Journal of Consumer Research Inc.
Super Size Me: Product Size as a Signal of Status
Author(s): David Dubois, Derek D. Rucker, Adam D. Galinsky
Source:
Journal of Consumer Research,
(-Not available-), p. 000
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661890 .
Accessed: 22/10/2011 07:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.
http://www.jstor.org
000
䉷 2011 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 38 ● April 2012
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2012/3806-0012$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/661890
Super Size Me: Product Size as a
Signal of Status
DAVID DUBOIS
DEREK D. RUCKER
ADAM D. GALINSKY
This research proposes that consumers’ preference for supersized food and drinks
may have roots in the status-signaling value of larger options. An initial experiment
found that consumers view larger-sized options within a set as having greater
status. Because low-power consumers desire status, we manipulated power to
test our core propositions. Whether induced in the lab or in the field, states of
powerlessness led individuals to disproportionately choose larger food options from
an assortment. Furthermore, this preference for larger-sized options was enhanced
when consumption was public, reversed when the size-to-status relationship was
negative (i.e., smaller was equated with greater status), and mediated by consum-
ers’ need for status. This research demonstrates that choosing a product on the
basis of its relative size allows consumers to signal status, illustrates the conse-
quences of such a choice for consumers’ food consumption, and highlights the
central role of a product category’s size-to-status relationship in driving consumer
choice.
O
ne of the most alarming statistics of food consumption
is the 32% rate of obesity within the United States.
And obesity is expected to continue its precipitous increase
so that by 2015, 41% of U.S. adults will be obese, with an
astonishing 75% overweight (Wang and Beydoun 2007).
These figures are all the more problematic in that the rise
in obesity rates has mostly affected vulnerable populations,
such as lower socioeconomic status individuals (McLaren
2007; Puhl, Heuer, and Brownell 2010). Although there are
likely multiple contributing culprits to this disturbing phe-
Paris, 1 rue de la Libe´ration, 78351 Jouy-en-Josas cedex, France. Derek
marketing, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001
Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208. Adam D. Galinsky (agalinsky@
kellogg.northwestern.edu) is the Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor of
Ethics and Decision in Management, Kellogg School of Management,
Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208. The
authors are grateful to the editor, the associate editor, and the JCR reviewers
for their many valuable comments and suggestions. In addition, the authors
thank participants in seminars at Northwestern University and the Ohio
State University for their input. Support from the Kellogg School of Man-
agement, Northwestern University, is gratefully acknowledged.
Baba Shiv served as editor and Pierre Chandon served as associate editor
for this article.
Electronically published August 17, 2011
nomenon, the food industry has been singled out for the
expansion of its food and beverage assortments to include
increasingly larger, “supersized” options (Spurlock 2004).
In fact, the past 20 years have seen portion sizes increase
by 52% for soft drinks, 27% for Mexican food, and 23%
for hamburgers (Nielsen and Popkin 2003).
Given the societal consequences of the interplay between
package size and food consumption (Brownell 2005), a
growing number of studies have aimed at better understand-
ing the role of size in food consumption (e.g., Chandon and
Wansink 2007; Wansink 1996). Research efforts have fo-
cused on the impact of products’ size on perceived quantity
(Raghubir and Krishna 1999) and actual consumption
(Wansink 1996). More recent investigations have examined
how the nature of changes in package size (Chandon and
Ordabayeva 2009) or assortment size (Sharpe, Staelin, and
Huber 2008) shape consumers’ preference for specific types
of products.
In this article, we seek to understand why consumers
choose to trade up to larger-sized options. In doing so, we
put forth a novel hypothesis: an option’s size within a set
can serve as a marker of social status. That is, the act of
choosing a specific size within a set of hierarchically ar-
ranged options is one avenue by which individuals signal
to others their relative rank in a social hierarchy. As a con-
sequence, larger options would be selected by consumers,
not merely out of a functional need for hunger but due to
000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
a desire to signal status. For example, given that a state of
low power leads consumers to desire and acquire status to
compensate for their lack of power (Dubois, Rucker, and
Galinsky 2010; Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2009), consum-
ers in a state of low power should prefer larger options.
We first review past theoretical accounts and empirical
evidence on the importance of status and delineate why a
product’s size relative to other options in a set might serve
as a signal for status. Subsequently, we explain why mo-
mentary shifts in power provide an ideal testing ground for
empirically examining our proposition regarding the link
between efforts to signal status and consumers’ size pref-
erence within a set of options.
THE NEED FOR STATUS
The desire to acquire and express status has been argued to
be a central motivation in human behavior (e.g., Argyle
1994; Berger, Rosenholtz, and Zelditch 1980; Bourdieu
1984). A need for status typically refers to either an indi-
vidual or a group motive to attain respect or admiration by
others (e.g., Magee and Galinsky 2008; Ridgeway and Cor-
rell 2006; see also Hyman 1942). One reason people engage
in status-signaling activities is that having, relative to lack-
ing, status leads to greater social and individual benefits
(Dubois and Laurent 1996; Han, Nunes, and Dre`ze 2010).
These benefits manifest themselves in preferential treatment
and financial rewards (Fennis 2008; Nelissen and Meijers,
forthcoming). For instance, in a series of experiments, Nel-
issen and Meijers (forthcoming) had participants wear a polo
shirt that either had a logo associated with a high-status
brand or had no logo. Participants who wore the branded
shirt obtained significantly greater compliance from others
when they asked for assistance and received more money
when they requested charitable donations. Elsewhere, re-
search has found that individuals occupying a higher po-
sition in society are even less likely to be affected by tra-
ditional coronary risk factors, controlling for items such as
education or wealth (Kuper and Marmot 2003; Marmot
2004). Similarly, research on animal behavior has found that
higher status in a group leads to greater access to food
(Barton, Byrne, and Whiten 1996) and reproductive success
(D’Amato 1988).
In consumer settings, the need for status affects consum-
ers’ preferences in multiple ways (e.g., Dre`ze and Nunes
2009; Mandel, Petrova, and Cialdini 2006; Ordabayeva and
Chandon 2011). A need for status has been shown to be
positively correlated with increases in consumers’ prefer-
ence for conspicuous consumption (e.g., Charles, Hurst, and
Roussanov 2009) and luxury products (e.g., Han et al. 2010).
As a result, status brands have moved down market to take
advantage of new social targets by tapping into their height-
ened need for status. Indeed, despite the world’s recent eco-
nomic recession, the world’s luxury market continues to
grow and stands at over $210 billion (Bain 2010).
Prior research has focused on underlying factors that drive
consumers’ use of products explicitly associated with status,
such as luxury goods (Berger and Ward 2010; Han et al.
2010; Mandel et al. 2006; Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2009).
For example, Ordabayeva and Chandon (2011) suggested
that low-income consumers’ preference for conspicuous
products is a joint function of consumers’ perceived equality
with others as well as their own concerns for status. They
reasoned that an increase in equality accentuates the need
for status-enhancing consumption because such consump-
tion provides consumers with the opportunity to outshine
the other consumers clustered in the middle tiers. Conse-
quently, consumers’ preference for status products is greater
under a high level of equality than a low level of equality
when status is important to consumers. In contrast, increased
equality reduced low-income consumers’ preference for
status products when status was not important to consumers.
In this article, we propose that even products typically
dissociated from status or conspicuousness (e.g., a coffee
or a smoothie) can be used to signal status. Specifically,
when a choice set emphasizes the hierarchical relationship
among the options, we suggest that the relative size of the
options within this set can serve as a status-signaling device.
