ROSELLINA FERRARO, AMNA KIRMANI, and TED MATHERLYConspicu.docx

ROSELLINA FERRARO, AMNA KIRMANI, and TED
MATHERLY*
Conspicuous brand usage, defined as attention-getting use of a
brand,
causes brand dilution under certain conditions. This research
examines
changes in observers' attitudes toward a brand after seeing a
brand user
engaged in conspicuous use of the brand. The authors propose
that
observers infer that a consumer engaged in conspicuous brand
usage is
driven by an ulterior motive of impression management. When
observers
have low self-brand connection, they exhibit less favorable
attitudes
toward both the brand user and the brand. In contrast, observers
with
high self-brand connection maintain their favorable view of the
brand in
the face of a conspicuous brand user. Three studies demonstrate
the
brand dilution effect of conspicuous brand usage.
Keywords: brand dilution, flaunting, impression management,
self-brand
connection, social influence
Look at Me! Look at Me! Conspicuous
Brand Usage, Self-Brand Connection,
and Dilution

Companies spend millions of dollars to enhance or main-
tain their brand image. Researchers have examined marketing
actions that may hurt brand image, including brand exten-
sions (Loken and John 1993), line extensions (Kirmani,
Sood, and Bridges 1999; Swaminathan, Page, and Giirhan-
Canli 2007), negative publicity (Ahluwalia, Bumkrant, and
Unnava 2000), and trademark violations (PuUig, Simmons,
and Netemeyer 2006). Prior research has emphasized how
the firm's own marketing actions or the actions of external
entities (e.g., competition, channel partners, the media) can
dilute the brand (for a review, see Loken and John 2010).
We propose that brand image may also be diluted by the
actions of brand users. Specifically, we argue that when
consumers see others engaging in conspicuous brand usage,
they may form a negative impression of the brand, resulting
*Rosellina Ferraro is Associate Professor of Marketing (e-mail:
rferraro®
rhsmith.umd.edu), and Amna Kirmani is Professor of Marketing
(e-mail:
[email protected]). Smith School of Business, University of
Maryland. Ted Matherly is Assistant Professor of Marketing,
Spears
School of Business, Oklahoma State University (e-mail:
[email protected]
okstate.edu). The authors thank Ilenia Confente, Heather
Johnson, Ajay
Abraham, and Zachary Arens for serving as models for the
study stimuli.
The authors thank the review team for their helpful comments
and sugges-
tions throughout the review process. Chris Janiszewski served
as associate
editor for this article.

in brand dilution. However, this effect is dependent on how
connected the observer is to the brand.
We define conspicuous brand use as attendon-getting
behavior with regard to the brand, such as flaunting or
name-dropping. We argue that consumers who use the brand
in an attention-getting manner are perceived as doing so for
ulterior motives, such as to manage impressions or gain
social approval. These "showing off' behaviors are viewed
as inappropriate and may ultimately reflect poorly on the
brand itself. For example, when a person wears Gucci sun-
glasses indoors, his or her behavior will be perceived nega-
tively and may hurt observers' attitudes toward Gucci.
We propose that the relationship between conspicuous
brand use and brand dilution depends on the self-brand con-
nection of the person observing the behavior. Self-brand
connection refers to the extent of overlap between the brand
and the self (Escalas 2004; Escalas and Bettman 2003).
Observers with high self-brand connection will maintain
their favorable view of the brand because their strong bond
with the brand insulates them against negative behavior on
the part of individual brand users. In contrast, those with
low self-brand connection are prone to dislike the brand
user, leading to less favorable brand attitudes when they see
someone using the brand conspicuously. Thus, conspicuous
brand usage hurts the brand among observers who lack a
strong bond with the brand. An implication is that future
© 2013, American Marketing Association
ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) 477
Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. L (August 2013), 4 7 7 ^ 8 8

478 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2013
attempts to sell the brand to these consumers may be unsuc-
cessful. Thus, conspicuous brand usage may slow brand
adoption by new users.
Our work differs from prior research on brand conspicu-
ousness (e.g.. Berger and Ward 2010; Han, Nunes, and
Drèze 2010; Wilcox, Kim, and Sen 2009) in several impor-
tant ways. First, prior work has examined consumers'
choice of conspicuous or nonconspicuous brands. In con-
trast, our work considers the inferences that observers draw
from the brand user's behavior rather than from the brand
itself. As such, our research applies to more than just luxury
brands, because any brand can be used in a conspicuous
manner as long as people perceive the behavior to confer
social benefits. Moreover, examining observers' perceptions
enables us both to identify situations in which observers
may make negative inferences about consumers' conspicu-
ous behavior and to assess brand dilution, neither of which
has been undertaken in prior research. Finally, we investi-
gate conspicuousness in the context of real brands rather
than counterfeits (Wilcox, Kim, and Sen 2009). In our stud-
ies, the issue is how consumers use the brand and not
whether they actually own the brand.
In the next section, we discuss the effects of conspicuous
brand usage on brand dilution. We then describe three stud-
ies that test the propositions and conclude with a discussion
of the current research's contribution to both marketing
theory and practice.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Conspicuous brand usage refers to situations in which a

consumer blatantly draws attention to the brand, such as by
flaunting or name-dropping. For example, the woman who
looks around to make sure she is seen while playing on her
iPad or the young man who posts a picture of himself strik-
ing a pose with a brand on Facebook are both behaving con-
spicuously. We suggest that because conspicuous usage vio-
lates social norms of modesty (Godfrey, Jones, and Lord
1986), it is likely to lead observers to think about the brand
user's motives. This is consistent with attribution theory,
which states that novel or unexpected behavior leads to
thoughts about the underiying causes (Kelley 1973). In par-
ticular, blatant brand-related behavior is likely to increase
the accessibility of ulterior motives (Campbell and Kirmani
2000) because the observer thinks that the consumer may be
using the brand to impress others and to gain social
approval rather than for dispositional reasons (Fein 1996).
Conspicuous behavior contradicts the notion that consumers
use a brand because they like it or find it useful. In contrast,
when brand usage is not conspicuous, the consumer's
actions do not lead to attributional thinking, and the behav-
ior is taken at face value (Marchand and Vonk 2005). In
other words, inconspicuous behavior leads the observer to
perceive the brand user as using the brand because he or she
inherently likes it or finds it useful.
We propose that the effect of conspicuousness on brand
attitudes depends on the observer's self-brand connection.
Self-brand connection refers to the extent to which a con-
sumer has incorporated a brand into his or her self-concept
(Escalas 2004; Escalas and Bettman 2003). A strong self-
brand connection is more likely to form when the con-
sumer's image is closely tied to the image of the brand.
When self-brand connection is high, consumers see aspects
of themselves mirrored in their brands and are likely to have
higher levels of brand attachment (Park et al. 2010). They

are likely to both care about the brand and know what it rep-
resents. In contrast, those low in self-brand connection do
not view the brand as a reflection of themselves, are less
likely to be attached to the brand, and may have more mal-
leable views of the brand. For these people, brand attitude
will be a function of their attitudes toward the conspicuous
brand user. Research suggests that attitudes toward a person
will be less favorable if that person is perceived as having
ulterior (i.e., impression management) motives (Oodfrey,
Jones, and Lord 1986; Schlenker and Leary 1982). For
example, Vonk (1998) shows that employees whose behav-
ior was viewed as attempting to curry their bosses' favor
were liked less than employees whose behavior was not
viewed as such. Similarly, people dislike others who show
off or engage in self-presentation (Oodfrey, Jones, and Lord
1986). Thus, those with low self-brand connection will dis-
like the conspicuous user, and this negative impression of a
salient brand user will transfer to the brand.
In contrast, observers with a high self-brand connection
tie their sense of self to the brand; therefore, they have an
incentive to maintain the image of the brand to protect their
own self-concept (Fournier 1998), suggesting a buffering
process. Swaminathan, Page, and Oiirhan-Canli (2007) show
that consumers with a strong link between self-identity and
the brand tend to discount and counterargue negative infor-
mation. Alternatively, Cheng, White, and Chaplin (2012)
suggest a self-affirmation process whereby a brand failure
is akin to a personal failure for those who have a strong self-
brand connection. The brand failure leads to lower self-
esteem, which must be boosted by favorable attitude toward
the brand (and, thus, oneself). In Cheng, White, and Chap-
lin's studies, brand failure occurs when a brand has a low
performance rating. Conspicuous brand usage may be akin
to brand failure, albeit not controlled by the firm.

This prior research suggests that consumers with high
self-brand connection will maintain their positive view of
the brand in the face of a conspicuous user, who may repre-
sent negative information about the brand. To protect their
own self-image, they may engage in coping behaviors such
as rejecting the brand user or reinterpreting the conspicuous
behavior (Carver and Scheier 1990).
In summary, we suggest that consumers with low self-
brand connection will dislike the conspicuous brand user,
which will lead to less favorable brand attitudes. However,
the brand attitudes of consumers with high self-brand con-
nection will remain favorable. More formally, we test the
following hypotheses:
Hj: Compared with nonconspicuous usage, conspicuous brand
usage leads to less favorable brand attitudes for observers
with low self-brand connection but not for observers with
high self-brand connection.
H2: Attitude toward the brand user mediates the effects of con-
spicuousness on brand attitude for those with low self-
brand connection but not for those with high self-brand
connection.
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
We test the hypotheses in three studies that involve either
a video (Study 1) or photos (Studies 2 and 3) of a person
Looi< at Me! Look at iVle! 479
using the brand in an everyday situation. We manipulate
conspicuous brand use in three distinct ways across the

studies. Study 1 finds support for the hypotheses, with
Apple as the focal brand, in an extended encounter with the
brand user. Study 2 shows that the effect of conspicuousness
on brand attitude is attenuated when observers do not view
conspicuous behavior as being driven by ulterior motives.
Study 3 replicates the results with a different brand. Tiffany
& Co. ("Tiffany," hereinafter), and a different manipulation
of conspicuousness, and it rules out alternative explanations
for the effects.
We initially selected the brands (i.e., Apple and Tiffany)
used in the studies on the basis of our prior knowledge of
their impression management potential and positive brand
image. We ran a pretest to confirm the viability of these
brands for the main studies. Participants were 50 undergrad-
uate students who received course credit in exchange for
participation. Participants rated the brands on a variety of
items. The item we used to assess the social benefit of using
the brand (i.e., impression management) asked, "To what
extent do people use the following brand to convey some-
thing about themselves to others?" (1 = "not at all," and 7 -
"very much"). Participants perceived both Tiffany and
Apple as able to convey something to others, with each
brand differing significantly from the midpoint of the scale
(MTiffany = 6.26; t(49) = 16.21,p < .0001; MAppie = 6.12;
t(49) = 11.50, p < .0001), in support of our use of these
brands. We also measured attitude toward the brand, which
was composed of three items ("dislike/like," "unfavorable/
favorable," and "bad/good"; each measured on seven-point
scales). Participants viewed both brands favorably. For
Tiffany, there was a gender effect on attitude; women liked
Tiffany significantly more than did men (M p̂ ĝ = 3.56,
M„ , = 5.30; t(48) - -4.89,p < .0001). Given women's
more positive attitudes toward Tiffany, we used only female
participants in Study 3. There was no gender effect on atti-
tude toward Apple (M^en = 6.00, M
̂ ,̂omen = 5.92; t(48) -

