is an emotion in which people feel ―an uncomfortable, aroused
state of mortification, abashment and chagrin‖ (Miller 1996).The marketing literature in
this domain has largely concentrated on embarrassing stimuli (Dahl, Manchanda, and
Argo 2001; Iacobucci et al. 2003; Lau-Gesk and Drolet 2008; Rehman and Brooks 1987;
Wilson and West 1981) and embarrassment in service interactions (Grace 2007; Verbeke
and Bagozzi 2002). Unlike previous research, the current study investigates
embarrassment in a situation that we frequently observe in our everyday lives,
specifically when people receive a compliment. We often pay compliments to others in
hopes of easing social interaction. In this research, we show how these well-intended
actions may have unintentionally undesirable effects.
Previous research in psychology has utilized various theories to explain when and
why people feel embarrassed. The three best known explanatory models of
embarrassment include: (1) the dramaturgic model (Silver, Sabini, and Parrott 1987), (2)
the loss of self-esteem model (Modigliani 1968, 1971), and (3) the social evaluation

50
model (Manstead and Semin 1981). The processes associated with each of the three
models can occur separately or simultaneously.
First, the dramaturgic model holds that embarrassment results primarily from a
disruption of social interaction due to a person‘s inability to act in his or her given social
role (Sabini et al. 2000). In other words, the embarrassment stems from uncertainty and
discomfort about how to proceed with the interaction after an incident occurs (Miller
1995). To illustrate, consider an individual who invites friends to dinner at a restaurant
but realizes that he left his wallet at home when the bill arrives. He or she may become
embarrassed, not knowing how to proceed at that moment. While compliments may cause
someone to feel embarrassed when he or she doesn‘t know how to respond, we see no
reason to expect this reaction to depend on whether the recipient is displaying a more or
less conspicuous signal.
Second, the loss of self-esteem model describes how embarrassment results from
a momentary loss of self-respect or acute disappointment with the self. Consider a
mathematics professor lecturing to a class who sets out to prove a theorem and is unable
to do so. He or she may feel embarrassed irrespective of his or her general competence as
a mathematician. We believe it is unlikely that a compliment on a possession will
decrease a person‘s self-esteem. In addition, we see no reason why a compliment on a
conspicuously branded product would lead to a loss of self-esteem while a compliment
on a less conspicuously branded product would be less likely to do so.
Finally, with the social evaluation model, the mere feeling of being evaluated,
whether positively or negatively, can result in embarrassment (e.g., Edelmann 1985;

51
Manstead and Semin 1981; Goffman 1967). Consider a shopper who leaves a store after
completing her purchase and sets off the alarm at the door. It is not the event per se that
elicits embarrassment, but rather how the individual interprets what others might be
thinking of her (e.g., she is shoplifting). A heightened concern for others‘ evaluations (i.e.
social anxiety) relates to the increased experience and display of embarrassment (Miller
1995; Halberstadt and Green 1993). We propose the embarrassment experienced after a
signal is acknowledged with a compliment results from concerns about others‘
evaluations.
Although researchers have focused primarily on the role of socially undesirable
events as the causes of embarrassment, feeling embarrassed when being complimented
has been discussed previously in the literature (Leary et al. 1992; Buss 1980). Yu (2003)
argued that people may feel uneasy or defensive with regard to the compliments they
receive because compliments, like criticisms, are an act of judgment on another person.
Buss (1980) noted that people may feel embarrassed in response to compliments because
compliments evoke concerns about how one is being perceived. Further, a compliment
leads the signaler to become self-conscious through being individuated, a process through
which the actor becomes aware of being the focus of others‘ attention (Semin and
Manstead 1981). In sum, and consistent with the social evaluation model, we predict a
mediating effect of social anxiety –the feeling of being evaluated – on embarrassment.
Although, not everyone who feels they are being judged will feel embarrassed equally.

52
3.3.2. Social Anxiety, Self-discrepancy and Embarrassment
Leary and his colleagues (1992) argue that embarrassment caused by positive
comments has to do with the feeling of being exposed. If the identity claim is accurate, it
is less likely that signalers will be concerned about being exposed. However, if the signal
is less than accurate, the signaler is more likely to fear being exposed, which will lead to
greater embarrassment when being evaluated. For this reason, we expect the discrepancy
between one‘s desired and actual identities to play a critical role moderating the effects of
brand prominence on social anxiety, and in turn, embarrassment.
Self-discrepancy is a representation within one‘s self-concept that characterizes
the ways in which one falls short of some important standard (Higgins 1987, 1989). A
discrepancy can be made salient by a compliment as compliments are a form of social
interaction that induce a state of self-awareness and render self-referent information
accessible (Carver and Scheier 1978; Geller and Shaver 1976). While self-aware, people
tend to feel transparent and to believe another person can discern their actual identities
from their behavior (Griffin and Ross 1991). The result is a sense of vulnerability, which
leads the recipient to feel as if the self-discrepancy is leaking out through some aspect of
their behavior and appearance, which ultimately influences their estimation of an
audience‘s impressions.
It is when consumers use relatively loud signals and perceive a discrepancy
between their desired and actual self-images that they are more likely to fear being
exposed and be concerned about what others think of them. As a result, they are more
likely to feel as if they are being evaluated and thus feel more embarrassed when

53
complimented. Accordingly, we expect the interaction of brand prominence and self-
discrepancy to affect embarrassment, and the combined effect to be mediated by social
anxiety. This leads to our first two hypotheses.
H1: Greater brand prominence associated with a signal increases the level of
embarrassment one feels in response to a compliment on that signal.
H2: Self-discrepancy will moderate the effect of brand prominence on
embarrassment such that the greater the self-discrepancy, the greater the
embarrassment.
Further, it is the feeling of being judged that fuels the embarrassment.
H3: The effect of brand prominence and self-discrepancy on embarrassment
will be mediated by social anxiety.
3.3.3. Social Evaluation and Signal Similarity
The extent to which the signaler feels embarrassed can also depend on the
characteristics of the compliment giver, and in particular, the similarity between the
original signaler‘s signal and any signal offered by the compliment giver. According to
the similarity-attraction paradigm, similarity increases attraction, which should in turn
facilitate supportive behaviors (e.g., Pilkington and Lydon 1997; Byrne, Clore, and
Smeaton 1986; Byrne 1971). People perceive similar attitudes and behaviors of others as
validation and thus expect more favorable evaluations from similar others (Byrne and
Clore 1967). Thus, a compliment coming from someone perceived as similar should not
be seen as threatening.

54
We predict a loud signaler‘s concerns about what the compliment giver thinks
will vary depending on whether the compliment giver is seen as similar or dissimilar.
This can depend on whether they are displaying a loud or quiet signal. Consistent with
the social evaluation explanation, signalers should feel less anxious and less embarrassed
when the recipient is carrying a similar type of signal, because in that instance they would
not expect the recipient to be judging them negatively. This leads to hypothesis 4.
H4: Loud signalers will feel less embarrassed when the person who pays the
compliment is also displaying a loud signal.
Our conceptual model reflecting the three principal hypotheses outlined above is
illustrated in Figure 1.
FIGURE 3-1. Conceptual Framework

Self-
discrepancy
Brand
Prominence
Social
Anxiety
Signal
Similarity

Embarrassment

55
3.4. Study 1: Brand Prominence and Embarrassment
3.4.1. Overview
In Study 1, we test the prediction that a signaler utilizing a loud (quiet) signal will
be more (less) embarrassed after their signal is acknowledged. We do so in a field study
in which a researcher interviewed women carrying luxury handbags in public. We chose
handbags as our target product category in Study 1 as they are widely regarded as a
symbol of self-expression, are easily observable, and differ significantly with respect to
brand prominence (Han, Nunes, and Drèze 2010). During the interview, conducted under
the pretense of investigating general shopping behavior, the acknowledgment (i.e.
compliment) was delivered unexpectedly. We then used Layered Voice Analysis to
assess whether women who intentionally or unintentionally exhibited loud signals were
more embarrassed than their counterparts exhibiting quiet signals.
3.4.2. Layered Voice Analysis
Layered Voice Analysis (henceforth LVA) is software developed by Nemesysco
Ltd. The software utilizes a set of proprietary signal processing algorithms to extract
vocal parameters from each voice segment and identify stress levels and various types of
emotional reactions (embarrassment, anger, happiness and sadness). By measuring
changes in vocal patterns, LVA can help researchers efficiently measure emotional states
in a natural setting.
The LVA software creates an emotional profile by measuring changes in high and
low frequencies in the speech waveform and classifying them in terms of emotional states
correlated with these changes. Because waveforms are person specific, the software

56
requires a calibration period for each individual to measure the inherent characteristics of
the speaker‘s voice. Accordingly, the software creates an instantaneous benchmark when
a person begins speaking, after which it measures deviations at constant intervals that can
range in length from 4/10
th
of a second to two seconds. The program then assigns a
numerical score between 0 and 30 to each deviation and produces an emotional profile
for each vocal segment across time (see Figure 2 for an example).
FIGURE 3-2. Example of an Emotional Profile from LVA

LVA software was originally developed as an alternative to the polygraph test,
which relies on physiological indices such as blood pressure and breathing rhythms in
order to detect deception. Prior studies have shown LVA can distinguish between truthful
and deceptive speech segments as well as a polygraph test (Adler 2009), although these