Consumers presented with a set of several options arranged
from smallest to largest might associate the size of the option
with the status of the option, subsequently affecting their
final choice.
SUPERSIZING AS A SIGNAL OF STATUS
Research has found that features of a product, such as size,
can influence behavior by serving as cognitive shortcuts
(e.g., Chandon and Ordabayeva 2009; Wansink and Van
Ittersum 2003). For example, at a perceptual level, people
believe taller glasses contain more liquid than shorter glasses
(Raghubir and Krishna 1999). At a behavioral level, larger
packages of familiar and branded products encourage more
use than smaller packages, without consumers being aware
that package size is affecting their consumption levels
(Granger and Billson 1972; Wansink 1996). Elsewhere, Pre-
lec, Wernerfelt, and Zettelmeyer (1997) found that contrary
to a normative account predicting that individuals would
choose a poncho’s size on the basis of their height, merely
varying the relative size of the options within an assortment
of three ponchos (e.g., 32, 34, and 36 inches or 38, 40, and
42 inches) dramatically shifted consumer choices (leading
consumers to pick smaller or larger ponchos, respectively).
And Sharpe et al. (2008) showed that removing the smallest
option or adding a larger option from an initial set (e.g., a
choice of three sizes of soft drinks: 32, 21, and 16 ounces)
caused consumers to choose larger sizes.
In this research, we propose a novel means by which
consumers may use product size: an option’s relative size
within a set of options can signal status. That is, when
presented with a set of options arranged in a hierarchical
fashion (e.g., multiple sizes of a beverage, from smallest to
largest), we expect consumers to naturally equate larger op-
tions with greater status. Although their assertion is empir-
ically untested, several theoreticians have argued that larger
sizes are often associated with greater status than smaller
sizes in Western societies (see Baudrillard 1998, 2005). In
STATUS, SIZE, AND FOOD CONSUMPTION 000
addition, individuals have been shown to naturally associate
status with greater length (Schubert, Waldzus, and Giessner
2009) and height (Dannenmaier and Thumin 1964; Wilson
1968). And individuals low in socioeconomic status draw
monetary objects as bigger, consistent with the notion of a
general positive relationship between value and size (Bruner
and Goodman 1947). These findings are also consistent with
an evolutionary perspective suggesting that larger sizes are
equated with higher rank and dominance among primates
(Rivers and Josephs 2010). As a consequence, even products
that have no inherent status connotations in and of them-
selves (e.g., a soft drink) may be viewed as having status
when their large size becomes salient, relative to other op-
tions. More formally:
H1: Selecting larger sizes from a set of options, rel-
ative to smaller sizes, will be associated with
greater status.
Next, we delineate why power provides a useful and inter-
esting context to study whether a need for status affects
consumers’ preferences for larger-sized options within a set.
POWER, STATUS SEEKING, AND
PREFERENCE FOR SIZE
Power and the Need for Status
Defined as asymmetric control over valued resources in
social relations (Magee and Galinsky 2008; for a review,
see Rucker, Galinsky, and Dubois, forthcoming), power is
a foundational basis of social hierarchy (Sidanius and Pratto
1999) that affects psychological processes related to how
people think (e.g., Brin˜ol et al. 2007; Galinsky et al. 2008;
Smith and Trope 2006), feel (e.g., Anderson and Galinsky
2006; Guinote 2007), and behave (e.g., Galinsky et al. 2006;
Keltner and Robinson 1997). Power, in comparison to other
sources of control, is primarily tied to social contexts, as it
involves a relationship between at least two people (Emerson
1962; French and Raven 1959; Inesi et al., forthcoming; Ng
1980).
Although power and status are both bases of hierarchical
differentiation (Fiske and Berdahl 2007; Magee and Gal-
insky 2008), they are conceptually distinct. Power relates
to one’s relative control over valued resources, whereas
status relates to the respect one has in the eyes of others
(Hyman 1942; Magee and Galinsky 2008; Marmot 2004).
Despite these conceptual differences, evidence suggests that
power and status can compensate and substitute for each
other. Indeed, prior work has shown that when one’s power
is threatened, individuals appear to place a greater value on
products explicitly linked to status (Rucker and Galinsky
2008; Wong and Shavitt 2010), think about products in terms
of the status they convey (e.g., Rucker and Galinsky 2009),
and place greater value on monetary wealth (Dubois et al.
2010).
Power and Preference for Larger-Sized
Food Options
If our first hypothesis that larger sizes of options signal
greater status is correct, we predict that the powerless, who
have an increased desire for status, should choose larger-
sized food options within a set, compared to powerful and
power-neutral individuals. Thus, power provides an ideal
means to test whether a need for status increases consumers’
preference for supersized food.
H2: States of powerlessness will increase preference
for larger-sized food options within a set, com-
pared to states of power and baseline conditions.
On the basis of our proposed mechanism, two hypotheses
of moderation can be further derived. First, because status
is primarily measured “in the eyes of others” (Ridgeway
and Correll 2006) and expressions of status are sensitive to
the social context (Rucker and Galinsky 2009), the prefer-
ence for larger sizes by the powerless should be greater when
consumption is socially visible to others. Such a view is
consistent with research suggesting that states of power-
lessness increase one’s sensitivity to others (Galinsky et al.
2008; Rucker, Dubois, and Galinsky 2011) and with findings
that individuals from groups historically associated with low
power, such as women and African Americans, spend more
in contexts in which consumption is social (e.g., at the deal-
ership) compared to more private contexts (e.g., online pur-
chase at home; see Charles et al. 2009; Morton, Zettelmeyer,
and Silva-Risso 2003).
H3: A preference for specific sizes by the powerless will
be more prevalent in social/public consumption set-
tings compared to nonsocial/private settings.
Second, even though our main hypothesis recognizes the
prevalence of positive size-to-status relationships, consistent
with an evolutionary account equating larger with greater
status, it is also possible that societal constructions of value
might sometimes equate smaller with greater status. That is,
when people come to agree on smaller sizes as having greater
value, negative size to status might prevail, whereby the small-
est option in a set is associated with more status because it
is viewed as more valuable (e.g., being slim, having easy-to-
carry electronic goods). Recognizing that small options can
sometimes signal greater status also has implications for how
power will affect consumers’ decisions. Specifically, when
the size-to-status relationship is negative, we propose that the
powerless will choose smaller options. For instance, if being
slim is highly valued in a social system (Puhl et al. 2010),
choosing the smallest snack among three options should be
viewed as affording the highest status.
H4: When the size-to-status relationship among a set
of food options is negative (i.e., smaller is equated
with greater status), states of powerlessness will
increase consumers’ preference for smaller op-
tions within the set, compared to states of power
and neutral power states.
000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 1
AVERAGE STATUS AND NONSTATUS PERCEPTIONS, EXPERIMENT 1 (ON A 1–7 SCALE)
Status-related dimensions Status-unrelated dimensions
High status Respected Honest Nice Attractive
Coffee:
Small 3.05 (1.05) 2.94 (.97) 4.55 (1.51) 4.23 (1.20) 4.36 (1.35)
Medium 3.72 (1.14) 3.91 (1.26) 4.33 (1.15) 3.51 (1.12) 4.25 (1.20)
Large 5.05 (1.50) 5.06 (1.43) 4.71 (1.33) 3.90 (1.12) 4.30 (1.16)
Pizza:
Small 3.24 (1.05) 2.88 (1.04) 4.56 (1.15) 4.22 (1.09) 4.76 (1.39)
Medium 3.79 (1.25) 3.71 (1.18) 4.50 (1.40) 4.17 (1.23) 4.02 (1.14)
Large 4.92 (1.35) 5.00 (1.44) 4.11 (1.27) 4.34 (1.53) 4.19 (1.24)
Smoothie:
Small 3.06 (1.15) 3.01 (1.04) 4.62 (1.40) 4.31 (1.30) 4.54 (1.44)
Medium 3.91 (1.24) 3.70 (1.30) 4.16 (1.32) 4.28 (1.25) 4.11 (1.19)
Large 5.01 (1.41) 4.86 (1.32) 4.61 (1.48) 4.21 (1.12) 4.14 (1.26)
N
OTE
.—Standard deviations are in parentheses.