.22, no significant difference [n.s.d.]); however, we account
for any potential gender preferences in the two studies using
Apple by including gender as a control variable. We also
included age as a covariate in the analyses to account for
any age-related preferences for the brand.
To account for owner-related preferences for the brand
not captured by self-brand connection, we use product own-
ership as a covariate in all analyses as well. Although own-
ers of a brand are likely to have a stronger self-brand con-
nection than nonowners, not all owners will exhibit high
self-brand connection. Owners of a brand may have a low
or high self-brand connection depending on what the brand
means to them. For some owners, the brand may be purely
functional and is not tied to their self-concept. Similarly,
some nonowners will exhibit high self-brand connection if
their aspirational group values the brand (Escalas and
Bettman 2003).
STUDY 1
In Study 1, we show that conspicuous brand use negatively
affects attitudes toward the user and the brand only for
observers low in self-brand connection. We demonstrate the
effects of conspicuousness with a video of a person using
the brand. The video was designed to reflect how people
encounter consumers using brands in everyday environments.
Method
The study had one manipulated between-subjects factor
(conspicuousness: low vs. high) and one measured variable
(self-brand connection). One hundred fifty-four participants
drawn from an online panel completed the study in
exchange for a small cash payment (58.4% female, mean
age 28.6 years).

Procedure. Participants read that they would see a video
of a person named Stephanie (i.e., the target) and respond to
questions about her. The video lasted 45 seconds. We
manipulated conspicuous brand usage by the way Stephanie
interacted with her Apple iPad.
In both conditions, the target is shown walking toward a
table (ostensibly in a coffee shop), sitting down, and plac-
ing a cup of coffee on the table. She then pulls an Apple
iPad from her purse and begins using it. In the low conspicu-
ousness condition, the target holds the iPad and uses it for
approximately 15 seconds (for still shots from the video
showing the target with the iPad, see the Appendix; for the
complete stimuli and measures, see Web Appendix A at
www.marketingpower.com/jmr_webappendix). Next, she
places the iPad flat on the table and sips from the coffee
cup. She again uses the iPad while it lies flat on the table for
approximately five seconds and then leans back in her chair.
In the high conspicuousness condition, the target pulls out
an iPad stand and places it on the table before taking out the
iPad itself. As in the low conspicuousness condition, she
holds the iPad in her hands and uses it for approximately 15
seconds. In contrast to the low conspicuousness condition,
she then places the iPad in the stand so that the iPad is
upright. In addition, she glances around the room while sip-
ping the coffee. She then uses the iPad again while it is in
the stand for approximately five seconds before leaning
back in her chair, during which time she continues to glance
around the room.
We expected that the target's placing the iPad in the stand
and glancing around the room would make salient that she
was trying to get attention from others with her brand usage.
A pretest of the video using different participants from the
same population demonstrated that perceptions of ulterior

motives differed for the two video conditions. Perception
about the target's ulterior motives was measured using three
items: "Stephanie uses the iPad to... (1) impress other peo-
ple, (2) show off, (3) gain the approval of others" (1 = "not
at all," and 7 - "very much"; a = .93). The results showed
that participants perceived the target as having greater ulte-
rior motives when using the iPad in a conspicuous manner
(M = 4.80) than when using it less conspicuously (M = 4.21;
F(l,115) = 5.75,p<.05).
Measures. After viewing the video, participants responded
to a series of questions capturing attitude toward Apple, atti-
tude toward the target, and control variables. We measured
self-brand connection to Apple after an unrelated filler task.
We measured attitude toward the Apple brand with three
items ("Please rate your attitude toward Apple": "dislike/
like," "unfavorable/favorable," and "bad/good," on seven-
point scales; a = .97). We measured attitude toward the tar-
get using the same items after the question "What is your
impression of Stephanie?" ( a = .96). We assessed famil-
iarity with the Apple brand on a seven-point scale (1 = "not
at all familiar," and 7 = "very familiar") and determined
ownership using a yes/no question for whether participants
owned an iPad as well as a yes/no question for whether they
owned an iPhone, given the similarity of the iPad and iPhone.
In total, 31.2% of participants owned an iPad or iPhone.
Finally, we measured self-brand connection for Apple using
the Escalas and Bettman (2003) scale adapted to the Apple
brand (e.g., "Apple reflects who I am"; "I can identify with
Apple"; a - .95). Conspicuousness did not affect self-brand

connection for Apple (F( 1,149) = .31, n .s .d.).
Results
We conducted the analyses using regression, with self-
brand connection mean-centered. The independent variables
in the regression equations were the covariates (i.e., age,
gender, and ownership), conspicuousness, self-brand con-
nection, and the conspicuousness x self-brand connection
interaction.
The regression on brand attitude showed significant
effects of ownership (ß = .60, t(147) = 2.85,/? < .01), con-
spicuousness (ß = -.46, t(147) = -2.53,p < .05), self-brand
connection (ß - .50, t(147) -5.47,p< .0001), and the con-
spicuousness X self-brand connection interaction (ß = .25,
t(147) = 2.19,p < .05). Using the regression beta coefficient
estimates. Figure 1 displays brand attitude by conspicuous-
ness at low (-1 SD) and high (-i-l SD) levels of self-brand
connection. A spotlight analysis (Irwin and McClelland
2001) showed that participants with low self-brand connec-
tion to Apple (-1 SD) had less favorable brand attitudes
when the target was engaged in conspicuous brand use (M =
3.84) than when she was not using the brand in a conspicu-
ous manner (M = 4.71; ß = -.87, t(147) = -3.33,;? < .01). In
contrast, participants with high self-brand connection to
Apple (H-1 SD) had an equally positive attitude toward the
brand whether the target used the brand conspicuously (M -
6.25) or not (M = 6.31 ; ß = - . 0 5 , t(147) = - . 2 1 , n.s.d.). We
used the Johnson-Neyman technique to determine the value
of self-brand connection at which brand attitude is no longer
significantly different across the level of conspicuousness
Figure 1
STUDY 1 : ATTITUDE TOWARD APPLE BY
CONSPICUOUSNESS

AND SELF-BRAND CONNECTION
O)
• o
3 3.
i
2 .
Low conspicuousness
High conspicuousness
(Johnson and Fay 1950). This occurs when (mean-centered)
self-brand connection is equal to .45, which is approximately
a medium level of self-brand connection. In other words, the
target's conspicuous use of the brand negatively influenced
brand attitudes at values of self-brand connection below .45
but had no effect above .45. Thus, Hj is supported.
H2 predicts that attitude toward the brand user mediates
the effect of conspicuousness on brand attitude for
observers with low self-brand connection to Apple but not
for observers with high self-brand connection to Apple.
First, we ran a regression on attitude toward the brand user,
which showed only a significant effect of conspicuousness
(ß = - . 5 3 , t(147) = -2.48,p < .05). This result indicates that,
irrespective of self-brand connection, participants had less
favorable attitudes toward the target when she was engaged
in conspicuous brand use (M = 4.71) than when she was not
using the brand in a conspicuous manner (M = 5.24).
Because H2 represents a conditional process model
(Hayes and Preacher 2013), we tested the prediction using
the PROCESS SPSS application provided by Hayes (2013).

This application enables the estimation of the indirect effect
of conspicuousness on brand attitude through attitude
toward the brand user, conditioned on self-brand connec-
tion, using a bootstrapping procedure that addresses poten-
tial concerns with nonnormality of the distribution of the
indirect effect (MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams
2004). We estimated the conditional process model using
10,000 bootstrap samples.
Figure 2 displays the outcome of the analysis. The condi-
tional indirect effect of conspicuousness was significant at
low self-brand connection to Apple (-1 SD), because the
Figure 2
STUDY 1 : CONDITIONAL INDIRECT EFFECT OF
CONSPICUOUSNESS ON BRAND ATTITUDE AT LOW AND
HIGH SELF-BRAND CONNECTION
Low (-1 SD) High (+1 SD)
Self-Brand Connection
A: Low Self-Brand Connection (-1 SD)
Indirect Effect: ß =-.12**
-.59* /
Conspicuous-
ness
B:
/

Attitude toward
brand user
-.76**

0 "
Brand attitude
High Self-Brand Connection (+1 SD)
Indirect Effect: ß = -.09
-.47 /
Conspicuous-
ness
/
Attitude toward
brand user
-.001

.
3**
Brand attitude
*p<.10.
**p<.05.