57
studies have not been conclusive (Sommers et al. 2007; Damphousse, et al. 2007). We are
unaware of any studies that test the LVA metrics we utilize to capture emotions, with one
exception. Research in accounting by Mayew and Venkatachalam (2011) utilized LVA
effectively to measure the affective states of managers during conference calls in which
earnings were reported. They find that executives‘ affective states during these calls as
measured by LVA help predict the firm‘s future profitability and returns.
We recognize our results will be influenced by the reliability of the emotion
measures constructed from the LVA technology. Therefore, we conducted a pre-test to
determine whether the software would adequately capture changes in embarrassment, our
specific emotion of interest.
3.4.3. Pre-test of LVA
Fifty undergraduate business students (35 male and 15 female) at a major
business school participated in the study in exchange for extra credit. An interview with
each respondent was conducted individually and recorded digitally. Each interview was
conducted in two phases. The first phase consisted of a calibration period for which
respondents‘ answers to a pre-specified question were expected to require little emotional
processing. In this phase, the interviewer asked all respondents to describe how college
students typically spend their days. The second phase was described as a separate study
intended to assess college students‘ familiarity with a variety of products. In this phase,
respondents were presented either with condoms, an embarrassing product (Dahl,
Manchanda, and Argo 2001) or instant oatmeal, a non-embarrassing product. Following
the interview, respondents completed a questionnaire regarding their feelings while

58
describing condoms or instant oatmeal. We determined the efficacy of the software by
examining how LVA‘s embarrassment metrics changed across phases between the two
products as well as by examining the relationship between LVA‘s embarrassment
measure and respondents‘ self-reported measures of embarrassment.
First, we removed the researcher‘s voice from each recording using Adobe
Audition software 3.0. The resulting audio files were used to calculate an average level of
embarrassment for each individual for each phase of the interview. If the LVA software
was successful in capturing embarrassment, we would expect a significant difference
between the two phases for those who described the condoms, but not for those who
described the oatmeal. This is in fact what we observed. The results of paired t-tests
reveal a significant increase in embarrassment for those who described the condoms
(M
pre_condom
= 3.37 vs. M
condom
= 5.34; t(27) = -4.89, p < .01), but not for those who
described the oatmeal (M
pre_oatmeal
= 3.04 vs. M
oatmeal
= 3.03; t(21) = .02, p = .98). Further,
we find a significant correlation between the embarrassment scores measured by LVA
during the second phase and self-reports of embarrassment collected from respondents at
the conclusion of the task (r = .41, p < .01). Taken together, these results suggest the
LVA software can detect changes in embarrassment in voice recordings and allowed us
to proceed confidently with our field study.
3.4.4. Method
Interview procedure. A researcher selected women carrying designer handbags at
prestigious shopping malls in a major metropolitan area to interview. Ninety women were
approached. Thirty-eight (42%) agreed to participate. The participants were largely

59
Caucasian (75.7% Caucasians, 5.4% African Americans, 13.5% Hispanics, 2.7% Asian/
Pacific Islander, and 2.7% other) and ranged in age from 16 to 60 (Average 36). These
women carried designer handbags produced by Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Hermes,
among other prominent brands. Respondents who completed the interview, which lasted
about five minutes and was recorded with a digital voice recorder, received a $5
Starbucks gift card as a token of appreciation. The researcher‘s portion of the interview
was entirely scripted. Like the pre-test, each interview included two phases. In the first
phase, the respondents were asked generic questions such as which day of the week they
prefer to shop, how often they go shopping, and whether they prefer to go shopping alone
or with others. The conversation about respondents‘ shopping behavior disguised the true
intent of the study and was used for calibration purposes by the LVA software.
Measurements of interviewees‘ affective states before and after the compliment were
compared in order to assess any changes due to the compliment. Individuals differ in
their general susceptibility to embarrassment (Modigliani 1968), and hence, it was
possible some respondents would feel embarrassed, not because of the compliment but
because of the fact that they were being interviewed. Thus, it was critical that we
recorded each individual‘s voice prior to the compliment, which later served as a baseline
during our analysis.
The researcher began the second phase of the conversation by paying each woman
the identical compliment on her handbag, saying ―I really like your bag. It is very nice.‖
The woman was allowed to respond, after which the researcher asked further questions
including when they had obtained the handbag, what they like about it, and their feelings

60
about the brand. At the end of every interview, the researcher took a picture of the
respondent‘s handbag, which subsequently was rated by three independent judges on the
7-point brand prominence scale developed in Han, Nunes, and Drèze (2010). The
researcher intentionally sought to sample at the extremes (McClelland and Judd 1993) by
singling out women carrying perceptibly ―loud‖ and ―quiet‖ handbags in terms of brand
prominence, which is reflected in the data (see Figure 3). Otherwise, the selection of
women to interview was random.
FIGURE 3-3. Distribution of Brand Prominence

Emotional Profile. Among our 38 respondents, four reported carrying counterfeit
designer handbags and one interview was interrupted unexpectedly; we address the issue
of counterfeit goods in more detail in our general discussion. Hence, five recordings were
eliminated from the data, leaving 33 audio files individuals. For each of the four emotions
(embarrassment, anger, happiness and sadness) as well as stress measured by the LVA
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Brand Prominence
Number of Participants

61
software, we calculated the average for the periods before and after the compliment for
each individual. In our analysis, we used the difference or change in emotion and stress
level as our dependent measure. For embarrassment, the focal DV, this change ranged
from -4.76 to 5.13 with M = 0.78.
3.4.5. Results
We estimated a series of linear regressions with the change in emotion scores as
the dependent variable and brand prominence rating as the predictor variables. Several
additional measures were included as possible covariates: brand, the number of designer
handbags the respondent owned, age, and employment status. The results are shown in
Table 1. Consistent with our prediction, embarrassment scores increased significantly
with an increase in brand prominence (β = .49, p < .01), while other emotions did not,
suggesting those consumers interviewed experienced more embarrassment when
complimented if they were carrying a relatively conspicuously-branded handbag. These
results support hypothesis 1.
TABLE 3-1. Effects of Brand Prominence on Embarrassment

Brand
prominence
Brand
(LV=1,
nonLV=0)
The number
of designer
handbags
Age
Employment
status
(Yes=1,
No=0)
Embarrassed .49** (.17) -1.44 (.94) .04 (.05) -.09* (.04) 1.52 (.85)
Happy .07 (.15) 1.21 (.84) .02 (.05) -.06 (.04) -.80 (.76)
Sad -.06 (.23) -.29 (1.30) <.01 (.07) .07 (.06) -.29 (1.17)
Angry .02 (.12) -.11 (.66) <.01 (.04) -.03 (.03) .57 (.60)
Stressed -.22 (.12) -.33 (.70) <.01 (.04) .04 (.03) .21 (.63)
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01; Entries in the table correspond to parameter estimates in OLS
regression. Standard errors are in parentheses.

62
Given that the interviewer sought out respondents based on brand prominence, it
was important to determine whether the interviewer‘s voice changed depending on
whether she was interviewing a person with a loud versus a quiet handbag. A change in
the interviewer‘s voice could have influenced the respondents‘ affective states during the
conversation. To rule this effect out, we used a similar procedure to analyze the
interviewer‘s voice. We examined the interviewer‘s emotional states at the moment when
the interviewer gave a compliment and during the second phase in which the interviewer
asked questions about the respondent‘s handbag. As shown in Table 2, none of the
interviewer‘s emotional measures depended on the brand prominence of respondents‘
handbags.
TABLE 3-2. Analyses of Interviewer’s Emotional States
DV: Interviewer‘s
emotional states

IV: Interviewee‘s brand prominence
While delivering
compliment

Second part of
interview
Embarrassed -.02 (.53) .01 (.26)
Happy 0 (0) -.02 (.02)
Sad -.37 (.32) -.52 (.32)
Angry 0 (0) .03 (.03)
Stressed .02 (.25) -.08 (.14)

Note: *p < .05; Entries in the table correspond to parameter estimates in OLS regression.
Standard errors are in parentheses.

3.4.6. Discussion
The results from Study 1 demonstrate how people who signal more loudly are
more likely to be embarrassed when their signal is acknowledged, even when the

63
acknowledgement is positive and comes in the form of a compliment. We demonstrate
this effect with real consumers displaying signals in a natural environment. One
advantages of using LVA technology instead of self-reports to measure emotional
reactions is that it bolsters the external validity of our results. Further, we may be picking
up emotional responses that other methodologies might miss. The difficulty of measuring
self-conscious emotions is well recognized (Tracy and Robins 2004), as memories for
emotional experiences decline very fast after encoding (Rubin and Wenzel 1996) such
that people are often unable to report accurately on their emotional experiences. Further,
respondents are often unwilling to report accurately on sensitive topics for impression
management reasons and reply in a manner that they believe is socially desirable (Fisher
1993). This difficulty resulted in a lack of reliable procedures for assessing online self-
conscious emotions from nonverbal behaviors while researchers recently have begun to
develop standardized measures of self-conscious emotions (Robins, Noftle and Tracy
2007). By measuring respondents‘ emotional reaction with the LVA technology, we
believe we were able to capture less biased emotional measures than self-reports and
have identified an interesting pattern whereby loud signalers are more likely to become
embarrassed when their signal is acknowledged with a compliment.
3.5. Study 2: the Role of Self-discrepancy and Social Anxiety
3.5.1. Overview
In Study 1, loud signalers are shown to become more embarrassed than quiet
signalers when their signal is acknowledged by others. In Study 2, we manipulate brand
prominence in order to examine the mechanism responsible for the differential response