Summary and Overview of Experiments
Six experiments tested our hypotheses that the size of
food options selected by consumers can both signal status
and be used to compensate for a need for status. The first
experiment illustrates that larger-sized choices within a set
of food options are associated with greater status. Given that
size can convey status, experiments 2 and 3 establish that
those known to be in pursuit of status—the powerless—
choose larger-sized food options from a set. Experiment 4
tests the role of status signaling by demonstrating that the
powerlessness-induced preference for larger-sized options is
enhanced when consumption is publicly visible as opposed
to private. Experiments 5 and 6 demonstrate that the pref-
erence for larger sizes by the powerless is reversed when
the size-to-status relationship of the product category is neg-
ative and is mediated by an expressed need for status. Across
experiments, we used five different manipulations of power
and used both field and laboratory settings to establish a
robust relationship between lacking power and our novel
hypothesis that consumers’ preference for an option’s rel-
ative size can be used as a means to signal status and thus
affect food consumption.
EXPERIMENT 1: SIZE AS STATUS;
EVIDENCE FROM THE EYE OF
THE BEHOLDER
Experiment 1 tested our first hypothesis that selecting larger
sizes in a set of options conveys greater status. Participants
were asked to judge another consumer on several attributes,
including status, after this consumer selected the largest op-
tion within a set, compared to a medium or a small one. In
addition, to rule against the possibility that status was de-
rived purely from the perceived amount of money the con-
sumer spent, we either did not mention the cost to the con-
sumer or held the cost constant across scenarios (i.e., we
made the product free). We predicted that consumers who
selected the larger size would be seen as having greater
status but that size selection would not affect dimensions
unrelated to status.
Method
Undergraduates ( ; 74 males) were randomly as-N p 183
signed to a 3 (size of observed choice: small, medium, large)
# 3 (scenario: coffee, pizza, smoothie) # 2 (dimension:
status, nonstatus) mixed model design, with dimension serv-
ing as a within-participant factor.
Participants were presented with one of nine scenarios in
which a consumer chose one of three options (small, me-
dium, large) from a set of three hierarchically arranged op-
tions in one of three situations (coffee, pizza, and smoothie;
see app. A for a sample scenario). The scenario featured a
target consumer either selecting an option within a set where
price was not made salient (pizza, smoothie) or choosing a
free sample (coffee). Next, participants were asked to make
snap judgments of the target consumer on two dimensions
wedded to status (this person has high status, is respected;
a p .93) and three dimensions divorced from status (this
person is honest, nice, attractive; a p .84). Dimensions were
counterbalanced to avoid an order effect.
Results and Discussion
Preliminary analyses revealed no interactions among the
different scenarios used, and thus we collapsed across the
scenarios in our analyses, unless otherwise specified. We
conducted a 3 (size of observed choice: small, medium,
large) # 2 (dimension: status, nonstatus) mixed model
ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. A sig-
nificant interaction between size of choice and dimension
emerged (F(1, 177) p 4.06, p p .03, ; see table
2
h p .05
p
1).
For status dimensions, there was an effect of size of ob-
served choice (F(1, 177) p 10.22, p p .001, ).
2
h p .10
p
Perceived status of the consumer in the scenario increased
as a function of the size of the chosen option, from small
STATUS, SIZE, AND FOOD CONSUMPTION 000
(M p 3.03, SD p 1.19) to medium (M p 3.79, SD p
1.25) to large (M p 4.98, SD p 1.41). Planned contrasts
further revealed that the consumer’s perceived status was
significantly higher in the large condition than in the small
(t(182) p 4.66, p p .001, d p 1.10) and medium (t(182)
p 2.95, p p .01, d p .65) conditions. In addition, perceived
status was significantly higher in the medium than in the
small condition (t(182) p 2.27, p p .05, d p .46). Im-
portantly, this effect did not depend on whether the price
was unknown (pizza, smoothie) or identical (i.e., the free
coffee; p
1 .5). For nonstatus dimensions, there was no effect
of choice, scenario, and gender or their interaction on per-
ceptions of an individual’s honesty, niceness, and attrac-
tiveness (F
! 1).
Overall, these results provide support for hypothesis 1,
as participants judged other consumers as having more status
when they selected the largest product within a set compared
to the medium or the small one. These results suggest that
an option’s size relative to other options in a set can serve
as a signal for status. Importantly, these results illustrate
how even mundane products (i.e., a smoothie, pizza, coffee)
can bestow status when they are embedded in a set of hi-
erarchically sized options. In addition, this experiment al-
lowed us to separate the effects of size from a simple price
explanation. That is, although price certainly might con-
tribute to consumers’ general association of “larger” with
greater status, choosing a larger option was seen as a marker
of status even when the option was given for free (coffee).
Finally, this experiment found that the effects of choosing
larger products within a set were unique to perceived status
and did not affect social judgments on dimensions unrelated
to status.
EXPERIMENT 2: POWERLESSNESS AS A
CATALYST FOR A DESIRE FOR STATUS
On the basis of past research finding that powerlessness
increases one’s desire to acquire status (Dubois et al. 2010;
Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2009), experiment 2 tested our
second hypothesis that low-power individuals will select
larger-sized options more so than high-power or power-neu-
tral individuals.
Method
One hundred and forty-two undergraduates from an online
subject pool were randomly assigned to a three-cell design:
high power, low power, and baseline.
Power Manipulation. Power was manipulated via an ep-
isodic prime adapted from Galinsky, Gruenfeld, and Magee
(2003). In the high-power condition, participants read:
“Please recall a particular incident in which you had power
over another individual or individuals. By power, we mean
a situation in which you controlled the ability of another
person or persons to get something they wanted, or were in
a position to evaluate those individuals. Please describe this
situation in which you had power—what happened, how
you felt, etc.” In the low-power condition, participants read:
“Please recall a particular incident in which someone else
had power over you. By power, we mean a situation in which
someone had control over your ability to get something you
wanted, or was in a position to evaluate you. Please describe
this situation in which you did not have power—what hap-
pened, how you felt, etc.” In the baseline condition, partic-
ipants were asked to recall the last time they went to the
grocery store (Galinsky et al. 2003). At the end of the ex-
periment, a manipulation check was included that asked
participants to rate the extent to which the recall task made
them feel powerful on a 7-point scale (1 p not powerful;
7 p powerful).