Look at Me! Look at Me! 481
95% confidence interval (CI) around the estimate excludes
zero (B = -.12, SE = .08,95% bootstrap CI: -.34 to -.002).
In contrast, the conditional indirect effect of conspicuous-
ness was not significant at high self-brand connection to
Apple (-1-1 SD), because the 95% CI around the estimate
includes zero (B = -.09, SE = .07, 95% bootstrap CI: -.28
to .01). These results indicate that high conspicuousness
affected brand attitude through its effect on attitude toward the
brand user only for observers low on self-brand connection.
No change in brand attitude and, therefore, no mediation
occurred for those observers high in self-brand connection. In
addition to the indirect effect of conspicuousness on brand
attitude, there was also a direct effect of conspicuousness on
brand attitude (B = -.76, SE - .26, t(146) = -2.90,p < .01) for
those low in self-brand connection. This direct effect may
be due to the perception that the brand and its users are pre-
tentious or snobbish, making brand attitude less favorable.
Discussion
The results of this study support the central hypothesis
that conspicuous brand usage leads to less favorable brand
attitudes among observers with low self-brand connection
but not among observers with high self-brand connection.
This is consistent with our conceptual model that even if
people view a brand user as having ulterior motives, his or
her behavior does not affect the brand attitudes of those who
are highly connected with the brand.
Although we controlled for the effects of ownership, it is
possible that brand knowledge may differ by self-brand con-

nection. Thus, differential brand knowledge rather than self-
brand connection may account for these effects. To address
this concern, we reran the analysis and included brand
familiarity, which we use as a proxy for brand knowledge,
as a covariate. Familiarity did not have a significant effect
on either brand attitude or attitude toward the brand user.
Furthermore, the other results did not change with the inclu-
sion of familiarity, suggesting that brand knowledge is not a
driver of the effects. We report the results from the models
with and without familiarity in Web Appendix B (www.
marketingpower.com/jmr_webappendix).
In the next study, we use a dif'ferent manipulation of con-
spicuousness and examine a boundary condition of the con-
spicuousness effect when self-brand connection is low. Pre-
viously, we suggested that the negative attitude toward the
user was based on the inference that the user was trying to
show off. This implies that, for observers with low self-
brand connection, the effect of conspicuousness would be
attenuated if the conspicuous behavior were attributed to a
motive other than impression management. For example, if
the observer thinks that the conspicuous behavior is meant
in jest, an impression management motive will not be
inferred. Thus, discounting the ulterior motive for the con-
spicuous behavior should attenuate the negative effects of
conspicuous brand usage for low self-brand connection
observers. Because observers with high self-brand connec-
tion do not experience the dilution effect, the discounted
motive will not affect them. More formally, we test the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H3: When self-brand connection is low, conspicuous brand use
results in more favorable brand attitudes when the conspicu-
ous behavior is not attributed to ulterior motives than when
it is attributed to ulterior motives.

STUDY 2
Method
The objective of Study 2 was to test the three hypotheses.
We used a different manipulation of conspicuousness and a
different context: the social media website Facebook. The
study had one manipulated between-subjects factor (con-
spicuousness: low, high, and discounted) and one measured
variable (self-brand connection). One hundred three partici-
pants from an undergraduate subject pool (in exchange for
course credit) and an online panel (in exchange for a small
cash payment) completed the study. We included gender and
age as covariates in the analyses (46.6% female, mean age
25.7 years). As in Study 1, the focal product used in this
study is the Apple iPad, and we included ownership as a
covariate (43.7% Apple iPad/iPhone owners).
Procedure. Participants read that they would see either a
post or a photo from a person's Facebook page and then
respond to questions about the person. We manipulated con-
spicuousness by the photo and/or post (for the post and pho-
tos, see the Appendix; for the complete stimuli, see Web
Appendix C at www.marketingpower.com/jmr_webappendix).
In the low conspicuousness condition, participants saw a
post by a student named Mark that said, "Off to class, love
my new iPad." In the high conspicuousness condition, par-
ticipants saw the same post and a photo of Mark putting his
iPad into a pocket in the front of a T-shirt specifically
designed to carry an iPad. The shirt prominently displays
the iPad for others to see, and thus, wearing it would be per-
ceived as flaunting. In the discounted conspicuousness con-
dition, the same photo was used, but a reason for wearing
the shirt was provided. The post stated, "Off to class, love
my new iPad. Lost a bet, have to wear this shirt... loi." In
this condition, the conspicuous behavior should not be

attributed to an impression management motive. To ensure
that participants looked at the photo and/or post, it was dis-
played for five seconds before they were able to advance to
the questions. A pretest measuring perceptions of ulterior
motives for each of these conditions was conducted using a
different sample from the same population. The same three
items measuring ulterior motives as in the Study 1 pretest
were used. The target was perceived as having greater ulte-
rior motives in the high conspicuousness condition (M =
5.72) than in the low (M = 4.92; F(l, 139) = 10.00,/? < .01)
or discounted (M = 5.08; F(1,139) = 6.27,/? < .05) conspicu-
ousness conditions. Perceptions of ulterior motives did not
differ between the low and discounted conspicuousness
conditions (F(l, 139) = .44, n.s.d.). These results indicate
that the explanation that the target was wearing the shirt
because he lost a bet led to discounting of the ulterior
motive.
Measures. Participants responded to a series of questions
capturing attitude toward Apple, attitude toward the target,
ulterior motives, and control variables. We measured self-
brand connection to Apple after a filler task. We measured
attitude toward Apple ( a = .97), attitude toward the target
( a = .97), Apple brand familiarity, and self-brand connec-
tion for Apple (a = .96) as before. We observed no effects
of conspicuousness on self-brand connection (F(2, 97) -
.59, n.s.d.). We used the same three items measuring ulte-
rior motives as in the pretest (a = .92).
Results

brand connection mean-centered. Given that conspicuous-
ness has three levels (low, high, and discounted), we created
two dummy variables, with high conspicuousness serving as
the comparison condition. Thus, the independent variables
in the regression equations were the covariates (i.e., age,
gender, and ownership), low conspicuousness, discounted
conspicuousness, self-brand connection, the low conspicu-
ousness X self-brand connection interaction, and the dis-
counted conspicuousness x self-brand connection interaction.
Manipulation check. A regression on ulterior motives
revealed significant effects of gender (ß = - . 8 5 , t(94) =
-2.92, p < .01), low conspicuousness (ß = - . 9 5 , t(94) =
-2.25,p < .05), and the discounted conspicuousness x self-
brand connection interaction (ß = .69, t(94) = 2.6,p < .05).
The effect of low conspicuousness replicates the pretest
result and indicates that participants perceived the target to
have greater ulterior motives in the high conspicuousness
condition (M = 5.76) than in the low conspicuousness con-
dition (M = 4.81), irrespective of self-brand connection. The
interaction effect of discounted conspicuousness x self-
brand connection was unexpectedly significant. Delving
deeper using the spotlight analysis, participants with low
self-brand connection to Apple (-1 SD) perceived the target
as having greater ulterior motives in the high conspicuous-
ness condition (M = 6.12) than in the discounted conspicu-
ousness condition (M = 4.79; ß = -1.32, t(94) = -2.48,p <
.05), but participants with high self-brand connection to
Apple (+1 SD) had equal perceptions of ulterior motives
whether the target used the brand conspicuously (M = 5.41)
or used the brand conspicuously but with a reason (M =
5.46; ß = .05, t(94) = .10; n.s.d.). This perception of ulterior
motives among those with high self-brand connection may
be because the brand user was trying to be funny rather than
using the brand because he likes it. Although unexpected,
this finding should not affect the predicted outcome for

brand attitude, because those with high self-brand connec-
tion are hypothesized to be unaffected by the conspicuous-
ness manipulation.
Tests of H¡ and H2. A regression on brand attitude
revealed significant effects of low conspicuousness (ß =
1.46, t(94) = 3.92,p < .001), discounted conspicuousness
(ß = 1.23, t(94) = 3.43,/? < .001), self-brand connection (ß =
1.31, t(94) = 6.31 ,p < .0001 ), the low conspicuousness x
self-brand connection interaction (ß = -.84, t(94) = -2.11,
p < .01), and the discounted conspicuousness x self-brand
connection interaction (ß = - . 9 5 , t(94) = -3.39,/? < .001).
Figure 3 displays brand attitude for each condition at low
(-1 SD) and high {+ SD) levels of self-brand connection.
Consistent with H|, participants with low self-brand con-
nection to Apple (-1 SD) had a less favorable brand attitude
when the target was engaged in conspicuous brand use (M =
3.29) than when he was not using the brand conspicuously
(M = 5.59; ß = 2.30, t(94) = 4.72,p < .0001). In contrast,
participants with high self-brand connection to Apple (-1-I
SD) had an equally positive attitude toward the brand
whether the target used the brand conspicuously (M = 5.89)
or not (M = 6.53; ß = .63, t(94) = 1.34, n.s.d.). The Johnson-
Neyman technique indicates that the difference in brand
attitude across the low and high conspicuousness conditions
Figure 3
STUDY 2: ATTITUDE TOWARD APPLE BY
CONSPICUOUSNESS
AND SELF-BRAND CONNECTION
Q.
a
<

I
9)
•a
is
<
2 .
y
Low conspicuousness
Discounted conspicuousness
Low (-1 SD) • High (+1 SD)
is no longer significant when self-brand connection is
greater than .72. As with Study 1, a regression with brand
familiarity included as a covariate produced similar results
(see Web Appendix B at www.marketingpower.com/jmr_
webappendix).
H3 predicted the same pattern of effects between high and
discounted conspicuousness as between high and low con-
spicuousness for observers with low self-brand connection;
that is, observers who were given an alternative reason for
the target's behavior would have more favorable attitudes
toward the brand compared with those who attributed an
ulterior motive to it. Consistent with H3, participants with
low Apple self-brand connection had a less favorable brand
attitude when the target was engaged in conspicuous brand
use (M = 3.29) than when the conspicuous behavior was
discounted (M = 5.47; ß = 2.18, t(94) = 4.64,p < .0001). In

contrast, participants with high Apple self-brand connection
had an equally positive attitude toward the brand whether
the target used the brand conspicuously (M = 5.89) or the
conspicuous behavior was discounted (M = 6.18; ß = .28,
t(94) = .64, n.s.d.). The Johnson-Neyman technique indi-
cates that the difference in brand attitude across the dis-
counted and high conspicuousness conditions is no longer
significant when self-brand connection is greater than .49.
For completeness, we ran a model with low conspicuous-
ness as the comparison group to test for differences between
the low and the discounted conspicuousness conditions. As
we expected, the regression showed no significant effects of
discounted conspicuousness or the discounted conspicuous-
ness X self-brand connection interaction (/7S > .43).
As previously, we tested for the mediating effect of atti-
tude toward the target for observers low in self-brand con-
nection. The regression on attitude toward the target showed
significant effects of age (ß = .05, t(94) = 3.19, p < .01),
gender (ß = .59, t(94) = 2.04,p < .05), low conspicuousness
(ß = 1.31, t(94) = 3.09,p < .01), self-brand connection (ß =
.50, t(94) = 2.14, p < .05), and the discounted conspicuous-
ness X self-brand connection interaction (ß = -.77, t(94) =
-2.42, p < .05). The effect of low conspicuousness indicates
that, irrespective of self-brand connection, participants had
a less favorable attitude toward the target when he was
engaged in conspicuous brand use (M - 3.27) than when he
was not (M = 4.58). As with ulterior motives, there was an
interaction effect of discounted conspicuousness x self-
brand connection such that the high and discounted conspicu-