64
to compliments. We demonstrate how self-discrepancy, the divergence between one‘s
self-image and his or her desired self-image, moderates the effect of brand prominence on
embarrassment (i.e. an interaction between brand prominence and self-discrepancy). We
also show how a loud signal and large self-discrepancy causes social anxiety, the concern
others‘ may be evaluating the signaler. Hence social anxiety mediates the moderated
response of self-discrepancy on brand prominence (i.e. mediated moderation).
3.5.2. Method
Design. We utilized a 2 (brand prominence: loud vs. quiet) x 2 (self-discrepancy:
low vs. high) x 2 (scenario: handbag, t-shirt) between subjects, full factorial design.
Respondents. Two scenarios were run in order to test the generalizability of our
theorizing. Respondents in the handbag scenario were 80 female business students at a
major university‘s business school who participated in this and other studies for course
credit. Respondents in the t-shirt scenario were 108 men drawn from two distinct groups
selected to ensure our sample included people ranging in familiarity with MMA. Thus,
our sample included both practitioners and non-practitioners. Sixty-three came from the
same respondent pool as in the handbag study and 45 participated online. Given that the
domain of the t-shirt study was mixed martial arts (MMA), we contacted 60 individuals
from a local mixed martial arts academy by e-mail and 45 (75%) participated in the exact
same study administered to both groups online.
In the handbag scenario, a woman named Lisa was described as just having
purchased a luxury, designer handbag. In the t-shirt scenario, a man named Jim was
described as just having purchased an MMA t-shirt. Brand prominence was manipulated

65
by showing pictures of handbags varying the size and conspicuousness of the brand on
the product each purchased and indicating which one the person in the scenario chose. In
the handbag study, Lisa was described as having chosen either a conspicuously branded
(loud) or an inconspicuously branded (quiet) Louis Vuitton purse. In the t-shirt scenario,
Jim was described as having chosen either a loud or quiet shirt from Tapout, a brand well
known for sponsoring MMA athletes. Respondents were shown the illustrations in Figure
4 that reflected the product sets confronting Lisa and Jim.
FIGURE 3-4. Manipulation of Brand Prominence

66
Self-discrepancy was manipulated by describing the gap between their current and
desired self-images (Duval and Wicklund 1972). In the handbag scenario, this was
accomplished by either describing Lisa as someone who craved status and had risen in
the social hierarchy but still felt like she didn‘t fit in (high self-discrepancy), or as
someone who craved status but was born into an upper class family, frequented political
and fundraising events, and fit in well with other social elites (low self-discrepancy). In
the t-shirt scenario, in the high-discrepancy scenario, Jim was described as someone who
craved athleticism and wanted to be more masculine but rarely worked out and had never
tried MMA. In the low-discrepancy condition, Jim had the same aspirations but was
described as athletic, masculine, and a longtime MMA practitioner who instructed others.
After reading a scenario, respondents were told that Lisa (Jim) was spotted
carrying (wearing) the new purse (t-shirt) and received a compliment from a stranger.
Respondents then indicated the extent to which Lisa (Jim) would feel embarrassed as
well as completed a series of scales intended to capture three distinct theories that could
explain why people become embarrassed (social anxiety, dramaturgic theory, and loss of
self-esteem) drawn from Parrott and Smith (1991). For example, items to measure social
anxiety included ―Jim/Lisa is worried about how the compliment giver would evaluate
him/her,‖ while items to measure the dramaturgic theory included ―Jim/Lisa doesn't
know how to act in this situation,‖ and items to measure loss of self-esteem included
―Jim/Lisa thinks poorly of himself/herself in this situation.‖

67
3.5.3. Results
Embarrassment. We predicted self-discrepancy would moderate the effect of
brand prominence on embarrassment such that a loud signal would elevate
embarrassment but only for those with a large gap between their current and desired self-
images. Separate ANOVAs for the handbag and t-shirt studies revealed an identical
pattern of results as well as level of significance. For the sake of brevity, we collapsed the
data across scenarios, controlling for category, and discuss only the combined results; we
include the full set of means is reported in Table 3.

68
TABLE 3-3. Effect of Brand Prominence and Self-Discrepancy on Embarrassment
and Social Anxiety

Embarrassment
Scenario
Handbag
scenario

T-shirt
scenario
Combined
Self-discrepancy Low High Low High Low High
Brand
prominence
Quiet
1.65
a

(.20)
1.70
a

(.21)

2.00
a

(.17)
2.90
a

(.26)

1.87
a

(.13)
2.29
a

(.19)
Loud
1.47
a

(.19)
2.50
b

(.34)

2.25
a

(.22)
4.04
b

(.37)

1.93
a

(.16)
3.40
b

(.28)
Social anxiety
Scenario
Handbag
scenario

T-shirt
scenario
Combined
Self-discrepancy Low High Low High Low High
Brand
prominence
Quiet
2.60
a

(.20)
2.56
a

(.25)

2.85
a

(.23)
3.33
a

(.26)

2.74
a

(.16)
2.94
a

(.19)
Loud
2.29
a

(.24)
3.93
b

(.35)

2.91
a

(.22)
4.54
b

(.28)

2.66
a

(.17)
4.28
b

(.22)
Note: Means with different superscripts within each group (i.e. Handbag scenario, T-shirt
Scenario or combined data) are statistically different from each other at p < 0.05;
Standard errors are provided in parenthesis below the means
In predicting embarrassment, an ANOVA revealed significant main effects of
brand prominence (M
quiet
= 2.06 vs. M
loud
= 2.72; F(1, 186) = 8.53, p < .01) and self-
discrepancy (M
low
= 1.89 vs. M
high
= 2.86; F(1, 186) = 22.46, p < .001) qualified by a
significant interaction (F(1, 186) = 6.96, p < .01). When self-discrepancy was low, there
was no significant difference in embarrassment based on whether the signaler displayed a
quiet or loud signal (M
low-quiet
= 1.87 vs. M
low-loud
= 1.93; F(1, 186) = .04, p = .84). But
when self-discrepancy was high, a loud signaler was expected to feel more embarrassed

69
(M
high-quiet
= 2.29 vs. M
high-loud
= 3.40; F(1, 186) = 15.42, p < .001). This result supports
hypothesis 2 (see Figure 5).
Social anxiety. We also conducted an ANOVA on social anxiety, which revealed
significant main effects of brand prominence (M
quiet
= 2.83 vs. M
loud
= 3.54; F(1, 186) =
11.29, p < .001) and self-discrepancy (M
low
= 2.71 vs. M
high
= 3.63; F(1, 186) = 23.65, p
< .001) qualified by a significant interaction (F(1, 186) = 14.42, p < .001). When self-
discrepancy was low, utilizing a loud signal or quiet signal did not differ in inducing
social anxiety (M
low-quiet
= 2.74 vs. M
low-loud
= 2.66; F(1, 186) = .10, p = .76). But when
self-discrepancy was high, the loud signaler was expected to feel more social anxiety
(M
high-quiet
= 2.94 vs. M
high-loud
= 4.28; F(1, 186) = 25.57, p < .001). The pattern of results
is illustrated in Figure 5.

70
FIGURE 3-5. Interaction of Brand Prominence and Self-discrepancy on
Embarrassment and Social Anxiety

Mediation analysis. The similar pattern of results for embarrassment and social
anxiety suggests that social anxiety is mediating the interactive effect of brand
prominence and self-discrepancy on embarrassment as expected. Testing whether the
1.87
1.93
2.29
3.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
Quiet Loud
Brand prominence
Embarrassment
Self-discrepancy Low
Self-discrepancy High
2.74
2.66
2.94
4.28
0
1
2
3
4
5
Quiet Loud
Brand prominence
Social Anxiety
Self-discrepancy Low
Self-discrepancy High

71
combined effect of brand prominence and self-discrepancy on embarrassment is mediated
by social anxiety involves testing for mediated moderation. To test for mediated
moderation, we need to examine three regression models. The relevant betas for all three
regression analyses are presented in Table 4. The requirements for showing mediation
were successfully met: (i) there was a significant interaction of brand prominence × self-
discrepancy on embarrassment (β = .26, 6 p < .01); (ii) there was a significant interaction
of brand prominence × self-discrepancy on social anxiety (β = .36, p < .001); and (iii)
finally, the regression results show that with the inclusion of the potential mediator (i.e.,
social anxiety) and the interaction of brand prominence × self-discrepancy, the effects of
the previously significant interaction of brand prominence × self-discrepancy on
embarrassment is not significant (social anxiety: β = .45, p < .001; brand prominence ×
self-discrepancy: β = .05, p = .57). Such a pattern is indicative of the presence of
mediated moderation (Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt 2005). These results support hypothesis
3.