Preference for Size in Assortment. In an ostensibly dif-
ferent task, participants were presented with one assortment
of three smoothies and asked which one they would choose
to purchase from the assortment. Specifically, they were told:
“Please consider the following assortment of smoothies. If
such an assortment was available at the University Student
Center, and you were considering purchasing a smoothie
now, which one would you be most likely to buy?” The
assortment displayed three pictures of a cup the smoothie
was served in. In order to clearly indicate the size hierarchy
among options, we varied the pictures’ size to reflect the
relative size of each option. In addition, we labeled the three
options “small,” “medium,” and “large” to emphasize their
relative sizes. Although calories vary depending on the fla-
vor, the options presented at the University Student Center,
identical to the ones used in the experiment, typically range
from 200 calories (small option) to 310 calories (medium
option) to 410 calories (large option). Thus, the size chosen
is consequential in this paradigm in that it likely determines
the amount individuals will consume and thus has potential
health-related ramifications. The dependent variable was
participants’ choice of smoothie.
Results and Discussion
Manipulation Checks. Participants reported feeling sig-
nificantly less powerful in the low-power condition (M p
3.03, SD p 1.65) than in both the baseline condition (M p
4.10, SD p 1.75; t(141) p 2.77, p p .02, d p .76) and
the high-power condition (M p 5.10, SD p 1.82; t(141) p
5.97, p ! .001, d p 1.27), suggesting the manipulation was
successful.
Preference for Size. Size was coded as ⫺1 (small op-
tion), 0 (medium option), or 1 (large option). Data were
analyzed using ANOVAs, t-tests, and chi-square when ap-
propriate. There was a significant main effect of power (F(1,
135) p 10.54, p
! .01, ), such that low-power
2
h p .09
p
participants were significantly more likely to choose larger
smoothies (M
low
p .32, SD
low
p .72) than both baseline
(M
base
p .03, SD
base
p .79; t(141) p 2.21, p p .03, d p
.43) and high-power participants (M
high
p ⫺.04, SD
high
p
.82; t(141) p 2.29, p p .02, d p .47). There was no effect
of gender on size (F(1, 135) p 1.05, p p .46, ),
2
h p .01
p
000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 1
CHOICE OF SMOOTHIE AS A FUNCTION OF POWER AND
RELATIVE SIZE, EXPERIMENT 2
nor was there a gender # status manipulation interaction
(F
! 1).
Consistent with our general perspective that size can sig-
nal status, individuals known to desire status (i.e., the pow-
erless) shifted their preferences toward larger-sized options
in a set. In fact, participants who received the low-power
prompt picked the largest option almost twice as often as
high-power and baseline participants (25 vs. 15 and 14,
respectively), resulting in a dramatic change in the options’
market share (x
2
(4) p 10.98, p p .03; see fig. 1).
EXPERIMENT 3: A MATTER OF PRICE?
Although experiment 2 provides evidence for the link be-
tween powerlessness and preference for larger sizes, a lim-
itation is that participants might think that size reflects the
presumed price of the option. As past research has shown
that low-power individuals are sensitive to money (Dubois
et al. 2010), one could hypothesize that participants decide
to choose larger sizes because they are presumed to be more
expensive. Although experiment 1 showed that choosing a
larger size conveyed status regardless of the options’ price,
one could still hypothesize that the choice of the powerless
stems not from an option’s size but from its cost: they de-
sired larger smoothies to signal status via cost. Experiment
3 was designed to rule out the possibility that the observed
effect was tied to perceived cost.
Experiment 3 also aimed to increase the ecological va-
lidity of our findings. Whereas nearly all prior manipulations
of power have been confined to controlled lab settings (Fast
et al. 2009; Galinsky et al. 2003; Guinote 2007; Magee and
Galinsky 2008; Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2009; Smith and
Trope 2006; Weick and Guinote 2008), experiment 3 ma-
nipulated power in the field.
Method
Eighty-nine participants took part in this experiment. Par-
ticipants were residents of a high-rise building in a metro-
politan area, and the experiment took place in three distinct
lobbies of this building.
Power Manipulation. Small tables (one per lobby) were
set up on people’s way out of the building between the
elevator and one of the exits (a path that all residents have
to take to exit the building). A large, highly visible banner
(about 4.5 # 3.5 feet) advertising House of Bagels, a sup-
posedly new bagel chain in the area, was displayed behind
each table. Key to the experiment, the content of this banner
differed from one lobby to another. In one of the lobbies
(low-power condition), the banner read: “We all feel pow-
erless in the morning: Treat yourself to free bagels.” In a
second lobby (high-power condition), the banner read: “We
all feel powerful in the morning: Treat yourself to free ba-
gels.” In the third lobby (baseline condition), the banner
read “It’s morning: Treat yourself to free bagels” (see app.
B).
A pretest of these banners among a student sample (N p
46) indicated that they successfully triggered different states
of power. Specifically, participants of this pretest completed
a short questionnaire during morning lab sessions while one
of the three banners was posted on the wall of the lab. This
questionnaire was identical in all conditions and included a
question asking participants to report the extent that they
felt powerful, on a 9-point scale anchored at 1 p not pow-
erful and 9 p powerful. Participants exposed to the low-
power banner felt significantly less powerful (M p 3.54,
SD p 1.12) than both participants exposed to the baseline
banner (M p 4.56, SD p 1.46; t(45) p 2.19, p p .03)
and those exposed to the high-power banner (M p 5.93,
SD p 1.83; t(45) p 4.32, p p .005); in addition, partic-
ipants exposed to the high-power banner felt significantly
more powerful than participants exposed to the baseline
banner (t(45) p 2.31, p p .03).
Preference for Size in Assortment. Three experimenters
blind to the hypotheses were recruited for this setting. People
who approached the table were greeted by an experimenter
(one per lobby) and informed that the bagel company was
interested in consumers’ perception of different bagels. All
experimenters followed the same script for interacting with
participants. Individuals were completely free to agree to
participate or decline. All participants who approached the
table subsequently took one or more bagel pieces.
On each table, two large plates were full of bagel pieces.
Importantly, one plate contained small pieces (approxi-
mately 1.5 # 1.5 # 1.5 centimeters); the other plate con-
tained large pieces (approximately 2.5 # 2.5 # 2.5 cen-
timeters). Participants were invited to take as many pieces
as they wanted, as long as they ate them on site. Participants
were subsequently asked to complete a short questionnaire
in which they indicated how much they enjoyed the bagel
on a 7-point Likert scale anchored at “not at all” and “very
much,” whether they already had breakfast (binary re-
sponse), their age, and their gender. The dependent variable
was the number of bagel pieces taken and eaten (number
of small pieces, number of large pieces, and total number
of pieces).
STATUS, SIZE, AND FOOD CONSUMPTION 000
Results and Discussion
There was no main effect of power on the total number
of pieces taken (F
! 1). However, there was a significant
power # size interaction (F(1, 83) p 3.01, p p .03,
), such that low-power participants took more large
2
h p .03
p
pieces (M p 1.93, SD p 1.11) than both baseline (M p
1.22, SD p 1.18) and high-power (M p 1.24, SD p 1.21)
participants (F(1, 83) p 3.79, p p .02, ). In con-
2
h p .08
p
trast, the number of small pieces taken did not vary across
low-power (M p 1.21, SD p 1.19), baseline (M p 1.44,
SD p 1.28), and high-power (M p 1.38, SD p 1.26)
participants (F
! 1).
Next, we conducted a regression on the number of large
pieces including the variables collected in the short ques-
tionnaire administered right after participants ate the bagels
(i.e., reported enjoyment of the bagels, whether participants
had breakfast before the experiment, their age and gender).
Results indicated that the only significant predictor was the
power condition (b p ⫺.28, t(88) p 2.61, p p .01). None
of the other variables predicted the number of large pieces
taken (p
1 .18).