ousness conditions differed at low levels (-1 SD) of self-
brand connection (M îgh = 2.77 vs. M îscoumed = 4.12; ß :=
1.35, t(94) = 2.54,;. < .05) but not at high levels (+1 SD) of
self-brand connection (M îg,, = 3.76 vs. M îscoumej = 3.58;
ß = -.18,t(94)=-.37,n.s.d.).
Again, we used the PROCESS application provided by
Hayes (2013) to estimate the conditional indirect effects of
low conspicuousness on brand attitude through attitude
toward the brand user at low and high levels of self-brand
connection, using 10,000 bootstrap samples. The conditional
indirect effect of low conspicuousness was significant at
low self-brand connection to Apple (-1 SD), because the 95%
CI around the estimate excludes zero (B = .42, SE = .27,
95% bootstrap CI: .03 to 1.10). In contrast, the conditional
indirect effect of low conspicuousness was not significant at
high self-brand connection to Apple (H-1 SD), as the 95% CI
around the estimate includes zero (B = .20, SE = .18,95%
bootstrap CI: -.02 to .75). There was also a direct effect of
conspicuousness on brand attitude for those low in self-
brand connection (B = 1.87, SE = .50, t(93) := 3.11, p <
.001). This analysis replicates Study I's results that high
conspicuousness affects brand attitude through its effect on
attitude toward the brand user for those observers low in
self-brand connection.
The discounted conspicuousness condition should mirror
the low conspicuousness condition with regard to mediation.
The conditional indirect effect of discounted conspicuous-
ness was significant at low self-brand connection to Apple
(-1 SD), as the 95% CI around the estimate excludes zero
(B = .32, SE = .22,95% bootstrap CI: .03 to .95). In contrast,
the indirect effect of discounted conspicuousness was not
significant at high self-brand connection to Apple (H-1 SD),
as the 95% CI around the estimate includes zero (B = -.04,
SE - .15, 95% bootstrap CI: -.40 to .21). There was also a

direct effect of discounted conspicuousness on brand attitude
for those low in self-brand connection (B - 1.85, SE = .47,
t(93) = 3.94,p < .001). This analysis shows a similar pattern
of effects between low and discounted conspicuousness.
Discussion
The results of this study replicate and extend the findings
of Study 1 in a different context: a person's posts on Face-
book. Consistent with H;, conspicuous brand usage through
a Facebook post and photo led to less favorable brand atti-
tudes for those with low Apple self-brand connection but
not for those with high Apple self-brand connection. How-
ever, the negative effect for those with low self-brand con-
nection was mitigated when the ulterior motive was dis-
counted, as we predicted in H3. As expected, there were no
differences in brand attitude across conditions when
observers had high self-brand connection. Finally, in sup-
port of H2, attitude toward the brand user affected brand
attitudes for those low in self-brand connection but not for
those high in self-brand connection.
We consider two additional issues in the next study. First,
it is possible that the results are related to participants' gen-
eral dislike of someone who flaunts, regardless of whether
this flaunting is related to a brand. In other words, because
conspicuous behavior is socially unacceptable, engaging in
conspicuous behavior with one brand might also lead to
unfavorable attitudes toward other brands. In the next study,
we address this issue by measuring attitude toward the
flaunted brand as well as toward another brand used by the
flaunter. If brand-related conspicuousness is driving the
results, as we argue, then attitude toward the flaunting brand
should be affected, whereas attitude toward a different
brand that is also used by the target should not be affected.

Second, we rule out envy as an explanation of the effects.
Sundie et al. (2009) find that viewing someone flaunting a
brand leads to feelings of envy, and this envy can generate
hostility. When the target of envy experiences a product fail-
ure, the observer experiences schadenfreude (i.e., joy at the
downfall of the brand user), leading to lower brand attitude.
Although Sundie et al. (2009) examine a context in which
the product fails, their results suggest a possible alternative
explanation: seeing conspicuous brand use generates envy,
which generates hostility, which then leads to brand dilution.
To assess the role of envy, we measure it in the next study.
STUDY 3
Tiffany serves as the focal brand, and Starbucks is the
nonfocal brand. We manipulated whether the Tiffany brand
user is described as being a Starbucks user. We expected
attitude toward Starbucks to be unaffected by conspicuous-
ness, because the flaunting is associated with Tiffany and
not Starbucks. This would indicate that the negative effects
of conspicuous brand use do not carry over to other brands,
regardless of whether they are associated with the target.
Moreover, attitude toward Tiffany should be unaffected by
whether the Tiffany user drinks Starbucks coffee. In line
with the pretest, we limited the study to female participants
only. One hundred seventy-six female participants (average
age 33.4 years) drawn from an online panel completed the
study in exchange for a small cash payment.
Procedure. The study had two manipulated between-
subjects factors, conspicuousness (low vs. high) and pres-
ence of the nonfocal brand (absent vs. present), and one
measured variable (self-brand connection). Participants read
that they would see a photo and brief description of a per-
son named Lauren. In the nonfocal brand absent condition,
the description read: "Lauren is in her 20s and lives in the

Northeast. She is a college graduate and works for a large
company. She goes to the gym several days a week. On the
weekends, she likes to go to the movies." In the nonfocal
brand present condition, we inserted the sentence "She fre-
quently stops at Starbucks on her way to work" into the
description. Participants were then instructed to look at the
photo and to be prepared to answer some questions about
Lauren. To ensure participants looked at the photo, it was
displayed for five seconds before they were able to advance
to the questions.
In the photo, the target is seated in a public space holding
a Tiffany shopping bag. We manipulated conspicuousness by
varying her pose and facial expression (for the photos, see
the Appendix; for the complete stimuli, see Web Appendix
D at www.marketingpower.com/jmr_webappendix). In the
484 JOURNAL OF MARKETiNG RESEARCH, AUGUST 2013
low conspicuousness condition, the target had a neutral pose
and facial expression. In the high conspicuousness condition,
the target flaunted the brand by smirking and holding the bag
in a show-off pose. A pretest of the photos using different
women from the same population demonstrated that they
perceived the target as having greater ulterior motives when
conspicuousness was high (M - 5.87) than when conspicu-
ousness was low (M = 4.92; F(l, 84) = 11.91,/) < .001).
Measures. After viewing the photo, participants responded
to a series of questions capturing attitudes toward Tiffany (a -
.95), attitudes toward Starbucks (a = .97), feelings of envy,
attitudes toward the target (a = .97), perceptions of ulterior
motives (a = .93), and control variables. We measured envy
on seven-point scales with the same two items used by Sundie

et al. (2009; envious, jealous: r = .72). As a control variable,
we measured Tiffany ownership using a yes/no item; 16.5%
of participants owned a Tiffany item. We measured famil-
iarity with both Tiffany and Starbucks with the same seven-
point scale as in the prior studies. As a manipulation check
for the presence of the nonfocal brand, participants responded
to a question about how often the target goes to Starbucks
(1 = "never," and 7 = "every day"). We measured self-brand
connection to Tiffany after a filler task, using the same
measure as in the prior studies but adapted for the Tiffany
brand; a - .96). There was no effect of either conspicuous-
ness (F(l, 171) = 1.28, n.s.d.) or presence of the nonfocal
brand (F(l, 171) = .04, n.s.d.) on self-brand connection. We
also measured self-brand connection to the Starbucks brand.
Results
brand connection mean-centered. The independent variables
in the regression equations were the covariates (i.e., age and
ownership), conspicuousness, self-brand connection, the
conspicuousness x self-brand connection interaction, presence
of the nonfocal brand, and the presence of the nonfocal
brand x conspicuousness interaction.
Manipulation checks. A regression on ulterior motives
revealed only a significant effect of conspicuousness (ß =
.69, t(168) = 1.93, p = .05). Replicating the pretest, this
result indicates that participants perceived the target as hav-
ing greater ulterior motives in the high conspicuousness
condition (M = 5.23) than in the low conspicuousness con-
dition (M - 4.54), irrespective of self-brand connection.
A regression on how often the target goes to Starbucks
revealed no effect of the conspicuousness manipulation (ß -
-.16, t(168) = - . 6 1 , n.s.d.) but a significant effect of the

presence of Starbucks manipulation (Mĝ sent - 5.00 vs.
Mpresent = 5.91; ß = .92, t(168) = 3.62,p < .001), suggesting
that participants were paying attention to the information
about the nonfocal brand. Thus, participants recognized that
the target was a frequent Starbucks customer in the nonfo-
cal brand present condition.
Tests of Hj and H2. The regression on attitude toward
Tiffany showed significant effects of owner (ß = .53, t(168) =
2.6,p < .05), age (ß = .02, t(168) = 2.88,/? < .01), conspicu-
ousness (ß = -.69, t(168) = -2.61,p < .01), self-brand connec-
tion (ß = .24, t(168) = 2.67,p < .01), and the conspicuous-
ness X self-brand connection interaction (ß = .26, t(168) =
2.2,p < .05). There were no significant effects of whether the
nonfocal brand was present or absent. Participants with low
self-brand connection to Tiffany (-1 SD) had a less favorable
brand attitude when the target was engaged in conspicuous
brand use (M - 3.85) than when the target was not using the
brand conspicuously (M = 4.91; ß = -1.07, t(168) = -3.37,
p < .001; see Figure 4). In contrast, participants with high
self-brand connection to Tiffany (H-1 SD) had an equally
positive attitude toward the brand whether the target used
the brand conspicuously (M = 5.33) or not (M = 5.64; ß =
- . 3 1 , t(168) = -.97, n.s.d.). The Johnson-Neyman technique
indicates that the difference in brand attitude across the low
and high conspicuousness conditions is no longer signifi-
cant when self-brand connection is equal to .55. Thus, Hj is
again supported. As with Studies 1 and 2, a regression with
brand familiarity included as a covariate produced similar
results (see Web Appendix B at www.marketingpower.coni/
jmr_webappendix).
The regression on attitude toward the target showed sig-
nificant effects of conspicuousness (ß = -1.07, t(168) =
-3.49,jO < .001) and the conspicuousness x self-brand con-

nection interaction (ß = .42, t(168) = 3.00,/7 < .01). Partici-
pants with low self-brand connection to Tiffany (-1 SD) had
less favorable attitudes toward the target when she was
engaged in conspicuous brand use (M - 3.22) than when
she was not using the brand conspicuously (M = 4.91; ß =
-1.68, t(168) = -4.60,p < .0001). In contrast, participants
with high self-brand connection to Tiffany (-t-1 SD) held
equal attitudes toward the target whether she used the brand
conspicuously (M = 4.59) or not (M = 5.04; ß = -.45, t(168) =
-1.21, n.s.d.). Although this pattern is different from that of
Studies 1 and 2, in which there was only a main effect of
conspicuousness, the mediation analysis described subse-
quently again shows that attitude toward the brand user does
not mediate the effect of conspicuousness on brand attitude
at high levels of self-brand connection.
Analysis of the conditional process model indicated that
the conditional indirect effect of conspicuousness was sig-
nificant at low self-brand connection to Tiffany (-1 SD),
because the 95% CI around the estimate excludes zero (B -
-.54, SE = .19, 95% bootstrap CI: -1.00 to -.24). In con-
Figure 4
STUDY 3: ATTITUDE TOWARD TIFFANY BY
CONSPICUOUSNESS AND SELF-BRAND CONNECTION
c
(D
i 4
•a
3
i