72
TABLE 3-4. Mediating Effect of Social Anxiety on Embarrassment
Predictor
Embarrassment Social anxiety Embarrassment

β t β t β t
X: Brand prominence
(0 = quiet, 1 = loud)
.29 2.92** .32 3.36*** .09 1.00
Mo: Self-discrepancy
(0 = low, 1 = high)
.47 4.74*** .46 4.86*** -.23 -.99
X×Mo: Interaction of
Brand Prominence
and Self-discrepancy
.26 2.64** .36 3.80*** .05 .57
Me: Social Anxiety .45 6.32***
Me×Mo: Interaction
of Social anxiety and
Self-discrepancy
.16 2.25*
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

We should also note that in order to assess social anxiety‘s role relative to other
determinants of embarrassment (i.e. the loss of self-esteem model and dramaturgic
model), we employed a bootstrapping sampling procedure following the
recommendations of Preacher and Hayes (2008). A multiple mediator model in which all
three causes of embarrassment entered simultaneously allowed us to examine the
mediating effect of social anxiety while controlling for the effect of the other causes of
embarrassment. The results are summarized in Table 5. They suggest social anxiety is the
only mediator (i.e., only its 95% confidence interval (CI) of .0741 and .7248 does not
contain zero). Neither dramaturgic theory nor self-esteem appears to have mediated the
interaction effect of brand prominence and self-discrepancy. These results lend further
support to hypothesis 3 as the interactive effect of brand prominence and self-discrepancy

73
on embarrassment is shown to be mediated by social anxiety and not other potential
causes of embarrassment.
TABLE 3-5. Bootstrap Results of Test for Putative Mediators of the Interaction
Effects of Brand Prominence and Self-discrepancy on Embarrassment
Mediating
variable

Effect of IV
on M
Effect of M
on DV
Indirect effect
Point
estimate
Bias corrected
confidence intervals
Lower Upper
Social
anxiety
1.4262*** .2329** .3322 .0741 .7248
Dramaturgic
difficulty
.6196 .1370 .0849 -.0236 .3091
Self-esteem .3126 .4561*** .1426 -.1185 .5255

Note: **p < .01, ***p < .001
IV: the interaction of brand prominence and self-discrepancy
DV: embarrassment
Covariates: brand prominence, self-discrepancy
Mediators: social anxiety, dramaturgic theory, loss of self-esteem

3.5.4. Discussion
In Study 2, we demonstrated the moderating effect of self-discrepancy and the
mediating effect of social anxiety. While Study 1 demonstrated the effect in a naturalistic
environment, Study 2 assessed the underlying mechanism by manipulating brand
prominence and self-discrepancy. The results of Study 2 illustrate how signalers will be
more embarrassed after receiving a compliment on their signal when their signal is loud
and they have a discrepancy between their desired and actual self-images. The finding on
the mediating effect of social anxiety provides evidence for the underlying psychological

74
process such that embarrassment results from heightened concerns about others‘
evaluation and interpretation of the signal.
In addition, Study 2 utilized two product categories (i.e. handbags and t-shirts)
that cater to two different identity domains (i.e. status and athleticism) and to women and
men. The effects were found to be generalizable across product categories and gender.
3.6. Study 3: The Effect of Signal Similarity
3.6.1. Overview
In Study 3, we explore how similarity, operationalized as a compliment giver‘s
own signal, might influence the effect of the compliment on the original signaler‘s
emotional response. Our theorizing suggests that loud signalers feel more embarrassed
than quiet signalers after receiving a compliment because loud signalers are more
concerned with how others might evaluate them. It has been shown that people expect
more favorable evaluations from similar others (Byrne and Clore 1967). Accordingly,
when the person who pays the compliment is sending a similar type of signal (loud), the
recipient will be less likely to anticipate being evaluated negatively and, in turn, be less
embarrassed. Conversely, we expect that if the compliment giver is sending a much
different signal (quiet), the recipient will be more likely to anticipate being judged
negatively and feel even more embarrassed. By examining a variable that potentially
moderates concerns about others‘ negative evaluation, Study 3 offers an additional test of
the proposed mechanism of social anxiety.

75
3.6.2. Method
Study 3 is a field experiment in which we relied on the same interview procedure
as in Study 1 except for one key difference. The researcher carried either a very loud or
very quiet Louis Vuitton purse or a no name brand handbag (see Figure 6). Given that the
intention of Study 3 was to demonstrate the moderating effect of similarity of the
compliment giver‘s signal on embarrassment for those most likely to be embarrassed, the
interviewer approached only women identified as carrying a loud Louis Vuitton handbag.
Of the 100 women approached, 50 interviews were collected (50%). The participants
were largely Caucasian (66% Caucasians, 10% African Americans, 6% Hispanics, 12%
Asian/ Pacific Islander, 4% Arabic/ Middle Eastern and 2% other), ranging in age from
15 to 67 years (average 38.5). At the conclusion of each interview, the researcher asked
whether the interviewee noticed her handbag during the conversation. Because we sought
to determine the effects of a similar countersignal, we excluded four women who
reported not noticing the handbag. Four interviewees carrying counterfeit designer
handbags were also excluded. This resulted in 42 interviews in our data set.
FIGURE 3-6. Interviewer’s Handbags for Three Conditions
(1) No name brand
handbag
(2) Quietly branded
handbag
(3) Loudly branded
handbag

76
3.6.3. Results
As in Study 1, the change in embarrassment before and after the compliment
comprised our focal DV. Our design included three conditions based on the type of purse
carried by the interviewer (loud, quiet, no brand). An ANOVA revealed significant
differences in the change in embarrassment based on the brand prominence of the
handbag carried by the interviewer (F(2, 39) = 7.52, p<.01). As illustrated in Figure 7, a
compliment from someone who signals in the same way (i.e. loudly) leads to less
embarrassment as compared to a compliment from someone who signals differently (i.e.,
quietly) (µ
quiet
= 1.589 vs. µ
loud
= -0.686; F(1, 40) = 10.40, p < .01) or not at all (µ
no name
brand
= 1.591 vs. µ
loud
= -0.686; F(1, 40) = 11.35, p < .01).
FIGURE 3-7. The Impact of the Brand Prominence of the Interviewer’s Signal on
Respondents’ Embarrassment

1.591 1.589
-0.686
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
No name brand Quiet Loud
Type of Interviewer's signal

77
3.6.4. Discussion
In Study 3, we accomplish two things. First, we further our understanding of
consumers‘ response to others‘ acknowledgment on their signals by considering the
impact of the type of signal sent by the person giving the compliment to the original
signaler. In Studies 1 and 2, we focused on how a signaler‘s reaction to another‘s
compliment differs depending on the brand prominence of the signal and self-relevant
information. In Study 3, we examined the influence of the person giving a compliment on
the signal. Specifically, we found that when the person giving a compliment is carrying a
similar type of signal (i.e., loud), the loud signaler‘s embarrassment from having their
signal acknowledged dissipated.
Second, these results lend further support for social anxiety as the underlying
process of embarrassment. Study 1 showed that loud signalers are more likely to feel
embarrassed than quiet signalers and Study 2 demonstrated that this embarrassment
results from heightened concerns about others‘ evaluation (i.e. social anxiety). In Study 3
we do not directly measure social anxiety, whether the signaler is less concerned about
being evaluated. While not conclusive, the reduced embarrassment of loud signalers
when the compliment giver‘s signal was also loud suggests that similarity suppresses
concerns about others‘ evaluation and in turn embarrassment.
3.7. Chapter Discussion
This research examines what occurs when a signaler gets feedback on his or her
signal, exploring the entire process of signaling with brands and documents a distinct
consequence of identity signaling. We investigate the role of brand prominence and show

78
how consumers, who display conspicuously branded goods that suggest they are seeking
attention, become more embarrassed when others give them a compliment. Also, we
examine how the signaler‘s self-perception, particularly the divergence between the
signaler‘s desired and actual self-images, influences his or her response to others‘
compliments. The results show that signalers are more likely to feel embarrassed when
their signal is loud (versus quiet) and they have a high (versus low) self-discrepancy.
While previous research has focused on either signals being sent or impressions
being made by signal recipients, this research views identity signaling as a dyadic
phenomenon and investigates how the signaler interacts with the signal recipient. More
specifically, it focuses on how the signaler responds when a recipient notices the signal
and positively acknowledges it with a compliment. We show that the signaler‘s reaction
depends on how he or she thinks the compliment giver thinks of him or her and such
concerns about others‘ evaluation depends on the signaler‘s signal choice regarding brand
prominence and the perception of his or her self-image.
Furthermore, by documenting embarrassment as a consequence of identity
signaling, we link the growing body of work on identity signaling with the literature on
emotions. While previous research on identity signaling has focused on cognitive aspects
of the phenomenon, our research begins to explore an emotional consequence of identity
signaling. People should expect and desire others‘ attention and acknowledgment on their
signals particularly when the signals express their desired identities. Past research has
focused on undesired social attention as the causes of blushing and embarrassment (Leary

79
et al. 1992). However, the current research demonstrates how people can feel
embarrassed when they receive the attention they desire.
One might ask why people purchase and display conspicuously branded products
in the first place if they are only going to feel embarrassed. Previous research has shown
that people use products and brands for symbolic self-presentation (Escalas and Bettman
2003, 2005; Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan 1993; Belk 1988), and to associate or dissociate
themselves from others (Han, Nunes, and Drèze 2010). First, people may expect others to
read the signal, but not mention it. Second, people may expect to feel embarrassed when
others acknowledge the signal, but even so, they may still choose loud signals over quiet
signals when they think the benefits of sporting loudly branded goods outweigh the
psychosocial costs of experiencing embarrassment Lau-Gesk and Drolet (2008) also
showed consumers may be willing to suffer the embarrassment that comes from
purchasing certain products when the products can prevent negative experience in the
future. Further, individuals may find compliments self-enhancing and self-affirming
despite feeling embarrassed at the same time. We demonstrated the effect of brand
prominence on embarrassment in Study 1 and the moderating effect of self-discrepancy
in Study 2. The results of Study 2 show that it is when the signalers display
conspicuously branded products and have a discrepancy in their self-images that a
compliment leads to embarrassment. The main effect of brand prominence found in
Study 1 could be due to the fact that consumers with self-discrepancy tend to prefer loud
signals to compensate for the insecurity in their self-image. As a consequence, the
distribution of actual consumers is skewed toward consumers with loud signals and high

80
self-discrepancy and consumers with quiet signals and low self-discrepancy. This is
entirely consistent with work by Braun and Wicklund (1989) that found that people who
feel inadequate in a self-identified domain tend to acquire materialistic displays of their
identity. For example, beginners in tennis were more likely to wear branded clothing than
were expert players, who were presumably more self-confident. Therefore, it is likely that
a high self-discrepancy leads consumers to prefer loudly branded goods to quietly
branded goods. However, in order to thoroughly understand the mechanism and the
conditions in which signalers feel embarrassed after receiving a compliment on their
signal, we investigated brand prominence and self-discrepancy as orthogonal factors in
Study 2.