Even when presented with free small and large food sam-
ples, powerless individuals took and consumed more large
food samples but not more small food samples than both
baseline and high-power individuals, consistent with our
hypothesis that a state of powerlessness increases one’s pref-
erence for larger sizes. Viewed from another perspective,
33.4% of low-power participants in our sample took four
or more large bagel pieces, as opposed to 14.8% of baseline
participants and 17.2% of high-power participants (x
2
(2) p
9.39, p
! .01).
These differences in choice also had consequences for
participants’ total caloric intake. For an estimated average
of 10 calories per small piece and 45 calories per large piece,
low-power participants’ caloric intake was significantly
greater (M p 100.61, SD p 48.5) than that of both baseline
participants (M p 70.92, SD p 45.48) and high-power
participants (M p71.03, SD p 48.59; F(1, 83) p 4.01, p
p .02, ). A final feature of this experiment is that
2
h p .08
p
it offers an illustration that power states can be activated in
the real world.
EXPERIMENT 4: THE MODERATING
ROLE OF SOCIAL VISIBILITY
Experiment 4 had several goals. First, we wanted to gain
insight into the process by which power increases preference
for larger sizes. On the basis of our first hypothesis that size
signals status, we have suggested that, like a moth drawn
to a flame, the powerless are drawn to larger sizes because
of their association with status. According to this signaling
perspective, low-power participants are not interested in
consuming more, but rather they are more sensitive to
whether consumption episodes and products can signal be-
ing higher up in the hierarchy.
However, a remaining alternative exists. A resource view
of power might suggest that a lack of power makes indi-
viduals feel as if they lack resources and that they need to
acquire more physical resources or sustenance. According
to such a view, powerlessness might drive consumption of
larger food options in an assortment, not out of a desire to
signal status but because individuals feel as if they need to
consume more physical resources. If this were true, it would
suggest a very different mechanism at play than our pro-
posed status account.
To test these competing hypotheses, experiment 4 kept
the amount of drink and food selected constant and only
varied the size of the container (cup, plate) in which par-
ticipants would like their food to be served. If the shift in
choice stems from individuals’ desire to signal status, par-
ticipants should prefer larger sizes of cups or plates to
smaller ones. In contrast, if larger options are only selected
because they provide more physical resources, then there
should be no difference in consumers’ preferences as a func-
tion of power when the quantity to be consumed is held
constant.
Another goal was to test the hypothesis, based on a status
account, that the effect of power on preference for larger
sizes is moderated by the social visibility of consumption.
This hypothesis is consistent with literature on signaling
suggesting that the meaning or use of consumption goods
highly depends on whether consumption is public or private
(e.g., Richins 1994; Wang and Wallendorf 2006). Thus, if
the size of a chosen object provides an opportunity to express
or signal status, the effect of lacking power on size selection
should be enhanced when consumption takes place in social
contexts (i.e., consumed in the presence of others) and re-
duced in private contexts.
Third, we included measures of mood to examine whether
preferences for larger sizes stemmed from a state of pow-
erlessness as opposed to more global mood effects. Empir-
ical tests have found that temporary states of power have
no effect on immediate mood (e.g., Galinsky et al. 2003;
Rucker and Galinsky 2008; Smith et al. 2008) and have
further suggested this is not due to the insensitivity of mood
measures (e.g., Rucker et al. 2011). Nonetheless, measures
of mood were included to offer a formal test of this pos-
sibility in this article.
Method
Two hundred and sixty-nine participants (121 males; M
age
p 30.51, SD
age
p 10.29) were recruited from a national
online pool and randomly assigned to a 2 (power: high, low)
# 3 (consumption scenario: private, public, social) # 2
(product: drink, food) between-participants design, with
product serving as a within-participant factor.
After power was manipulated, participants were told that
they would take part in a marketing study interested in con-
sumer preferences. Participants were randomly assigned to
one of three consumption scenarios. Each scenario entailed
choosing between different sizes of a container (e.g., cup,
plate) while keeping the amount of drink or food purchased
constant. Key to our hypothesis, we varied the social visi-
bility of consumption. Consumption took place at home
000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
alone (privately), by oneself in public at the restaurant (pub-
licly), or at home with friends (socially). In each scenario,
participants had to buy a drink (Jamba juice smoothie) or
a meal (Giordano’s cheese pizza) that was explicitly for their
own consumption (i.e., they would not be sharing), and they
had to choose the size of the container (cup, plate).
Power Manipulation. Power was manipulated through
an imagination task adapted from Dubois et al. (2010). In
the high/low power condition, participants were told: “We
would like to imagine you are a boss/employee at a com-
pany. Read about the role below and try to vividly imagine
what it would be like to be in this role (i.e., how you would
feel, think, and act).”
Participants in the high-power condition then read: “As
a boss, you are in charge of directing your subordinates in
creating different products and managing work teams. You
decide how to structure the process of creating products and
the standards by which the work done by your employees
is to be evaluated. As the boss, you have complete control
over the instructions you give your employees. In addition,
you also evaluate the employees at the end of each month
in a private questionnaire—that is, the employees never see
your evaluation. The employees have no opportunity to eval-
uate you.” In contrast, participants in the low-power con-
dition read: “As an employee, you are responsible for car-
rying out the orders of the boss in creating different
products. The boss decides how to structure the process of
creating these products and the standards by which your
work is to be evaluated. As the employee, you must follow
the instructions of the boss. In addition, you are evaluated
by the boss each month, and this evaluation will be private,
that is, you will not see your boss’s evaluation of you. This
evaluation will help determine the bonus reward you get.
You have no opportunity to evaluate your boss.”
Social Visibility Manipulation and Preference for Size.
In an ostensibly different task interested in consumer pref-
erences, participants were assigned to one of six consump-
tion scenarios in which they had to imagine that they were
about to order a Jamba juice smoothie (Giordano’s cheese
pizza) that would be delivered in a cup (square plate) of
one of three sizes: small, medium, or large. In the private
condition, participants were told to imagine that they were
“alone at home and about to order a smoothie/pizza” for
themselves. In the public condition, participants were told
to imagine that they were “alone at the restaurant and about
to order a smoothie/pizza” for themselves. In the social
condition, participants were told to imagine that they were
“at home with friends and about to order a smoothie/pizza”
for themselves (pizza consumed in the presence of close
others).
A pretest among a different sample of the same population
( ) revealed that participants judged their gesturesN p 45
and choices would be more visible to others in the social
condition (M p 5.69, SD p 1.32) than in the public con-
dition (M p 4.51, SD p 1.11) and the least visible in the
private condition (M p 1.97, SD p .98; all measured on
7-point semantic scales; F(1, 43) p 49.10, p ! .001). In-
structions specifically highlighted that the smoothie/pizza
was for their own consumption. Finally, participants were
presented with an assortment of three sizes for the con-
tainer—small, medium, or large—and a representative pic-
ture of each was provided. The dependent variable was par-
ticipants’ choice of container.
Additional Measures. At the end of the experiment, ma-
nipulation checks assessed power and mood. Specifically,
one question, anchored at 1 p not powerful and 7 p pow-
erful, assessed power: “The role playing task at the begin-
ning of the experiment made me feel . . . .” We also in-
cluded one measure of mood (“The role playing task at the
beginning of the experiment made me feel . . . ”) on a 7-
point scale, where 1 p extremely unhappy/discontent and
7 p extremely happy/content.