2 .
Low conspicuousness
Low (-1 SD) • High (+1 SD)
trast, the conditional indirect effect of conspicuousness was
not significant at high self-brand connection to Tiffany {+
SD), because the 95% CI around the estimate includes zero
(B = -.14, SE = .15, 95% bootstrap CI: -.46 to .12). There
was also a marginally significant direct effect of conspicu-
ousness on brand attitude for those low in self-brand con-
nection (B = - . 5 2 , SE = .31, t( 167) =-1.68,/? < .10). These
results indicate that high conspicuousness affected brand
attitude through its effect on attitude toward the brand user
for those with low self-brand connection to Tiffany.
Alternative explanations. To show that the negative effect
of conspicuous brand use on brand attitude is specific to the
focal brand, we ran the regression with attitude toward Star-
bucks as the dependent variable. There was only a signifi-
cant effect of self-brand connection (ß = .27, t(168) = 2.12,
p < .05). Attitude toward Starbucks was more favorable for
those participants with higher Tiffany self-brand connec-
tion, perhaps because participants view the two brands as
connected. However, the insignificant effects of the pres-
ence of the nonfocal brand suggest that it does not matter
whether the target uses the nonfocal brand. This result, in
addition to the lack of effects of conspicuousness or the con-
spicuousness X self-brand connection interaction, suggests

that the negative effects of conspicuousness are limited to
the flaunted brand and that there is no "halo" negative effect
on the other brands the person uses. As an additional check,
we reran the regression on attitude toward Starbucks using
self-brand connection toward Starbucks in place of self-
brand connection toward Tiffany. Even here, there was only
an effect of self-brand connection to Starbucks (ß = .72,
t(168) = 8.07,p< .0001). This provides further evidence
that the dilution effect of flaunting a brand is specific to the
brand being flaunted.
To examine the envy alternative explanation, we ran the
regression analysis with envy as the dependent variable.
There were significant effects of age (ß = -.02, t(168) =
-2.19,p < .05), conspicuousness (ß = - . 8 3 , t(168) = -2.52,
p < .05), and self-brand connection (ß = .26, t(168) = 2.28,
p < .05). Participants in the high conspicuousness condition
(M = 1.85) actually felt less envy than did participants in the
low conspicuousness condition (M = 2.68). This result, in
addition to the nonsignificant interaction effect of conspicu-
ousness X self-brand connection, rules out envy as the cause
of brand dilution.
Discussion
In support of the conceptual model, conspicuousness
resulted in brand dilution when observers had low self-
brand connection with Tiffany but not when observers had
high self-brand connection with Tiffany. As in Studies 1 and
2, the results indicate that observers with high self-brand
connection did not alter their views of the brand on the basis
of the flaunting behavior. Flaunting resulted in brand dilu-
tion only when the observer did not have a strong connec-
tion to the brand, in support of Hj. Attitude toward the
brand user mediated the effect of conspicuousness on brand
attitude for observers low on self-brand connection, in sup-

port of H2. Moreover, conspicuousness did not affect atti-
tude toward the brand for those with a strong brand connec-
tion to Tiffany. This result is consistent with our proposition
that these observers are motivated to protect the brand and
that diluting the brand would have negative implications for
their own identity. This study also ruled out generalized dis-
like and envy of the target as alternative explanations.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The objective of this research was to investigate the
effects of conspicuous brand use on brand dilution. We
demonstrated that seeing someone use a brand in a conspicu-
ous manner leads observers to infer that the brand usage is
motivated by ulterior reasons (e.g., impression management)
rather than by intrinsic liking or utilitarian reasons. Among
observers for whom the flaunted brand is not connected to
the self, attitude toward the user decreases, leading to a
decrease in brand attitude. In contrast, observers with high
self-brand connection protect the brand from the actions of a
conspicuous user. Regardless of how they feel about the user,
their brand attitude remains the same. Thus, brand dilution
occurs among observers with low self-brand connection but
not among those with high self-brand connection.
Importantly, conspicuous brand usage does not always
lead to lower brand attitude among observers with low self-
brand connection. For brand dilution to occur, observers
must attribute the conspicuous behavior to ulterior motives.
In Study 2, brand attitude was unaffected when participants
attributed the conspicuous behavior to humor rather than to
ulterior motives. This suggests that seeing people flaunt the
brand at sports events (e.g., by wearing different types of
brand-related clothing) will not hurt the brand, nor will see-
ing others display brand knowledge or brand memorabilia

at brand community events. In these situations, people are
likely to attribute the conspicuous brand usage to the user's
attachment to the brand rather than to ulterior motives.
These users are likely to be perceived as using the brand in
a way that is consistent with their self-aspect and beliefs
rather than being opportunistic.
The brand dilution effect was robust across two brands
and three manipulations of conspicuousness. In Study 3, we
demonstrated that the dilution was brand specific; it affected
attitude toward the flaunted brand but not toward another
brand associated with the user. We also ruled out envy of the
flaunter as an alternative explanation. The effect of conspic-
uousness on envy did not vary by self-brand connection.
Indeed, flaunting led to lower envy of the target, which is
inconsistent with envy as an alternative mechanism.
Notably, the effects of self-brand connection were differ-
ent from those of either brand ownership or brand famil-
iarity. The brand dilution effect among those low in self-
brand connection occurred even after controlling for
ownership and familiarity. Park et al. (2010) show a similar
distinction between self-brand connection and attitude
strength. It is the connection of the brand to the self rather
than familiarity with the brand that makes consumers pro-
tect the brand from negative behavior. By protecting the
brand, they protect themselves. We next discuss the poten-
tial process for the protection mechanism along with the
contributions and implications of our framework.
Underlying Protection Mechanism
Our studies show that the self-protection process of peo-
ple with high self-brand connection is robust, indicating that
their brand attitudes are not easily dislodged. One limitation
of the current research is that it does not provide direct evi-

dence for the self-protection process. We suggested previ-
ously and now discuss further two possibilities for this out-
come: discounting and self-affirmation. The results from
our studies are consistent with both these processes.
First, people with high self-brand connection may be dis-
counting the actions of the brand user (Swaminathan, Page,
and Giirhan-Canli 2007); for example, they may be classi-
fying the user as a poseur or considering the flaunting a one-
off usage situation. By classifying the flaunter as a poseur,
people with high self-brand connection would perceive the
flaunter as someone who does not truly believe in or under-
stand the meaning of the brand. Whereas people with high
self-brand connection will discount the actions of a poseur,
those with low self-brand connection may not care whether
the user believes in or understands the brand meaning and
therefore will not be motivated to discount the behavior.
This suggests that highlighting that a flaunter is a representa-
tive of the brand would make it difficult for those with high
self-brand connection to discount the information and pro-
tect the brand. We tested this possibility in a study in which
we crossed the high flaunt condition of Study 3 with dis-
counting information (for stimuli, see Web Appendix E at
www.marketingpower.com/jmr_webappendix). The flaunter
was described as a Tiffany customer who was selected to be
featured on the Tiffany website; the idea was that people
with high self-brand connection would not be able to doubt
that the conspicuous brand user represents the brand. Con-
trary to prediction, however, those with high self-brand con-
nection maintained their positive brand attitude despite this
information. Once again, this finding suggests the robust-

ness of the protection mechanism for people with high self-
brand connection. Because the observed lack of effects may
be due to an inadequate manipulation or some other idio-
syncrasy of the study, further research is needed in this
regard. Future studies could also test whether discounting
occurs because observers with high self-brand connection
perceive this conspicuous behavior as a one-time event.
Repeated exposure to multiple conspicuous users might hurt
the brand image because it shifts the meaning of the brand.
The second possibility for the robust resistance of nega-
tive brand information is that people with high self-brand
connection are threatened by brand failure, leading them to
maintain a favorable brand evaluation. According to Cheng,
White, and Chaplin (2012), people with high self-brand
connection view a failure of the brand as a threat to their
self-esteem, because their selves are so closely tied to the
brand. To protect the self, they protect the brand. Although
their context is different, a flaunting brand user may be con-
sidered a "brand failure" because showing off reflects
poorly on the brand. This suggests that giving those with
high self-brand connection the opportunity to boost their
self-esteem would change brand evaluations. Because they
would no longer need the brand for self-affirmation, their
brand evaluations would be similar to those with low self-
brand connection. Moreover, people with low self-brand
connection would be unaffected by the opportunity for self-
affirmation because the brand and self are not connected.
Further research is needed to examine this possible mecha-
nism in more depth.
Conspicuousness and Brand Dilution
This article contributes to the branding literature by iden-
tifying conspicuous brand use as a potential source of brand

dilution. The brand dilution literature has tended to focus on
marketing actions taken either by the firm or by outside par-
ties (Loken and John 2010). In contrast, we focus on how
the behavior of everyday consumers can dilute brand image.
The finding that brand dilution may occur among those with
low self-brand connection should be troublesome to compa-
nies. Although these consumers do not currently have a
bond with the brand, they could have been future adopters
of the brand (as their life circumstances or preferences
changed) or, if they are users, they could have developed a
deeper connection over time. Associating the brand's users
with ulterior motives is likely to make future adoption or
bonding less likely. This suggests that marketing managers
should reinforce use that does not convey ulterior motives.
An example of such an action involves the BMW brand.
BMW offers a high-performance driving school that teaches
BMW owners how to drive their automobiles in extreme
conditions. In these classes, instructors emphasize the need
to keep this type of driving "on the track," discouraging
behavior that may not only be unsafe but also be considered
obnoxious or flaunting use of the brand in other settings. Other
efforts could be in the form of advertising that conveys what
is and is not a "show-off brand user or brand usage.
Furthermore, in the age of social media, brand users
become brand ambassadors whose use or misuse of the
brand can be communicated easily through postings on
social media, as evidenced with the Facebook stimuli used
in Study 2. As managers attempt to use social media to build
awareness for their brands, they must be mindful of the
potential for the behavior of these ambassadors to have an
impact on how the brand is perceived. For new customers,
whose connection to the brand could be low, seeing a brand
ambassador engaging in conspicuous behavior would nega-
tively affect their attitudes and likely their purchase inten-
tions as well. Brands may be able to temper these outcomes