81
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
4.1. Summary
Previous research has focused on either the messages being sent or the
interpretation of the signal by its recipients. However, this dissertation integrates the two
sides by investigating consumers‘ identity signaling as a dyadic phenomenon. In two essays,
we document a series of counterintuitive and intriguing findings. More specifically, the first
essay identified a group of consumers who are able to recognize quiet (inconspicuously-
branded) luxury goods and who are willing to pay more to signal to only those who can
decipher the quiet signal. In the second essay, I showed that consumers who display more
conspicuously branded goods – and thus, those trying harder to say something about
themselves with their product choice – ironically become more embarrassed when others
positively acknowledge their signal (i.e., pay them a compliment). To support the findings
in two essays, I utilize various methodologies, from an analysis of market data, to field
experiments and laboratory experiments. I also used a new methodology (i.e. Layered
Voice Analysis technology) to analyze the emotional response of consumers in a series of
field studies.
4.2. Implications
Our findings in the first essay have numerous implications for managers in the
luxury space. First and foremost, our findings suggest managers need to develop a griffe
(from the French for scratch), or a set of special signatures, for their brand. They must
develop the subtle cues that identify their products as their own even in the absence of an
explicit logo or brand name. Remove the emblem and a Porsche is still recognizable as a

82
Porsche; it will not be confused for a Maserati or Lexus. Even the Cayenne SUV looks
like a Porsche. In contrast, remove the star from its hood and a Mercedes might be
mistaken in passing for a Lexus. Consider how Gucci utilizes its distinctive bamboo as
hinges on sunglasses, handles on purses, and bands on watches. The griffe allows
patricians to signal associative desires to each other without sending the dissociative
message parvenus do when they signal using loud products. Along with developing a
griffe, firms must educate certain target customers about these subtle yet recognizable
details. For example, watchmaker Breguet informs its clientele about ―the discreet
decorative details that constitute the Breguet style,‖ including the Breguet cursive
numerals, and engine-turned silver dials.
Further, a luxury goods manufacturer may want to resist the urge to leverage their
brand by popularizing its trademark. Short term sales can be increased by coming up with
a lower-priced line or extending the brand to multiple categories, products likely to sell
well if they advertise the prestigious labels of their high-priced forebears. But if too many
people sport the brand‘s logo, than the mark loses its value as a dissociative status signal.
This was a problem Burberry faced in the 1990s when its trademark checked plaid
became ubiquitous, fashioned into everything from bikinis to umbrellas. Conversely,
reining the brand in too tightly may make it irrelevant and limit its value as a signal to the
lower classes, required for the parvenus. A delicate balance must be struck, which is what
Burberry attempted when the company vastly reduced its number of loud products and
began taking its signature check ―undercover‖ (e.g., putting it subtly under a shirt collar
and inside pockets). Our work suggests a mixture of quiet items known for their quality,

83
aesthetic, and other attributes along with loud items that allow parvenus to satisfy their
consumption related need for status has helped Louis Vuitton and Gucci become the
world‘s first and third ―most powerful‖ luxury brands, respectively (Sherman 2008).
Also, while marketers traditionally recommend firms focus their advertising on
their target market, luxury goods manufacturers must consider advertising to everybody.
Parvenus should believe proletarians and poseurs know the brand and will recognize them
as wealthy when they display it on their possessions. If the brand were unknown to the
general public, it would not serve as a dissociative signal. Also, when advertising to the
masses, the message must be aspirational rather than functional. Consider Louis Vuitton‘s
2008 foray into television advertising. The campaign promoted the brand, not any specific
product and a handbag only made one fleeting appearance. Focusing on its travel heritage
with a collage of moody images from France, Spain, India, and Japan, the ad was intended
to tell consumers that Louis Vuitton is something ―éphémère, but also something that stays‖
(Pfanner 2008).
We believe it may prove useful for luxury goods manufacturer to reassess the
traditional pyramid approach to luxury. Conventional wisdom depicts a ―trickle down‖
theory of status. For example, haute couture is notoriously unprofitable for design houses
but a necessity in appealing to those who aspire to have $100,000 custom-made dresses
with more moderately priced designs. The notion is that a luxury brand must appeal to the
crème de la crème of clientele in order for less sophisticated consumers to find their
wares attractive. This may not always be the case. In fact, it seems label-conscious
parvenus cannot recognize and hence may not really be aware of much of what the

84
patricians are buying, whether it is their $3,500 bottles of Krug Clos d‘Ambonnay
champagne (not $125 Dom Perignon) or $1,350 Bottega Veneta wedge-heel shoes (not
$200 Betsey Johnson wedges).
According to the findings in the second essay, what consumers experience while
using branded products as a signal is not only of interest from a theoretical perspective but
also from the practitioner standpoint. Managers should remember that people can be very
sensitive to others‘ reactions when they use conspicuously branded products to express
their desired self-image. This can apply to a retail store context that involves interactions
between consumers and sales people. Consumers who desire loud items to express their
desired identities may be more comfortable when sales people are wearing conspicuously
branded items. And this could be more relevant within the context of luxury stores,
especially when one considers some consumers feel intimidated in luxury stores due to the
notion that such stores and salespeople have a cold and judgmental disposition (Okonkwo
2007). If sales people at the store are also wearing loud items, this could suggest the signal
is entirely appropriate and may reduce consumers‘ concerns about how they are being
perceived with their choice of product.
Also, if consumers do end up feeling embarrassed, it might damage their
attachment to a brand and make them wonder whether the purchase was a good choice.
They might overcome the embarrassment themselves, but marketers can help too. For
example, they can run ad campaigns to help reduce concerns about others‘ judgment (e.g.,
advising them to expect acknowledgment and recognition). Brand prominence, or how
prominently a brand is displayed on a product, has been left to the designers as opposed

85
to the marketers who are actually managing the brand. However, the findings of this
research suggest that brand prominence should be used strategically by the marketers and
should be included in advertising and other communication decisions.
4.3. Suggestions for Future Research
This work is not without its limitations. For one, our counterfeit data in the first
essay is based on what is offered by Asian producers and resellers. Much of what is
known about consumer attitudes towards counterfeits and why they buy is presumed to
generalize across borders (see Commuri 2009). However, it would be useful if, in the
future, researchers could document either what is bought into or sold more directly in the
U.S. to better understand the trends among local consumers. Yet future work could
explore cultural differences involving false signaling using counterfeit luxury goods.
We based our investigation of brand prominence on what firms such as Louis
Vuitton, Gucci, and Mercedes offer in their product line and not what sells. Future
research may track sales, perhaps identifying undocumented reasons why consumers buy
particular styles or designs. To this end, our work explores what signals are recognizable
and what types of designs are favored but does not delve deeper into the aesthetic and
emotional components of the decision. This is a topic we plan to explore in the future as
we delve into the emotional responses involved in signaling and counter-signaling using
luxury goods. This promises to be a fruitful avenue for future work.
Another strength of this research is having documented how price and brand
prominence vary within a single brand‘s product line. Yet we fully understand it to be the
case that Hermès handbags cost more and are more subdued than Chanel, which cost

86
more and are quieter than Gucci, which we‘ve shown cost more and are quieter on
average than Louis Vuitton. An interesting question for future research is how firms that
market more conspicuously branded goods might impact their status by introducing
quieter goods. For example, we would predict that Coach, renowned as ―affordable
luxury,‖ would cost less and offer a louder line of handbags on average than Louis
Vuitton. In fact, the average bag at their Allentown, PA store costs $300 and they
produce only a tiny number of expensive items (Hass 2008). Would introducing a line of
quieter products help elevate Coach‘s status? Perhaps. Coach is planning to offer higher-
priced, toned-down products including a $2,100 ostrich version of its Hamptons bag at its
boutique store on Bleecker Street in Manhattan as an experiment in appealing to more up-
market consumers (Hass 2008). It is yet to be seen whether the products offered at their
new boutiques will elevate the store‘s status among New Yorkers to the levels of Gucci
or Louis Vuitton.
In the second essay, we show that loud signalers feel less embarrassed when the
compliment giver is also displaying a loud signal. However, there might be other
attributes of compliment givers that need further investigation. For example, as
embarrassment is caused by an acute concern for social evaluation, the intimacy between
the signaler and the compliment giver would likely affect the signalers‘ responses.
People are less likely to become embarrassed around family and friends than around
strangers and new acquaintances because they are more certain of their continued high
regards (Keltner and Buswell1996; MacDonald and Davies 1983). Also, embarrassment
tends to be less intense between people from different cultures whose norms are less

87
relevant to one another (Harré 1990). Additionally, it has been shown that embarrassment
occurs less often before an audience of those lower in status or authority whose
judgments one can be relatively less concerned with (Tangney et al. 1996). Future work
examining which attributes (e.g. familiarity, social status) of recipients increase or
reduce a signaler‘s concerns about others‘ evaluation and embarrassment is needed.
Our research documents the mediating role of social anxiety in inducing
embarrassment. More focused work could help us understand what exactly loud signalers
are concerned about regarding others‘ evaluation. They might be concerned about being
perceived as signaling that they are what they are actually not, as suggested by self-
discrepancy, but they may also be concerned about being perceived as trying too hard to
impress others through consumption. We believe this latter explanation for
embarrassment warrants further study.
Symbolic use of brands is robust across cultures (Aaker 1997). However, the
nature of the symbolic use and responses to others‘ acknowledgment might differ across
cultures. Aaker and Schmit (2001) showed that individuals with an independent self tend
to self-express by demonstrating their points of differentiation, while those with an
interdependent self tend to self-express by demonstrating points of similarity.
Furthermore, Singelis and Sharkey (1995) found that strength of the independent self-
construal is negatively correlated with embarrassability. The interaction between the
differences in motives of self-expressive behavior and embarrassiblity across cultures
could be studied in future research.