Results and Discussion
Manipulation Check. Participants reported feeling sig-
nificantly less powerful in the low-power condition (M p
3.54, SD p 1.51) than in the high-power condition (M p
4.58, SD p 1.42; t(268) p 4.61, p
! .001, d p .59). There
were, however, no differences in mood between high-power
participants (M p 4.15, SD p 1.54) and low-power par-
ticipants (M p 4.32, SD p 1.38; p
1 .1). Thus, the ma-
nipulation successfully and specifically affected power
rather than mood generally.
Preference for Size. Size was coded as ⫺1 (small), 0
(medium), or 1 (large). Data were analyzed using an ANOVA
and t-tests, when appropriate. As product type did not in-
teract with power, we collapsed means across scenarios
(smoothie, pizza).
There was a significant effect of power (F(1, 263) p
10.45, p p .003, ), such that participants in the
2
h p .05
p
low-power condition significantly chose larger containers
(M p .19, SD p 79) compared to high-power participants
(M p ⫺.13, SD p .82). More important, there was a sig-
nificant power # social visibility interaction (F(1, 263) p
3.91, p p .03, ), such that low-power participants
2
h p .03
p
chose larger containers as the social visibility of consump-
tion increased, whereas high-power participants’ preference
for size did not differ across consumption conditions. Fur-
ther analyses revealed that within the low-power condition,
there was a significant effect of social visibility on size (F(1,
263) p 6.45, p p .01, ); planned contrasts revealed
2
h p .08
p
that low-power participants’ preference for larger sizes sig-
nificantly increased when going from private (M p ⫺.15,
SD p .82) to public consumption (M p .19, SD p .74;
t(99) p 2.08, p p .038, d p .44) and to social consumption
(M p .44, SD p .76; t(99) p 3.45, p
! .001, d p .71).
In contrast, within the high-power condition, the effect of
choice on size was not significant (p
1 .7), and none of the
consumption conditions differed from one another (p
1 .2;
private consumption: M
high
p ⫺.12, SD
high
p .85; public
consumption: M
high
p ⫺.11, SD
high
p .87; social con-
STATUS, SIZE, AND FOOD CONSUMPTION 000
sumption: M
high
p ⫺.20, SD
high
p .76). Finally, gender did
not affect preference for size or interact with the power
manipulation (F
! 1). However, there was a significant gen-
der # social visibility interaction on preference for size
(F(1, 263) p 3.35, p p .05, ), with male partic-
2
h p .02
p
ipants’ tendency to prefer larger sizes as a function of social
visibility being more pronounced than that of women (pri-
vate: M
male
p ⫺.19, SD p .72; M
female
p ⫺.10, SD p .91;
public: M
male
p .22, SD p .71; M
female
p .18, SD p .78;
social: M
male
p .50, SD p .73; M
female
p ⫺.41, SD p .81).
This tendency is consistent with existing work (Pliner and
Chaiken 1990) that suggests that males and females might
differently signal their place in social and private contexts
through food consumption, with males eating more but fe-
males consuming less in public than in private.
Overall, these results are consistent with a status-signaling
explanation for the powerlessness-induced preference for
larger sizes, as opposed to a resource view. Even when
divorced from a specific increase in resources, low-power
participants preferred larger-sized containers. Furthermore,
as the social visibility of consumption increased in our ex-
periment, from private to public to social, low-power partic-
ipants exhibited a greater tendency to prefer larger containers.
EXPERIMENT 5: WHAT IF SMALLER IS
EQUATED WITH GREATER STATUS?
The previous experiments found that powerless individuals
systematically chose larger options in a set consistent with
a prevalent norm in Western cultures associating “larger’’
with “better’’ or “greater value’’ (Baudrillard 1998, 2005)
and, thus, greater status. Although this is consistent with the
idea that larger is naturally associated with greater domi-
nance, culture and context can create situations in which
smaller is of greater value and therefore higher status. For
instance, in today’s Western society, being slim or possess-
ing small electronic goods is often associated with having
higher status. In these situations, we expect the preference
for size to reverse, with a greater need for status leading to
greater preference for smaller, not larger, options. Experi-
ment 5 provided a test of the reversal by directly manipu-
lating the direction of the size-to-status relationship. After
power was manipulated, participants were exposed to news
excerpts that led them to think about either being overweight
as a sign of status (positive size-to-status relationship) or
being slim and fit as a sign of status (negative size-to-status
relationship). Subsequently, participants were told that they
would receive a snack for their participation and were asked
to make a selection from a set of five options that varied in
size (from small to large). In addition, to generalize our
results, we used an actual hierarchical role manipulation,
wherein participants were assigned to the role of boss (high
power) or employee (low power) in an experimental task.
Method
One hundred and thirty-four undergraduate participants
(76 males) were randomly assigned to a 2 (power: high,
low) # 2 (size-to-status relationship: positive, negative) be-
tween-participants design. They were told that they would
participate in several independent tasks for different de-
partments/researchers.
Power Manipulation. Participants first completed a lead-
ership questionnaire and were told that they would be as-
signed to a role as part of a group task, on the basis of their
answers to the questionnaire as well as the experimenter’s
observation of their nonverbal behavior. Participants were
then assigned to the role of an employee (i.e., low power)
or a boss (i.e., high power) and received instructions with
regard to their role for the group task, adapted from prior
research (for detailed instructions, see Anderson and Berdahl
2002; Galinsky et al. 2003). It was made clear to participants
that employees would follow the directions of the boss (i.e.,
bosses had power over employees). Importantly, the feed-
back did not tell participants whether they performed well
or poorly, and this manipulation of power has been shown
not to affect mood (e.g., Galinsky et al. 2003; Rucker et al.
2011). Subsequently, participants were told that before tak-
ing part in this group task, they would participate in several
short tasks for an experimenter in another department.
Size-to-Status Manipulation. As part of a short task os-
tensibly on reading comprehension, participants read a brief
newspaper article covering recent research investigating the
link between social status and physical appearance. Key to
our manipulation, the article argued social status was pos-
itively or negatively correlated to physical appearance. Spe-
cifically, in the negative size-to-status condition, the article
stated: “If you want to be successful and recognized later,
be fit, say researchers from Northwestern and Harvard in
new research reporting the results of a survey corroborated
with recent facts. This survey found that 63% of the 1000
most influential Americans are fit.” The remainder of the
article explained the benefits of being fit for mental processes
and well-being and its positive influence on future social
success and acquisition of high-status positions. In contrast,
in the positive size-to-status condition, the article stated: “If
you want to be successful and recognized later, be over-
weight, say researchers from Northwestern and Harvard in
new research reporting the results of a survey corroborated
with recent facts. This survey found that 63% of the 1000
most influential Americans are overweight.” The remainder
of the article explained the benefits of being overweight for
mental processes and well-being and its positive influence
on future social success and acquisition of high-status po-
sitions. Participants subsequently answered a few questions
to ensure their comprehension of the text (e.g., What is the
percent of influential fit/overweight Americans?)
Preference for Size in Assortment. Finally, participants
took part in a short survey for the marketing department,
at the end of which they indicated their choice of size of
snacks among a set of five options (from small to large)
that they would receive at the end of the experiment in
compensation for their participation. Importantly, all options
were different sizes of the same product from a well-known
000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 2
AVERAGE NUMBER OF CALORIES CONSUMED
AS A FUNCTION OF SIZE TO STATUS AND
POWER, EXPERIMENT 5
brand of snack (Toblerone) and had the exact same nutritional
composition and visual appearance, except for their size. The
size chosen served as our primary dependent variable.