by using their online presence to create communities around
the brand and help new customers build their connections to
the brands.
Further Research
Beyond examining the mechanism behind the buffering
effect, further research could investigate boundary condi-
tions. Our framework is premised on the notion that people
perceive conspicuousness negatively. Further research may
examine situations in which people perceive conspicuous-
ness positively. For example, an expert using the brand con-
spicuously may be perceived favorably because of his or her
credibility. When a sports figure places a cap with a brand
logo directly in front of him when giving a press interview
or a celebrity poses for paparazzi photos with her Louis
Vuitton handbag, flaunting may be perceived positively.
Another possibility is when the conspicuous behavior
results from self-expression motives. This requires, how-
ever, that observers are able to distinguish such situations.
This is particularly interesting in light of research by
Wilcox, Kim, and Sen (2009), which indicates that con-
sumers are more likely to use counterfeit luxury goods
when motivated by impression management than by self-
expression. Whereas those high in self-brand connection
may be more likely to forgive brand-related behavior that
has an ulterior motive with authentic goods, the conspicu-
ous use of a counterfeit would be unlikely to elicit the same
kind of protection. Finally, we suggest that any brand can
be used in a conspicuous manner as long as the behavior is
perceived to confer social benefits. This suggests that the

brand must have a distinct image that consumers find valu-
able to convey. Further research can investigate whether
brands that have an image that is either not well-defined or
known or an image that has limited information value will
result in similar effects.
Appendix
STIMULI USED IN STUDIES 1-3
A: Study 1: Still Images from Video
Low Conspicuousness High Conspicuousness
B: Study 2: Facebook Post Stimuli
I Off K> d u s . love my new IPKtt
Uke-CDRimem Follow R)ST-»ure
Low Conspicuousness
Like ' Comment ' Fallow POM Stt««
High Conspicuousness
LJIIF ' Coni'nent Rdtow Post - Stiare
Discounted Conspicuousness
C; Study 3: Photo Stimuli
Low Conspicuousness High Conspicuousness
Notes: Photograph in Panel B was created from two photos
taken fromhttp://iclothing.com.au/l_3_iTee.html.
Source: Panel B: ¡Clothing.com.au.

REFERENCES
Ahluwalia, Rohini, Robert E. Burnkrant, and H. Rao Unnava
(2000), "Consumer Response to Negative Publicity: The Mod-
erating Role of Commitment," Journal of Marketing Research,
37 (May), 203-214.
Berger, Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010), "Subtle Signals of
Incon-
spicuous Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4),
555-69.
Campbell, Margaret C. and Amna Kirmani (2000), "Consumers'
Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and
Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69-83.
Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier (1990), "Origins and
Functions of Positive and Negative Affect: A Control-Process
View," Psychological Review, 97 (1), 19-35.
Cheng, Shirley Y.Y., Tiffany B. White, and Lan N. Chaplin
(2012),
"The Effects of Self-Brand Connections on Responses to Brand
Failure: A New Look at the Consumer-Brand Relationship,"
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (2), 280-88.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson (2004), "Narrative Processing: Building
Consumer Connections to Brands," Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology, 14 {/2),68-19.
and James R. Bettman (2003), "You Are What They Eat:

The Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers' Connections
to Brands," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 3 3 9 ^ 8 .
Fein, Steven (1996), "Effects of Suspicion on Attributional
Think-
ing and the Correspondence Bias," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70 (6), 1164-84.
Fournier, Susan (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands:
Develop-
ing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research," Journal of
Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343-53.
Godfrey, Debra K., Edward E. Jones, and Charles G. Lord
(1986),
"Self-Promotion Is Not Ingratiating," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50 (1), 106-115.
Han, Young J., Joseph C. Nunes, and Xavier Drèze (2010),
"Sig-
naling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Promi-
nence," Journal of Marketing, 74 (July), 15-30.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), An Introduction to Mediation,
Modera-
tion, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based
Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
and Kristopher J. Preacher (2013), "Conditional Process
Modeling: Using Structural Equation Modeling to Examine
Contingent Causal Processes," in Structural Equation Model-
ing: A Second Course, 2d ed., Gregory R. Hancock and Ralph
O. Mueller, eds. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Irwin, Julie R. and Gary H. McClelland (2001), "Misleading
Heuristics and Moderated Multiple Regression Models," Jour-

nal of Marketing Research, 38 (January), 100-109.
Johnson, Palmer O. and Leo C. Fay (1950), "The Johnson-
Neyman
Technique, Its Theory and Application," Psychometrika, 15 (4),
349-67.
Kelley, Harold H. (1973), "The Process of Causal Attribution,"
American Psychologist, 28 (2), 107-128.
Kirmani, Amna, Sanjay Sood, and Shed Bridges (1999), "The
Ownership Effect in Consumer Responses to Brand Line
Stretches," Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 88-101.
Loken, Barbara and Deborah Roedder John (1993), "Diluting
Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative
Impact?" Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 71-84.
and (2010), "When Do Bad Things Happen to Good
Brands? Understanding Internal and External Sources of Brand
Dilution," in Brands and Brand Management: Contemporary
Research Perspectives, Barbara Loken, Rohini Ahluwalia, and
Michael J. Houston, eds. New York: Psychology Press, 233-70.
MacKinnon, David P., Chondra M. Lockwood, and Jason
Williams
(2004), "Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution
of the Product and Resampling Methods," Multivariate Behav-
ior Research, 39 (1), 99-128.
Marchand, Miquelle A.G. and Roos Vonk (2005), "The Process
of
Becoming Suspicious of Ulterior Motives," Social Cognition,
23 (3), 242-56.
Park, C.W., Deborah J. Maclnnis, Joseph R. Priester, Andreas

B.
Eisengerich, and Dawn Iacobucci (2010), "Brand Attachment
and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differ-
entiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers," Journal of
Marketing, 74 (November), 1-17.
PuUig, Chris P., Carolyn J. Simmons, and Richard G.
Netemeyer
(2006), "Brand Dilution: When Do New Brands Hurt Existing
Brands?" Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), 52-66.
Schlenker, Barry R. and Mark R. Leary (1982), "Social Anxiety
and Self-Presentation: A Conceptualization Model," Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 92 (3), 641-69.
Sundie, Jill M., James C. Ward, Daniel J. Beal, Wynne W. Chin,
and Stephanie Geiger-Oneto (2009), "Schadenfreude as a Con-
sumption-Related Emotion: Feeling Happiness About the
Downfall of Another's Product," Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, 19 (3), 356-13.
Swaminathan, Vanitha, Karen L. Page, and Zeynep Giirhan-
Canli
(2007), "'My' Brand or 'Our' Brand: The Effects of Brand Rela-
tionship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand Evaluations,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 248-59.
Vonk, Roos (1998), "The Slime Effect: Suspicion and Dislike of
Likeable Behaviors Toward Superiors," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74 (4), 849-64.
Wilcox, Keith, Hyeong Min Kim, and Sankar Sen (2009), "Why
Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands?" Journal of
Marketing Research, 46 (April), 247-59.

Copyright of Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) is the
property of American Marketing
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
^ Academy of Management Journal
2013, Vol. 56, No. 2, 407-431.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.1084
GETTING WHAT YOU NEED:
HOW REPUTATION AND STATUS AFFECT TEAM
PERFORMANCE, HIRING, AND SALARIES IN THE NBA
GOKHAN ERTUG
Singapore Management University
FABRIZIO GASTELLUGGI
Bocconi University
We study how the reputation and status of resource providers
añect the two organi-
zational outcomes of product quality and revenues, hiring
decisions, and prices paid
to resource providers. We argue that reputation and status have
different effects on
outcomes: reputation has a stronger effect on product quality,
and status has a stronger
effect on revenues. Building on this, we argue that actual

quality mediates the effect of
reputation on revenues more than the effect of status on
revenues. Moreover, reputa-
tion and status have different effects on how organizations
acquire resources: when
their product quality is low relative to their aspiration level,
organizations will display
a preference for recruiting high-reputation resource providers
over high-status ones.
Conversely, organizations will display a preference for
recruiting high-status resource
providers over high-reputation ones when their revenue is low
relative to their aspi-
ration leveL Finally, although hoth reputation and status have
positive effects on the
price paid for a resource, we argue that the relationship hetween
reputation and pay
is weaker for high-status resource providers. We find support
for our hypotheses in a
sample of NBA players and teams.
In recent years, two related but distinct streams
of research have focused on the value that reputa-
tion and status bring to organizations. The first
stream has argued that organizations use reputa-
tion, which is based on observed past actions, to
infer the skills, knowledge, and quality of a re-
source provider (e.g.. Lee, Pollock, & Jin, 2011].
Organizations acquiring resources from high-repu-
tation actors thus expect these resources to have a
positive effect on their performance (Deephouse,
2000; Fombrun, 1996; Rao, 1994]. The second
stream has argued that organizations use status.
The two authors contributed equally to this article. We
would like to thank Associate Editor Tim Pollock and the

three anonymous reviewers for their valuable guidance
and suggestions throughout the review process. We
would also like to thank Martin Gargiulo, Henrich Grève,
Ed Zajac, Marvin Washington, Henry Tosi, Giovanni Val-
entini. Metin Sengul, Brian Silverman, Ha Hoang, and
participants at seminars at SMU, INSEAD, HKUST, Ox-
ford University, Koc University, and IESEG for their feed-
back. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from
INSEAD and the SMU Office of Research. All errors and
omissions are ours.
which is based on relative position in a hierarchical
order, as a proxy for the quality of a resource pro-
vider (Podolny, 1993; Rindova, Pollock, & Hay-
ward, 2006]. Organizations acquiring resources
from high-status actors receive certification bene-
fits that affect the market's perception of the value
of these organizations. Although these two streams
have considered the role of either reputation or
status on firms' assessment and selection of re-
source providers, attempts have also been made to
consider the concurrent role of both types of intan-
gible assets. For instance, Washington and Zajac
(2005] have shown that reputation and status have
independent effects on the selection of NGAA
teams for postseason tournaments. Meanwhile, Jen-
sen and Roy (2008] have shown that the choice of
exchange partners is a sequential process whereby
reputation is used to choose a specific firm after a
particular status bracket is chosen. However, what
remains lacking is an integrated understanding of
the role these intangible assets play in achieving
organizational goals and how this role affects the
selection and pay of resource providers with differ-
ent levels of reputation and status.