88
In this research, we focus on compliments as the form of acknowledgment.
However, there are other forms of acknowledgement, such as a mere gaze or a criticism.
We identified the conditions whereby a compliment leads to concerns about social
evaluation. Considering a mere gaze is less likely to lead to further interaction with the
signal recipient, concerns about others‘ evaluation might be less intense with others
simply staring at their signal. Future work should focus on how signalers respond to
different forms of acknowledgement.
In Studies 1 and 3 of the second essay, we eliminated respondents who were
carrying a counterfeit handbag. However, researchers could also examine how signalers
with counterfeit goods would respond to others‘ acknowledgment. Wilcox, Kim, and Sen
(2009) showed that consumers‘ moral beliefs about counterfeit consumption affect
counterfeit brand preferences particularly when their luxury brand attitudes serve a value-
expressive function. Gino, Norton, and Ariely (2010) also showed that wearing
counterfeit goods causes people to be something that they are not and behave unethically.
Therefore, consumers may experience more negative cognitive and emotional
consequences of such behavior. However, further research is needed to fully understand
the emotional consequences of using counterfeit goods as a signal and how these
signalers would respond to acknowledgment.
4.4. Final thoughts
Though we tested our theory in the context of branded products, we expect that
these effects are pervasive and the basic principles apply to any identity-signaling
behavior, from wearing brightly colored clothes to getting tattoos. Applications of our

89
theory in other domains of signaling remain to be tested in the future. Another interesting
question, however, arises: people use all kinds of things to express themselves, but to
what extent do signal recipients interpret the signals exactly as signalers intended? We
constantly use products and brands hoping we will achieve the image we desire through
signaling. However, we still have doubts about others‘ interpretation even when we
receive others‘ attention on our signals. This research opens the door to further work on
how signalers and recipients interact and interpret each others‘ responses.

90
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. (1992), ―The Value of Brand Equity,‖ Journal of Business Strategy, 13
(4), 27-32.
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), ―Dimensions of Brand Personality,‖ Journal of Marketing
Research, 34 (3), 347-356.
Aaker, Jennifer L. and Bernd Schmitt (2001), ―Culture-dependent Assimilation and
Differentiation of the Self: Preferences for Consumption Symbols in the United
States and China,‖ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (5), 561-576.
Adler, J. Michael (2009), "Detecting Deceptive Responses in Sex Offenders: A
Comparison of Layered Voice Analysis (LVA) and the Polygraph," Working
paper, Counseling and Consultation Services, Inc. Limestone, TN.
Allen, Jodie T. and Michael Dimock (2007), ―A Nation of ‗Haves‘ and ‗Have-Nots‘? Far
More Americans Now See Their Country as Sharply Divided Along Economic
Lines,‖ Pew Research Center Publications, (accessed August 18, 2008), [available
at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/593/haves-have-nots].
Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan (1992). ―Inclusion of other in the self
scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness‖ Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63 (4), 596-612.
Bagwell, Laurie S. and B. Douglas Bernheim (1996), ―Veblen Effects in a Theory of
Conspicuous Consumption,‖ The American Economic Review, 86, 3 (Jun), 349-
373.
Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), ―Reference Group Influence on
Product and Brand Purchase Decisions,‖ Journal of Consumer Research, 9
(September), 183-94.
Belk, Russell (1988) ―Possessions and the Extended Self,‖ Journal of Consumer
Research, 15 (2), 139-168.
———, Kenneth D. Bahn, and Robert N. Mayer (1982), ―Developmental Recognition of
Consumption Symbolism,‖ Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 4-17.
Berry, Christopher J. (1994), The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical
Investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

91
de Botton, Alain (2004), Status Anxiety. Pantheon Books, a division of Random House:
New York, NY.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste.
Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Braun, Ottmar L. and Robert A. Wicklund (1989), ―Psychological Antecedents of
Conspicuous Consumption,‖ Journal of Economic Psychology, 10 (2), 161-187.
Burroughs, W. Jeffrey, David R. Drews, and William K. Hallman (1991), ―Predicting
Personality from Personal Possessions: A Self-Presentational Analysis,‖ Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 147-163.
Buss, Arnold H. (1980), Self-consciousness and Social Anxiety, San Francisco: Freeman.
Byrne, Donn (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, New York: Academic Press.
Byrne, Donn and Gerald L. Clore (1967), ―Effectance Arousal and Attraction,‖ Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 6 (4), 1-18
Byrne, Donn, Gerald L. Clore, and George Smeaton (1986), ―The Attraction Hypothesis:
Do Similar Attitudes Affect Anything?‖ Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51 (6), 1167-1170.
Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier (1978), ―Self-focusing Effects of Dispositional
Self-consciousness, Mirror Presence, and Audience Presence,‖ Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (3), 324-332.
Charles, Kerwin Kofi, Erik Hurst, and Nikolai L. Roussanov (2007), ―Conspicuous
Consumption and Race,‖ NBER Working Paper No. W13392.
Coats, Susan, Eliot R. Smith, Heather M. Claypool, and Michele J. Banner (2000),
―Overlapping Mental Representations of Self and In-group: Reaction Time
Evidence and Its Relationship with Explicit Measures of Group Identification,‖
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36 (3), 304-315.
Commuri, Suraj (2009), ―The Impact of Counterfeiting on Genuine-Item Consumers‘
Brand Relationships,‖ Journal of Marketing, 73 (May), 86-98.

92
Damphousse, Kelly R., Laura Pointon, Deidra Upchurch, and Rebecca K. Moore (2007),
―Assessing the Validity of Voice Stress Analysis Tools in a Jail Setting,‖ Final
Report to the United States Department of Justice.
Dahl, Darren W., Rajesh V. Manchanda, and Jennifer J. Argo (2001), ―Embarrassment in
Consumer Purchase: The Roles of Social Presence and Purchase Familiarity,‖
Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 473–81.
Dubois, Bernard and Patrick Duquesne (1993), ―The Market for Luxury Goods: Income
versus Culture,‖ European Journal of Marketing, 27 (1), 35-44.
——— and Gilles Laurent (1995), ―Luxury Possessions and Practices, an Empirical
Scale,‖ European Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 69-77.
Eastman, Jacqueline K., Ronald E. Goldsmith, and Leisa R. Flynn (1999), ―Status
Consumption in Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and Validation,‖
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7 (Summer), 41-52.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), ―You Are What You Eat: The
Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers‘ Connections To Brands,‖ Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339-48.
——— (2005), ―Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,‖ Journal of
Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378-389.
Feltovich, Nick, Richmond Harbaugh, and Ted To (2002), ―Too Cool for School?
Signaling and Countersignaling,‖ RAND Journal of Economics, 33 (4), 630-649.
Fournier, Susan and Marsha Richins (1991), ―Some Theoretical and Popular Notions
Concerning Materialism,‖ Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 403-
414.
Fisher, Robert J. (1993), ―Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect
Questioning,‖ Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (2), 303-315
Garfein, R.T. (1989), ―Cross-cultural Perspectives on the Dynamics of Prestige,‖ Journal
of Services Marketing, 3 (3), 17-24.
Geller, Valerie and Phillip Shaver (1976), ―Cognitive Consequences of Self-awareness,‖
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 99–108.

93
Gino, Francesca, Michael I. Norton, and Dan Ariely (2010), ―The Counterfeit Self: The
Deceptive Costs of Faking It,‖ Psychological Science, 21(5), 712–720.
Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York:
Doubleday.
——— (1967), ―Interaction Ritual,‖ in Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Allen Lane:
The Penguin Press.
Grossman, Gene M. and Carl Shapiro (1988), ―Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods,‖
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 79-100.
Grace, Debra (2007), ―How Embarrassing!,‖ Journal of Service Research, 9 (3), 271–84.
Griffin, Dale W. and Lee Ross (1991), ―Subjective Construal, Social Inference, and
Human Misunderstanding,‖ in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.
24, ed. Mark P. Zanna, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 319–59.
Gumbel, Peter (2007), ―Luxury Goes Mass Market,‖ Fortune Magazine, The Business of
Luxury, (accessed August 19, 2008), [available at
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/30/magazines/fortune/mass_vs_class.fortune/inde
x.htm].
Halberstadt, Amy G. and Laura R. Green (1993), ―Social Attention and Placation
Theories of Blushing,‖ Motivation and Emotion, 17(1), 53-64.
Hall, Cecily (2008), ―Bragging Rights: The Top 12 Handbag Brands Ranked by
Familiarity Among Luxury Consumers,‖ Women’s Wear Daily, 11, November 8,
11.
Han, Young Jee, Joseph C. Nunes, and Xavier Drèze (2010), ―Signaling Status with
Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,‖ Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15-
30.
Harré, Rom (1990), ―Embarrassment: A Conceptual Analysis,‖ in W. R. Crozier (Ed.),
Shyness and Embarrassment: Perspectives from Social Psychology, 181-204,
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hass, Nancy (2008), ―Coach on the Edge: The Brand that Defined Accessible Luxury
Discovers the Downside of Mass versus Class,‖ Condé Naste Portfolio, (April),
105-53.