Results and Discussion
Manipulation Check. At the end of the experiment, par-
ticipants were asked the extent to which the task made them
feel powerful on a 7-point scale (1 p not powerful; 7 p
powerful). As expected, participants reported feeling sig-
nificantly less powerful in the low-power condition (M p
3.20, SD p 1.41) than in the high-power condition (M p
5.41, SD p 1.36; F(1, 129) p 12.45, p
! .001, ),
2
h p .15
p
suggesting our manipulation of power was successful.
Preference for Size of Snacks. Size was coded as ⫺2,
⫺1, 0, 1, and 2. Data were analyzed using an ANOVA and
t-tests, when appropriate. A two-way ANOVA revealed a
significant main effect of size to status (F(1, 129) p 11.30,
p
! .001, ), such that participants in the positive
2
h p .08
p
size-to-status condition indicated preferring larger-sized
snacks (M p .45, SD p 1.16) than participants in the
negative size-to-status condition (M p ⫺.19, SD p 1.11).
There was no main effect of power on participants’ pref-
erence for size (F
! 1).
Of greatest importance, there was a significant power #
size-to-status interaction (F(1, 129) p 8.67, p
! .01,
). When the size-to-status relationship was positive,
2
h p .06
p
low-power participants preferred significantly larger-sized
snacks (M p .73, SD p 1.21) than high-power participants
(M p .13, SD p 1.04; t(133) p 3.11, p p .01, d p .61).
However, when the size-to-status relationship was negative,
low-power participants preferred significantly smaller-sized
snacks (M p ⫺.48, SD p 1.14) than high-power partici-
pants (M p ⫺.05, SD p 1.06; t(133) p 2.65, p p .02, d
p .43). The effect of gender on the preference for size was
not significant (F(1, 133) p 1.34, p p .32, ), nor
2
h p .01
p
did it interact with the size-to-status manipulation (F ! 1).
In short, inducing the powerless to see being overweight
as a sign of greater status led them to prefer larger snacks,
compared to the powerful. In contrast, inducing the pow-
erless to see being fit as a sign of greater status led them
to prefer smaller snacks, compared to the powerful.
The options also varied in their approximate calories and
weight: 70 calories for the very small size (15 grams), 138
calories for the small size (30 grams), 207 calories for the
medium size (45 grams), 276 calories for the large size (60
grams), and 345 calories for the very large size (75 grams).
Thus, the powerless (M p 257.79, SD p 83.61) consumed
on average 41.52 more calories than the powerful (M p
216.27, SD p 74.20) when the size to status was positive.
In contrast, the powerless (M p 173.76, SD p 78.98) con-
sumed on average 36.92 fewer calories than the powerful
(M p 210.68, SD p 71.31) when the size to status was
negative, illustrating a clear effect on choice for food con-
sumption (see fig. 2).
EXPERIMENT 6: THE UNDERLYING
ROLE OF A NEED FOR STATUS
Experiment 6 aimed at providing direct evidence for our
purported underlying mechanism: need for status. Specifi-
cally, after manipulating power, we invited participants to
taste small hors d’oeuvres in one of two rooms. In both
rooms, the set of sample hors d’oeuvres was identical and
consisted of four options of different sizes, hierarchically
arranged. Of central importance, the size to status was pos-
itive in one room and negative in another room. In addition,
we assessed participants’ need for status as part of a short
questionnaire assessing their psychographics, either before
or after they chose their hors d’oeuvres (counterbalanced to
avoid an order effect). All participants subsequently con-
sumed the hors d’oeuvre they chose.
Method
One hundred and four students (47 males) were randomly
assigned to a 2 (power: high, low) # 2 (size to status:
positive, negative) between-participants design.
Power Manipulation. As part of a recruiting event, par-
ticipants had to fill in a motivational questionnaire about
their past job experiences and aspirations. On the last page
of this questionnaire, participants had to write a short essay
in which they described a time during which they either had
or lacked power, adapted from the recall task used in ex-
periment 2.
Size-to-Status Manipulation. Next, as part of a hors d’oeuvre
sampling event, participants were randomly directed to one
of two rooms and invited to sample one hors d’oeuvre
among a set of four different sizes displayed on a table. All
hors d’oeuvres had been prepared following the same recipe
and thus had the same nutritional composition and visual
appearance, except for their size. The different sizes were
pretested for their attractiveness (on three dimensions: ap-
STATUS, SIZE, AND FOOD CONSUMPTION 000
petizing, inviting, perceived tastiness; p 1 .2). Of central
importance, the size-to-status relationship was positive in
one room and negative in another room. We manipulated
size to status within the oral introduction all participants
received, in which the caterer (in reality a research assistant)
gave information about the hors d’oeuvres samples. Central
to our manipulation, in the positive size-to-status condition
room, the research assistant highlighted that larger hors
d’oeuvres are generally served at prestigious, high-standing
events, such as presidential receptions, while smaller hors
d’oeuvres are generally served at common events, such as
a local reception. In the negative size-to-status condition
room, the research assistant reversed the size-to-status re-
lationship, equating smaller hors d’oeuvres with prestigious,
high-standing events.
Preference for Size. The dependent variable was partic-
ipants’ choice of hors d’oeuvre, which all participants sub-
sequently ate.
Need for Status. Participants completed four items as-
sessing a broad motive of desiring additional status within
the social hierarchy on a 7-point scale with higher numbers
indicating greater desire for status (i.e., I have a desire to
increase my position in the social hierarchy; I want to raise
my relative position to others; getting to climb the social
ladder is a priority for me; I would like to be viewed as
being of higher standing than others). These items were
averaged to form a need-for-status index (a p .89).
Results and Discussion
Preference for Size. Size was coded as ⫺2, ⫺1, 1, and
2 from small to large. Data were analyzed using an ANOVA
and t-tests, when appropriate. A two-way ANOVA revealed
a significant main effect of size to status (F(1, 99) p 13.50,
p
! .001, ), such that participants in the positive
2
h p .11
p
size-to-status condition indicated preferring larger-sized
snacks (M p .45, SD p .95) than participants in the neg-
ative size-to-status condition (M p ⫺.17, SD p 1.02).
There was no effect of power on participants’ preference
for size (F
! 1). Of greatest importance, there was a sig-
nificant power # size-to-status interaction (F(1, 99) p 5.46,
p p .01, ). When the size-to-status relationship
2
h p .08
p
was positive, low-power participants (M p .67, SD p .95)
preferred significantly larger-sized hors d’oeuvres than high-
power participants (M p .09, SD p 1.03; t(103) p 2.86,
p p .02, d p .59). When the size-to-status relationship was
negative, however, low-power participants (M p ⫺.41, SD
p .87) preferred significantly smaller-sized hors d’oeuvres
than high-power participants (M p ⫺.04, SD p 1.10; t(103)
p 2.40, p p .04, d p .46). In addition, there was no
significant effect of gender on the preference for size (F(1,
99) p 1.10, p p .40, ), nor did it interact with
2
h p .01
p
size to status (F ! 1).
Need for Status. As predicted, there was only a main
effect of power on need for status, such that low-power
participants expressed a greater desire for status (M p 5.18,
SD p 1.14) than high-power participants (M p 3.46, SD
p 1.21; F(1, 99) p 9.18, p p .03, ).