407
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved.
Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or
otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles
for individual use only.
408 Academy of Management Joumal April
Because organizations have multiple and possi-
bly interdependent goals (Gyert & March, 1963), the
value of resources should vary depending on how
reputation and status help organizations to reach
their goals. Although both reputation and status are
intangible assets that bring benefits to an organiza-
tion, the nature of the benefits derived from each
asset varies (Groysberg, Polzer, & Elfenbein, 2011;
Pfarrer, Pollock, & Rindova, 2010; Pollock, Ghen,
Jackson, & Hambrick, 2010; Wade, Porac, Pollock, &
Graffin, 2006). By explicitly considering multiple
organizational goals, this study extends our under-
standing of the effects of reputation and status on
organizational outcomes as well as on recruitment
and pay decisions. Because the effects that assets
have on organizational outcomes differ, the recruit-
ment of resource providers depends on the extent
to which an organization requires particular types
of assets to meet its goals and which resource pro-
viders possess these assets. Gonsequently, an organ-
ization's valuations of reputation and status are
interdependent and not independent (Washington
& Zajac, 2005) or sequential (Jensen & Roy, 2008),
as might happen when considering one organiza-

tional goal at a time.
In line with the conceptualization and findings
from past research, we begin by arguing that both
assets have a positive effect on the product quality
and the revenues of an organization, which are the
two goals we consider. However, we argue that
these intangible assets contribute differently to
these two goals. Between the two types of assets,
reputation has a stronger effect on quality, whereas
status has a stronger effect on revenues. Gonsistent
with the closer link between reputation and quality
than that between status and quality, we also pre-
dict that the actual quality will mediate the effect of
reputation on revenues to a greater extent than it
will mediate the effect of status on revenues. Gon-
sequently, organizational actions will be directed
toward obtaining resources whose level of intangi-
ble assets are more closely linked to tbe goal in
pursuit of which remedial action needs to be taken
more urgently. Therefore, to the extent that organ-
izations' performance in terms of product quality is
low relative to their aspiration level, they will be
more likely to acquire more resources from high-
reputation providers than from high-status ones.
Gonversely, to the extent that the organizations'
revenue performance is low relative to their aspi-
ration level, they will be more likely to acquire
more resources from high-status providers than
from high-reputation providers. Finally, although
the price organizations pay for resources depends
positively on both reputation (Fang, 2005) and sta-
tus (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999), the different ef-
fects of these factors on goals and hiring suggest
that their effects on pay may not be independent of

each other. In particular, because status is less sen-
sitive than reputation to changes in past quality,
and because high-status actors are less subject to
scrutiny, we argue that there will be a weaker link
between reputation and pay for resources obtained
from a high-status provider.
To summarize, we study the concurrent effects of
status and reputation on product quality and reve-
nues. By doing so, we develop clear and consistent
predictions regarding the different effects of each
intangible asset on these two goals and on recruit-
ment decisions, as well as the interdependence be-
tween them in determining the payment for these
assets. Our predictions receive support from the
analysis of longitudinal data on a sample of NBA
teams and players.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
A central task faced by organizations is the ac-
quisition of resources, which are then combined to
develop, manufacture, and deliver products and
services. Because they have multiple, potentially
interdependent goals (Gyert & March, 1963), organ-
izations assess resource providers on dimensions
that are important for the organization to reach its
goals. These dimensions can vary from attributes
of materials, such as the quality or appellation of
grapes in the production of wine (Benjamin &
Podolny, 1999), to the attributes of employees, such
as the productivity and visibility of securities ana-
lysts (Groysberg, Lee, & Nanda, 2008), the leader-
ship, decision-making skills, or certifications of
GEOs (Wade et al., 2006), to the effort resource
providers expend to help organizations remedy

their problems (Gastellucci & Ertug, 2010). As these
examples suggest, the attributes of the resource pro-
viders and the resources they bring need not be
unidimensional in belping an organization pursue
its goals, which leads organizations to assess re-
source providers on potentially more than one
attribute.
The extent to which an organization can accom-
plish its goals depends on the resources it receives
from its members or employees. Gonsequently, or-
ganizations enter the labor market, wbere employ-
ees exchange their participation, time, and effort in
return for money (Goleman, 1990). Once individu-
2013 Ertug and Castellucci 409
als are members of the organization, an exchange
between the parties is present in that individuals
have something to contribute (i.e., their participa-
tion, knowledge, skills) and obtain continued em-
ployment, salary, or bonuses in exchange (Thomp-
son, 1967). This exchange is maintained as long
as the inducement provided by the organization
to the employee balances the contribution offered
by the employee to the organization (March &
Simon, 1958).
Because organizations have multiple and distinct
goals that might not be reached simultaneously
(Cyert & March, 1963), they might build their ex-
pectations, shape their choices, and take actions to
pursue at least one of these goals with greater effort.
Two important goals worth examining are the qual-

ity of the products produced by the organization
and the revenues generated by these products (Ben-
jamin & Podolny, 1999; Stuart, 2000). Because rep-
utation and status are intangible assets that affect
organizational outcomes (Pfarrer et al., 2010; Pol-
lock et al., 2010), we argue that both the reputation
and status of a resource provider will have an effect
on an organization's product quality and revenues.
Reputation has been introduced and used by dif-
ferent theoretical approaches, which have led to
different definitions of the concept. It is considered
to be a signal that predicts the future behavior,
performance, or quality of actors based on tbeir
previously observed behavior, performance, or
quality in both economic (Shapiro, 1983; Weigelt &
Camerer, 1988; Wilson, 1985) and sociological ac-
counts (e.g., Raub & Weesie, 1990). In research on
management and organizations, there are notable
differences in how reputation is defined and opera-
tionalized (Lange, Lee, & Dai, 2011), and attempts
to reconcile these differences have led to integra-
tive definitions of the concept that include, for
instance, both the past actions and prominence of
an actor (Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, & Sever,
2005). In this paper, we follow Jensen, Kim, and
Kim (2012) and Jensen and Roy, who argued that
reputation should be defined as an attribute-spe-
cific assessment, considering it an "expectation of
future behavior that is directly based on past dem-
onstrations of that behavior" (2008: 497). There-
fore, reputation is an intangible asset that produces
value to the actor possessing it, in that it signals to
potential customers a specific attribute through the
actors' past actions (Rindova & Martins, 2012). Be-
cause we consider firms in their efforts to acquire

high-quality resources, the relevant attribute we
use to define reputation in this article is the quality
of resources provided by an actor. Consequently,
the value of the intangible asset of reputation for
quality used to assess an actor will be based on the
past demonstration of quality by that actor.
Status is based on the relative position of an actor
in a hierarchical order and is not necessarily tightly
coupled to past behaviors (Jensen & Roy, 2008;
Podolny, 2005). Information about the status of ac-
tors can be gathered using observable factors such
as the institution where they obtained their educa-
tional degree (Stuart & Ding, 2006), the awards they
were granted (Wade et al., 2006), or the prestige of
actors (Rossman, Esparza, & Bonacich, 2010) or
firms they have previously worked with (Chen,
Hambrick, & Pollock, 2008). Status is an intangible
asset that produces value to the actor possessing it,
in that it signals to potential customers the actor's
prestige or esteem accorded to them by the posi-
tions they occupy in a social structure (Could,
2002). The underlying assumption required for sta-
tus to function as a valuable intangible asset is that
education, awards, and the prestige of either affili-
ates or previous places of work are more readily
observable than quality itself. Nevertheless, educa-
tion, awards, and the prestige of either affiliates or
previous places of work are assumed to be corre-
lated with quality (Podolny, 1994); consequently,
high-status actors are expected to have superior
abilities (Pollock et al., 2010; Stuart, Hoang, & Hy-
bels, 1999). Organizations prefer to work with or
employ high-status actors, because by using their
resources or employing them, an organization can

increase its own status, consequently enjoying the
benefits associated with it (Castellucci & Ertug,
2010; Pollock et al., 2010; Pollock & Culati, 2007;
Stuart et al., 1999).
Focusing first on product quality, we know that
the quality of a firm's products is partially deter-
mined by tbe quality of resources used as inputs
(Barney, 1991; Moran & Choshal, 1999). Because
resources from either high-reputation or high-sta-
tus providers should be of higher quality than re-
sources from either low-reputation or low-status
providers, both intangible assets should have a pos-
itive effect on the quality of the final product. How-
ever, their relative effects may differ. On the one
hand, actors who have a high reputation for quality
are expected to provide high-quality resources and
thus increase the quality of the final product of the
organization that is using their resources. On the
other hand, although a status ranking may have
originally been formed on the basis of differences
in performance (Podolny, 2005), the indicators of
410 Academy of Management Joumal April
Status are less directly tied to quality than to repu-
tation (Jensen & Roy, 2008; Podolny, 2005; Wash-
ington & Zajac, 2005: 294), To the extent that there
exists some decoupling between past demonstra-
tions of quality and status, an actor may maintain
its high status for some time, even when its past
demonstrations of quality have been declining.
Therefore, it would be more likely for a high-repu-
tation actor to provide high-quality resources than

for a high-status actor to provide high-quality re-
sources. Consequently, although both effects are
expected to be positive, an actor's reputation
should have a stronger effect on the quality of the
organization's final product than the actor's status.
Hypothesis la. The effect of the reputation of
an organization's resource providers on the
quality of the organization's products is greater
than the effect of the status of resource provid-
ers on the quality of the organization's products.
The second organizational goal that we consider
is revenues. We argue that both reputation and
status should have a positive effect on revenues
through the two determinants of revenues: the sales
volume and the product price. In so far as custom-
ers prefer to consume products of higher quality,
we can expect, ceteris paribus, products of higher
quality to have higher sales. Therefore, products
manufactured using higher-quality resources
should have higher sales than products manufac-
tured with lower-quality resources. Because both
reputation and status should correlate with quality,
we expect both of them to have a positive effect on
the sales volume of the final product. Similarly,
reputation and status should have a positive effect
on the price paid for the final product. In their
study of California wineries, Benjamin and
Podolny (1999) showed that both the reputation
and status of a winery have independent and pos-
itive effects on the price of a bottle of wine. How-
ever, if status acts as a certification of an actor's
quality, it will be more readily observable than past
demonstrations of quality, or reputation (Podolny,
1993, 2005). In other words, by being more easily