94
Higgins, Tory E. (1987), ―Self-discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect,‖
Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
——— (1989), ―Self-discrepancy Theory: What Patterns of Self Beliefs Cause People to
Suffer?‖ In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22,
Academic Press, San Diego, CA , 93-136.
Holmes, Janet (1986), ―Compliments and Compliment Responses in New Zealand
English,‖ Anthropological Linguistics, 28 (4), 485-508.
Iacobucci, Dawn, Bobby J. Calder, Edward C. Malthouse, and Adam Dulachek (2002),
―Psychological, Marketing, Physical, and Sociological Factors Affecting Attitudes
and Behavioral Intentions for Customers Resisting the Purchase of an
Embarrassing Product,‖ Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 236.
Interbrand (2009), ―2008 Leading Luxury Brands,‖ (accessed November 3, 2009),
[available at http://www.Interbrand.com].
Jones, Edward E. and Thane S. Pittman (1982), ―Toward a General Theory of Strategic
Self-presentation,‖ in J.Suls (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 231-
261, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1992), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.
Keltner, Dacher and Brenda N. Buswell (1996), ―Evidence for the Distinctness of
Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt: A Study of Recalled Antecedents and Facial
Expressions of Emotion,‖ Cognition and Emotion, 10(2), 155-171.
Kleine, Robert E., III, Susan Schultz Kleine, and Jerome B. Kernan (1993), ―Mundane
Consumption and the Self: A Social-Identity Perspective,‖ Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 2 (3), 209-235.
Leary , Mark R., Thomas W. Britt, William D. Cutlip II, and Janice L. Templeton (1992),
―Social Blushing, ― Psychological Bulletin, 112 (3), 446-460.
Levy, Sidney (1959), ―Symbols for Sale,‖ Harvard Business Review, July-August, 37.
Reprinted in: Kassarjian & Robertson, Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, Scott
Foresman, 1981.

95
MacDonald, Linda M. and Martin. F. Davies (1983). ―Effects of Being Observed by a
Friend or Stranger on Felt Embarrassment and Attributions of Embarrassment,‖
Journal of Psychology, 113, 171–174.
Manstead, A. S. R. and Gün R. Semin (1981), ―Social Transgressions, Social
Perspectives, and Social Emotionality,‖ Motivation and Emotion, 5 (3), 249-261.
Mayew, William J. and Mohan Venkatachalam (2011), ―The Power of Voice: Managerial
Affective States and Future Firm Performance,‖ Journal of Finance, forthcoming..
McClelland, Gary and Charles M. Judd (1993), ―Statistical Difficulties of Detecting
Interactions and Moderator Effects,‖ Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.
McKendrick, Neil, John Brewer, and J.H. Plumb (1983), The Birth of a Consumer
Society: The Commercialization of 18
th
Century England, London: Europa
Publications.
Miller, Rowland S. (1995), ―On the Nature of Embarrassability: Shyness, Social-
evaluation, and Social skill,‖ Journal of Personality, 63, 315–339.
——— (1996), Embarrassment. Poise and Peril in Everyday Life, New York: Guilford
Press.
Modigliani, Andre (1968), ―Embarrassment and Embarrassability,‖ Sociometry, 31, 313-
326.
——— (1971), ―Embarrassment, Facework, and Eye Contact: Testing a Theory of
Embarrassment,‖ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 15-24.
Muller, Dominique, Charles M. Judd, and Vincent Y. Yzerbyt (2005), ―When
Moderation Is Mediated and Mediation Is Moderated,‖ Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 89 (6), 852-863.
Muniz, Albert M. and Thomas C. O‘Guinn (2001), ―Brand Community‖ Journal of
Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-32.
O‘Cass, Aron and Hmily Frost (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.
Okonkwo, Uché (2007), Luxury Fashion Branding, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

96
Parrott, W. Gerrod and Stefanie F. Smith (1991), ―Embarrassment: Actual vs. Typical
Cases, Classical vs. Prototypical Representations,‖ Cognition and Emotion, 5,
467-488.
Pfanner, Eric (2008), ―Vuitton Ads Venture onto Television,‖ The New York Times,
January 29, Technology, (accessed December 7, 2009), [available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/technology/29iht-vuitton.4.9583452.html].
Pilkington, Neil. W. and John. E. Lydon (1997), ―The Relative Effect of Attitude
Similarity and Attitude Dissimilarity on Interpersonal Attraction: Investigating the
Moderating Roles of Prejudice and Group Membership,‖ Personality and Social
Psychological Bulletin, 23, 107-122.
Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), ―Asymptotic and Resampling
Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator
Models,‖ Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3), 879-891.
Rehman, Sharaf N. and John R. Brooks, Jr. (1987), ―Attitudes toward Television
Advertisements for Controversial Products,‖ Journal of Health Care Marketing, 7
(3), 78-83.Richins, Marsha L. (1994a), ―Valuing Things: The Public and Private
Meanings of Possessions,‖ Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 504-521.
——— (1994b), ―Special Possessions and the Expression of Material Values,‖ Journal of
Consumer Research, 21(3), 522-533.
Richins, Marsha (1994a), ―Special Possessions and the Expression of Material Values,‖
Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 522-33.
——— (1994b), ―Possessions and the Extended Self,‖ Journal of Consumer Research,
15 (2), 139-68.
Robins, Richard W., Erik E. Noftle and Jessica L. Tracy (2007), ―Assessing Self-
conscious Emotions: A Review of Self-report and Nonverbal Measures,‖ In The
Self-conscious Emotions: Theory and Research, ed. Jessica L. Tracy, Richard W.
Robins and June P. Tangney, New York, NY: Guilford Press, 443-467
Rosenfeld, Paul., Robert A. Giacalone and Catherine A. Riordan (1995), Impression
Management in Organizations: Theory, Measurement, and Practice, New York:
Routledge.

97
Rubin, David C. and Amy E. Wenzel (1996), ―One Hundred Years of Forgetting: A
Quantitative Description of Retention,‖ Psychological Review, 103, 734-760.
Sabini, John, Michael Siepmann, Julia Stein, and Marcia Meyerowitz (2000), ―Who is
Embarrassed by What?‖ Cognition and Emotion, 14 (2), 213–240.
Schlenker, Barry R. (1980), Impression Management: The Self-concept, Social Identity
and Inter- personal Relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schlenker, Barry R. and Mark R. Leary (1982), ―Social Anxiety and Self-Presentation: A
Conceptualization and Model,‖ Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.
Schubert, Thomas and Sabine Otten (2002), ―Overlap of Self, Ingroup, and Outgroup:
Pictorial Measures of Self-categorization,‖ Self & Identity, (4), 535-576.
Semin. Gün R. and A.S.R. Manstead (1981), ―The Beholder Beheld: A Study of Social
Emotionality,‖ European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 253-265.
Sherman, Lauren (2008), ―World‘s Most Powerful Luxury Brands,‖ Forbes.com, Style,
(accessed November 3, 2009), [available at
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/08/style-brands-powerful-forbeslife-
cx_ls_0508style.html].
Silver, Maury, John Sabini, and Gerrod W. Parrott (1987), ―Embarrassment: A
Dramaturgic Account,‖ Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 17, 47-61.
Singelis, Theodore M. and William F. Sharkey (1995), ―Culture, Self-Construal, and
Embarrassability,‖ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26 (6), 622-644.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), ―Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior; A Critical Review,‖
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 287-300.
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), ―The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic
Interactionism Perspective,‖ Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 319-29.
Sommers, Mitchell S., Troy E. Brown, Andrew H. Ryan and Stuart Senter (2007),
―Vericator - Assessing the Validity and Reliability of a Voice-Based Method for
Detecting Deception,‖ Working paper, Washington University in St. Louis and
Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Fort Jackson, SC.

98
Tangney, June P., Rowland S. Miller, Laura Flicker, and Deborah H. Barlow (1996),
―Are Shame, Guilt and Embarrassment Distinct Emotions?‖ Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256-1269.
Thomas, Dana (2007), Deluxe: How Luxury Lost its Luster. New York: The Penguin
Press.
Tracy, Jessica L., and Richard W. Robins (2004), ―Putting the Self into Self-conscious
Emotions: A Theoretical Model,‖ Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103-125.
Tropp, Linda R. and Stephen C. Wright (2001), ―Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion
of Ingroup in the Self,‖ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 585-600.
Veblen, Thorstein (1899), ―The Theory of the Leisure Class,‖ in The Collected Works of
Thorstein Veblen, Vol. 1.
Vella, Matt (2008), ―A Volvo with a Lot More Attitude,‖ BusinessWeek, March 17,
Innovation, 17.
Wee, Chow-Hou, Soo-Jiuan Tan, and Kim-Hong Cheok (1995) ―Non-price Determinants
of Intention to Purchase Counterfeit Goods,‖ International Marketing Review, 12
(6) 19-46.
Wernerfelt, Birger (1990), ―Advertising Content When Brand Choice is a Signal,‖ The
Journal of Business, 63 (1), 91-8.
White, Katherine and Darren W. Dahl (2006), ―To Be or Not Be? The Influence of
Dissociative Reference Groups on Consumer Preferences,‖ Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 16 (4), 404-13.
——— (2007), ―Are All Out-Groups Created Equal? Consumers Identity and
Dissociative,‖ Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (December), 525-36.
Whittler, Tommy E. and Joan Scattone Spira (2002), ―Model‘s Race: A Peripheral Cue in
Advertising Messages,‖ Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (4), 291-301.
Wilcox, Keith, Hyeong Min Kim, and Sankar Sen, (2009), ―Why Do Consumers Buy
Counterfeit Luxury Brands,‖ Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (May), 247-259.
Wilson, Aubrey and Christopher West (1981), ―The Marketing of ‗Unmentionables,‘‖
Harvard Business Review, 59 (1), 91-105.