observable by the audience for the final product of
the firm, status should have a larger impact than
reputation on the perception of quality. Customers
will be more infiuenced by status than by reputa-
tion in their perception of the quality of a product
and thus will be more likely to pay a higher price
for a product manufactured with resources from a
high-status provider. As a result, the effect of a
resource provider's status will be higher on the
revenues of an organization than the effect of rep-
utation. We therefore hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis lb. The effect of the status of an
organization's resource providers on the organ-
ization's revenues is greater than the effect of
the reputation of resource providers on the or-
ganization's revenues.
As we have suggested in developing Hypothesis
lb, the effect of status on revenues should be stron-
ger than the effect of reputation on revenues be-
cause of the more visible endorsement effect de-
rived from working with high-status resource
providers. Status is then an intangible asset that is
valuable for the organization, in that, through en-
dorsement, it makes the organization more visible,
more valuable, and more desirable in the eyes of
the organization's audience. However, although it
is per se also a valuable intangible asset for the
organization, reputation is mostly linked to in-
creased revenues through increases in the quality
of resources.
If these are indeed the different mechanisms
through which the status and reputation of re-

source providers affect the organization's revenues,
there should be a difference in the degree to which
these effects are mediated by the actual quality of
the organization's final products. Because it pri-
marily takes place through the increased quality of
resources, the effect of reputation on revenues,
compared to the effect of status, should be medi-
ated to a greater degree by the actual performance
of the organization. In other words, we argue that
the reputation of resource providers has an effect
on revenues because it signals the quality of the
final product, which in turn should produce an
increase in both quantity and price. However, be-
cause customers will draw inferences on the qual-
ity of a product more directly when the product
becomes available than they would through the
reputation of the resoinrce providers, the effect of
reputation should be mediated by the actual quality
of the product. Conversely, because the status of
resource providers will act as an endorsement of
the final product, and because this endorsement
might be more visible and easier to assess than the
quality of the product itself, the mediation of the
effect of status on revenues by the actual product
quality should be smaller. Therefore, we predict
the following:
Hypothesis 2. The mediation of the effect of the
reputation of resource providers on revenues
2013 Ertug and Castellucci 411
by the actual quality of final products is greater
than the mediation of the effect of the status of

resource providers on revenues by the actual
quality of" final products.
This hypothesis allows us to test one of the im-
plications of our reasoning behind the different
effects of reputation and status on different out-
comes by providing evidence for why organizations
may prefer working with high-status resource pro-
viders, even in the face of less-than-ideal quality.
The positive effects of high-status resource provid-
ers work less through the mechanism of producing
actual quality than through the endorsement mech-
anism on revenue goals.
Problemistic search, a central proposition of the
behavioral theory of the firm, suggests that firms
engage in search activities because they are con-
fronted by a specific problem and are then directed
to find a solution to that problem (Cyert & March,
1963). This proposition has led to a large body of
research that studies the effect of a firm's perfor-
mance on the likelihood of specific actions (Baum,
Rowley, Shipilov, & Chuang, 2005; Grève, 1998,
2003b; March, 1988). In particular, the focus has
been on how a firm's actions are infiuenced by how
its performance compares to its aspiration levels.
Aspiration levels are threshold levels discriminat-
ing between a firm's success and failure, providing
the firm with a reference point that triggers prob-
lemistic search. In general, firms will be more
likely to seek solutions to problems when their
performance is different from their aspiration lev-
els (Baum et al., 2005; Grève, 2003a, 2003b; Iyer &
Miller, 2008; Lant, Milliken, & Batra, 1992).
Cyert and March (1963) emphasized that organi-

zations try to meet their aspiration levels for mul-
tiple goals, and scholars have since studied how
such multiple aspirations affect firm behavior. For
instance, Baum and his colleagues (2005) studied
how two different goals, market share and network
status, affect a firm's propensity to enter nonlocal
relationships, and Grève (2008) explored how se-
quential attention to performance and size goals
affects firm growth. We suggest that because organ-
izations have multiple goals, they will initiate
problemistic searches to the extent that their per-
formance is low relative to their aspirations for
these different goals. Consequently, their actions
will be directed toward obtaining resources whose
level of intangible assets are more closely linked to
the goal on which remedial action is more urgently
needed. We have focused on two organizational
outcomes, product quality and revenues, and ar-
gued that reputation has a larger effect than status
on product quality and that status has a larger effect
than reputation on revenues. This argument sug-
gests that organizations facing performance issues
on one outcome should focus on the intangible
asset with the closer link to that outcome to address
this issue, acquiring resources accordingly. As is
consistent with the idea of myopic search, whereby
an organization seeks solutions in the neighbor-
hood of a problem (Cyert & March, 1963), an organ-
ization whose performance is low relative to its
aspiration level on quality outcomes should be
more likely to prefer high-reputation resource pro-
viders over high-status ones in their recruitment.
To the extent that the reputation of resource pro-
viders has a greater effect than their status on the
quality of the final product, this recruitment will

allow the organization to improve its quality per-
formance. Conversely, an organization whose per-
formance is high relative to its aspiration level on
quality will be less likely to show a preference for
high-reputation resource providers over high-status
ones in their recruitment. Similarly, an organiza-
tion whose performance is low relative to its aspi-
ration level on revenue outcomes is more likely
to prefer high-status resoin-ce providers over high-
reputation ones to improve its revenue perfor-
mance. Conversely, an organization whose perfor-
mance is high relative to its aspiration level on
revenue outcomes will be less likely to demonstrate
such a preference.
Clearly, organizations would like to obtain re-
sources that have both high reputation and high
status to allow them to perform better on both out-
comes. However, to the extent that the reputation
and status of actors are not perfectly correlated,
organizations may not always be able to obtain
resources with both high reputation and high sta-
tus. Because financial resources are also limited,
organizations will need to constrain their choices
by focusing on one intangible asset over the other.
We thus hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3a. As the performance of an or-
ganization, relative to aspirations, on the qual-
ity of its products decreases, it is more likely to
recruit more high-reputation resource provid-
ers than high-status resource providers.
Hypothesis 3b. As the performance of an or-
ganization, relative to aspirations, on revenues
decreases, it is more likely to recruit more high-

412 Academy of Management Journal April
status resource providers than high-reputation
resource providers.
Once organizations have determined the re-
sources they require to meet their currently more
pressing goal, they need to determine the price to
pay for them. Because organizations require either
more high-reputation or high-status resources, we
argue fhat this price will depend on the levels of
such intangible assets possessed by resource
providers.
In his seminal work on reputation, Shapiro
(1983] demonstrated that high-reputation products
sell at a premium in markets where the quality of
products cannot be observed before purchase. Sim-
ilarly, empirical studies have shown that negative
reputation, measured as a percentage of negative
feedback, reduces selling prices on eBay auctions
(Mickey, 2010], that positive reputation increases
the price premium in online auctions for mobile
phones (Obloj & Gapron, 2011], and that more rep-
utable investment banks can charge higher fees and
obtain lower yields (Fang, 2005]. To the extent that
the quality of resources acquired has an effect on
the quality of an organization's own products (Bar-
ney, 1991], we expect organizations to pay higher
prices for resources obtained from high-reputation
providers because of the expected positive effect on
the quality of the organization's final products, as
per Hypothesis la.

Research has shown that actors pay higher prices
for services or resources obtained from high-status
actors, such as higher prices of wines produced by
high-status wineries (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999] or
the higher compensation of prestigious executives
and directors (Ghen et al., 2008]. These results sug-
gest that organizations are willing to pay higher
prices to obtain resources that would certify their
association with high-status resource providers, re-
sulting in increased status-related benefits for the
organization, such as higher revenues, as per Hy-
pothesis lb.
However, the different effects of status and rep-
utation on organizational goals and recruitment
suggest that their effects on the pay of a resource
provider may not be independent of each other. As
a resource provider's status increases, and as the
organization expects to secure the benefits associ-
ated with high status, the organization will be less
concerned with also securing reputation-related
benefits from that same resource provider. Gon-
versely, the organization will be more concerned
with securing the benefits associated with reputa-
tion from a non-high-status resource provider.
Building on Weber (1978), Washington and Zajac
(2005] clarified the analytical distinction between
reputation and status. The authors argued that,
whereas reputation captures differences in quality
or merit that generate performance-based rewards,
status captures differences in social rank that gen-
erate privileges not related to performance. Actors
that either display high-quality actions or produce

high-quality products develop a reputation for high
quality. Such a reputation will signal their ability
to provide high-quality resources, thereby granting
them the rewards associated with their merit. In
contrast, status is based on a social ordering of
actors agreed upon by relevant audiences. A high
position in this ordering will grant privileges to
actors occupying it. Whereas actors' positions in
the status ordering are partly determined by their
past quality or performance, once it is formed, a
status ordering is slower to change—when com-
pared to changes in one's reputation—in the face of
changes in quality or performance, as has been
suggested by Washington and Zajac (2005: 294].
This phenomenon occurs due to the Matthew effect
(Merton, 1968], whereby once a status ordering is
established, it tends to perpetuate itself and the
privileges associated with it, independently of a
merit-based system (Podolny, 1993; Stinchcombe,
1965; Weber, 1978]. Along this line, Washington
and Zajac (2005] found that, once NGAA basketball
teams have been invited to a postseason tourna-
ment (i.e., become higb status], they are more likely
to be invited to postseason tournaments indepen-
dently of their performance in the current year and
in the previous four years. Arguably, when trying to
secure the participation of high-status teams, the
organizers of postseason tournaments will be less
interested in the teams' most recent performance
than in their status, as status is less sensitive than
reputation to changes in performance. Similarly,
Podolny (1993] has argued that high-status invest-
ment banks are subject to less due diligence than
low-status investment banks when asked to lead a
syndicate to underwrite corporate securities. After
an actor becomes high status, the quality of that

ROSELLINA FERRARO, AMNA KIRMANI, and TED MATHERLYConspicu.docx

ROSELLINA FERRARO, AMNA KIRMANI, and TED MATHERLYConspicu.docx

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie ROSELLINA FERRARO, AMNA KIRMANI, and TED MATHERLYConspicu.docx

Ähnlich wie ROSELLINA FERRARO, AMNA KIRMANI, and TED MATHERLYConspicu.docx (20)

Mehr von SUBHI7

Mehr von SUBHI7 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

ROSELLINA FERRARO, AMNA KIRMANI, and TED MATHERLYConspicu.docx