99
Wilson, Eric (2007), ―Is This It for the It Bag?‖ The New York Times, Thursday,
November 1, Section G, p. 10.
Yu, Ming-chung (2003), ―On the Universality of Face: Evidence from Chinese
Compliment Response Behavior,‖ Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (10/11), 1679-1710.

100
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A.
TABLE A-1. (Chapter 2) Selected Claritas Segments
Segment Description 2007 Statistics

Code 01: Upper Crust
Wealthy, Older w/o Kids

The nation's most exclusive address, Upper Crust is the
wealthiest lifestyle in America--a haven for empty-
nesting couples between the ages of 45 and 64. No
segment has a higher concentration of residents earning
over $100,000 a year or possessing a postgraduate
degree. And none has a more opulent standard of living.

Households: 1,733,015
Proportion of Pop.:
1.52%
Median Income:
$111,546
Age ranges: 45-64

Code 02: Blue Blood Estates
Wealthy, Older w/ Kids

Blue Blood Estates is a family portrait of suburban
wealth, a place of million-dollar homes and manicured
lawns, high-end cars, and exclusive private clubs. The
nation's second-wealthiest lifestyle is characterized by
married couples with children, graduate degrees, a
significant percentage of Asian Americans, and six-
figure incomes earned by business executives,
managers, and professionals.

Households: 1,113,569
Proportion of Pop.: .98%
Median Income:
$116,546
Age ranges: 45-64

Code 03: Movers & Shakers
Wealthy, Middle Age w/o Kids

Movers & Shakers is home to America's up-and-coming
business class: a wealthy suburban world of dual-
income couples who are highly educated, typically
between the ages of 35 and 54. Given its high
percentage of executives and white-collar professionals,
there's a decided business bent to this segment:
members of Movers & Shakers rank number one for
owning a small business and having a home office.

Households: 1,836,308
Proportion of Pop.:
1.62%
Median Income:
$100,275
Age ranges: 35-54

101
APPENDIX B.
TABLE B-1. (Chapter 2) Study 3 Stimuli

102
APPENDIX C. (Chapter 2) Descriptions of Prototypes of the Four Classes of
Consumers

Ms. K (Patrician)
Ms. K lives in Boston. She is a lawyer and partner at a firm begun by her great
grandfather. She cut her hair short after she became tired of the knots and tangles caused
by driving with the top down in her convertible. She likes to take ski vacations whenever
she gets a chance and owns a chalet in Aspen. Her favorite brand is Chanel and her
favorite purse is the iconic Chanel 2.55 bag, which was introduced in 1955. She collects
modern art and sits on the board of directors for several museums and galleries. She finds
ostentatious products that have the brand plastered on them offensive and the nouveaux
riches completely gauche.

Ms. A (Parvenu)
Ms. A owns a family-run restaurant in Chicago. She started as a prep cook at a small
local restaurant and worked as a waitress, bartender, and manager. With her experience in
local restaurants, she started up her own contract catering business, which was a big
success and led to opening her own restaurant. She now lives in Oak Park, Chicago,
where she remodeled her house to look as if it were designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. She
often shops at Bloomingdale‘s and drives a Lexus ES. She loves Prada but only wishes
the emblems on the products were bigger so everyone could see she wears Prada.

Mr. L (Poseur)
Mr. L works as an accountant for an independent CPA office in Indianapolis, Indiana. He
likes to work on cars and has customized his 2004 Lancer. He is now considering buying
a convertible and restoring it. He loves barbecue and has several different kinds of grills
and smokers. He likes Ed Hardy and Affliction and has become a big fan of mixed
martial arts. He resents paying more than $50 for a t-shirt so he buys knock-offs in
downtown LA. He has a sneaker collection, with more than 70 pairs of shoes including
classic Nike and Adidas designs from the 1980s. He loves premium brands but thinks the
companies make too much money on them and thus has no problem with counterfeits –
including a fake gold Rolex his friends admire.

Mr. T (Proletarian)
Mr. T is a cashier at a supermarket in Los Angeles. He works a minimum of 30 hours a
week and he spends the rest of his week auditioning for roles. He drives a used Hyundai
because it‘s cheap and reliable, and he doesn‘t pay much attention to all the hype about
fancy cars. He eats a lot of Baja Fresh and has driven into Tijuana and down to Rosarita
Beach, where his favorite Mexican restaurant is located. He is a big fan of Patron tequila.
He likes Sketchers shoes and has several pairs, although he does not pay much attention
to brands.

103
APPENDIX D. (Chapter 3) Study 2 Scenarios
Loud signal and high self-discrepancy
Lisa was born into a lower middle class family. She worked hard to become a lawyer.
She always had to work part-time jobs, first as a waitress, then a telemarketer and hotel
desk clerk to pay for college and law school. It took her a long time to finish her degree,
but last year she finally passed the bar and started working for a small law firm because
the big name firms were unimpressed with her grades. She met a lot of high status people
at work but she doesn‘t feel she belongs or fits in at all. She wanted to look like them and
be one of them.
One day she went to a Louis Vuitton store looking for a new purse. A store clerk
recommended the two purses shown below. She bought the circled one.
The next day, she was standing in line for coffee and someone next to her said, ―I like
your Louis Vuitton purse!‖
Quiet signal and high self-discrepancy
Lisa was born into a lower middle class family. She worked hard to become a lawyer.
She always had to work part-time jobs, first as a waitress, then a telemarketer and hotel
desk clerk to pay for college and law school. It took her a long time to finish her degree,
but last year she finally passed the bar and started working for a small law firm because
the big name firms were unimpressed with her grades. She met a lot of high status people
at work but she doesn‘t feel she belongs or fits in at all. She wanted to look like them and
be one of them.
One day she went to a Louis Vuitton store looking for a new purse. A store clerk
recommended the two purses shown below. She bought the circled one.
The next day, she was standing in line for coffee and someone next to her said, ―I like
your Louis Vuitton purse!‖
Loud signal and low self-discrepancy
Lisa was born into an upper class family. The family business has been passed down
from generation to generation. She owns several exclusive boutique hotels in New York
where guests include the most elite and wealthy socialites in the state. She lives on the
Upper East Side of Manhattan. Lisa frequents charity functions and political fundraising
events that attract the social elite. In summer, she stays at her house in the Hamptons and
plays golf at the country club her family helped establish.

104
One day she went to a Louis Vuitton store looking for a new purse. A store clerk
recommended the two purses shown below. She bought the circled one.
The next day, she was standing in line for coffee and someone next to her said, ―I like
your Louis Vuitton purse!‖
Quiet signal and low self-discrepancy
Lisa was born into an upper class family. The family business has been passed down
from generation to generation. She owns several exclusive boutique hotels in New York
where guests include the most elite and wealthy socialites in the state. She lives on the
Upper East Side of Manhattan. Lisa frequents charity functions and political fundraising
events that attract the social elite. In summer, she stays at her house in the Hamptons and
plays golf at the country club her family helped establish.
One day she went to a Louis Vuitton store looking for a new purse. A store clerk
recommended the two purses shown below. She bought the circled one.
The next day, she was standing in line for coffee and someone next to her said, ―I like
your Louis Vuitton purse!‖

105
APPENDIX E. (Chapter 3) Study 2 Measures of Three Potential Causes of
Embarrassment
Lisa is worried about how the compliment giver would evaluate her.

Lisa is concerned that the compliment giver would think worse of her.

Lisa is anxious that she would fail to create the desired impression on the compliment
giver.

Lisa doesn't know how to act in this situation.

Lisa cannot think of a way to behave that was consistent with the circumstances.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

106
The circumstances prevented Lisa from acting as she would usually do.

Lisa thinks poorly of herself in this situation.

Lisa feels that she did NOT behave as well as she could have.

Lisa thinks the event was due to her behavior or choice.

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Disclosure of changes in taste: implications for companies and consumers

PDF

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

PDF

Essays on the role of entry strategy and quality strategy in market and consumer response

Asset Metadata

Creator Han, Young Jee (author)

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

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Publication Date 05/03/2011

Defense Date 03/01/2011

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

Tag brand,brand prominence,embarrassment,identity signaling,luxury brands,OAI-PMH Harvest,self discrepancy

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Nunes, Joseph C. (committee chair), Cavanaugh, Lisa (committee member), Diehl, Kristin (committee member), Wood, Wendy (committee member)

Creator Email youngjee.han@gmail.com,youngjha@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3867

Unique identifier UC1340134

Identifier etd-Han-4462 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-461141 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3867 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Han-4462.pdf

Dmrecord 461141

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Han, Young Jee

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