2
h p .09
p
Mediation via Need for Status. Since our primary inter-
est lies in explaining why low-power individuals tend to be
more attracted to larger or smaller products as a function
of the size-to-status relationship, we reversed coded partic-
ipants’ choice in the negative size-to-status condition. This
allowed us to collapse across the size-to-status manipulation
(i.e., larger numbers indicated a preference toward the food
options proposed to be associated with status) and examine
whether the observed difference in preference was mediated
by a need for status. When both power and need for status
were entered into the regression, the effect of power was
no longer significant (b p ⫺.10, t(101) p ⫺1.28, p p
.23), and need for status predicted preference (b p .35,
t(101) p 2.39, p p .02). We tested the overall significance
of the indirect effect (i.e., the path through the mediator) by
constructing a 95% confidence interval (CI) as suggested
by Shrout and Bolger (2002). Zero did indeed fall outside
of the interval (95% CI p .054–.892), providing statistical
evidence of successful mediation (see fig. 3).
In short, when the powerless equated larger with high
status, they ate on average larger hors d’oeuvres than did
the powerful. In contrast, when the powerless equated larger
to low status, they ate smaller hors d’oeuvres, compared to
the powerful. Merely changing the direction of the size-to-
status relationship of the category significantly affected the
share of the leading option (smallest option by 45% in the
negative size-to-status relationship; largest option by 36%
in the positive size-to-status relationship). The options also
varied in their approximate calories and weight: 27.3 calories
for the smallest size (10 grams), 55 calories for the small
size (20 grams), 80 calories for the large size (30 grams),
and 110 calories for the largest size (40 grams). The pow-
erless physically consumed on average 32.4 more calories
than the powerful when the size-to-status relationship was
positive and 24.5 fewer calories than the powerful when the
size-to-status relationship was negative.
In addition, these differences were mediated by a pow-
erlessness-induced need for status, suggesting that the effect
of power on size preference within a set of options is driven
by status concerns. Lacking power led people to desire
status, and this need drove their food choices.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Six experiments examined the possibility that the size of
products within a set of options can signal status. We first
established that choosing larger options within a set is per-
ceived as a general signal of status (experiment 1). Three
experiments then demonstrated that a psychological state
known to foster a need for status—powerlessness—affected
participants’ preferences in a strikingly consistent manner.
Regardless of the power manipulation (episodic priming,
priming in the field, role-imagination manipulation) and the
nature of the products (smoothies, bagels, containers), the
powerless consistently chose larger options within a set than
000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 3
MEDIATION VIA NEED FOR STATUS, EXPERIMENT 6
N
OTE
.—
*
p p ! .05;
**
p p ! .01.
powerful and baseline individuals, even when size was di-
vorced from money (experiment 3) and resources (experi-
ment 4). This effect was enhanced in settings in which the
consumption act was highly visible to others (e.g., public
consumption at a restaurant, social consumption with
friends; experiment 4) and mediated by people’s need for
status (experiment 6). Finally, as further proof that this effect
was driven by a need for status, when the size-to-status
relationship was negative, low-power participants preferred
smaller over larger options (experiments 5 and 6).
Theoretical and Managerial Contributions
We believe the current research makes two key theoretical
contributions. With respect to status, this work shows that
individuals need not seek out products explicitly associated
with status (e.g., luxury products) to signal their social stand-
ing. Instead, even when purchasing mundane products, con-
sumers can signal status on the basis of the size of their
selection within a set. Although we grounded our work in
the context of power, this finding has broader implications,
as it provides an explanation as to how any status motive,
not just those arising from manipulations of power, should
affect consumer preferences. For instance, status motives
stemming from occupying a chronic low socioeconomic
status position in the hierarchy should lead to similar effects
as those documented in our research.
Second, this research contributes to the literature on
threats and provides one context when a threat might lead
to reduced consumption, not increased consumption. Past
work has generally documented that, when threatened, con-
sumers compensate through increased consumption (see
Rucker 2009). For instance, individuals eat more when their
mortality is made salient (Mandel and Smeesters 2008) and
pay more for products when they are sad (Lerner, Small,
and Loewenstein 2004). These accounts might be seen as
consistent with the view that threats provide a sense of actual
or perceived depletion of one’s resources that triggers in-
creased consumption in order to replenish these resources.
In contrast, our research makes the novel proposition that
threats can sometimes lead to less consumption. Specifically,
when smaller is equated with greater status, power-threat-
ened individuals reduced their overall consumption by
choosing smaller options within a choice set.
Our research also bears potentially important managerial
insights by highlighting the role of the size-to-status rela-
tionship of an assortment of food options in consumer de-
cision making. Although the norms guiding the direction of
the size-to-status relationship are often established, policy
makers and managers in the food industry alike might be
able to influence them through tailoring their positioning
efforts and affect subsequent consumption over time. For
instance, a company might highlight the prestige of smaller
options within a category (e.g., small packs of snacks). Sim-
ilarly, to reduce consumption of supersized food portions,
public initiatives might aim to shift size-to-status norms
through advertising for portions that are too large and might
provoke negative health consequences for consumers (e.g.,
large snacks among teenagers). In addition to the role of the
size-to-status relationship in regulating food consumption,
we suspect it might equally prove consequential in nonfood
categories. For instance, by launching the Smart car (1998),
Daimler successfully changed the traditionally pervasive
mental norm equating larger cars with greater status in the
European market and was followed by other car makers
(e.g., MINI, 2001; Fiat 500, 2008) in launching small but
high-status cars. Similarly, cell phones might be viewed as
more valuable as they become smaller and more portable,
thus increasing the preference for smaller sizes as a function
of one’s need for status. In fact, data from two unreported
experiments confirmed this prediction; a consumer choosing
a cell phone from a set of three sizes (small, medium, large)
was perceived as having higher status when purchasing the
small one than either the medium or the large one. And,
threatening participants’ power led them to be more likely
to choose small cell phones than either medium or large
STATUS, SIZE, AND FOOD CONSUMPTION 000
ones, compared to nonthreatened participants (Dubois, Rucker,
and Galinsky 2011).
As a whole, this research suggests that size can be used
as a competitive tool to win market share in specific situ-
ations. Knowing the size of competitors’ packaging, along
with the size-to-status relationship of the product category
when designing product packaging, might allow product
managers to implicitly associate their products with status
and thus nudge consumer choice in the desired direction
toward their products.
Limitations and Future Directions
Future research might aim to better understand whether
the effects presented here occur at a conscious or uncon-
scious level. That is, one might argue that the preference
for size stems from a conscious desire to display status.
Although threatened consumers might arguably think
through their choices, we think that the powerlessness-in-
duced preference for size is likely to reside mostly outside
of conscious awareness. Our view is consistent with a large
body of literature suggesting that the effects of being dis-
placed in the hierarchy are profoundly ingrained in individ-
uals (see Marmot 2004) and even permeate into basic per-
ceptual processes (Dubois et al. 2010; Smith and Bargh
2008). Nonetheless, future research should explore how con-
sumers respond when the threat and the means to cope with
it reside at conscious versus nonconscious levels.
One might also wonder whether a self-esteem threat could
lead to the same shift in preference in sizes within choice
hierarchies. Although past research has shown self-esteem
threats can lead people to consume more (e.g., Dalton 2008;
see also Mandel and Smeesters 2008), we expect that the
effect of self-esteem threats on preference for size will de-
pend on whether the threat is specifically rooted in a desire
to signal status or not. For instance, when a self-esteem
threat stems from a weak performance relative to others,
this may increase one’s drive for status. Consequently, we
expect consumers to shift their preferences toward options
in a hierarchy whose size signals status. In contrast, when
a self-esteem threat is divorced from any status-seeking mo-
tive, it is unclear how the size-to-status relationship in a
hierarchically arranged set would be relevant to these con-
sumers. For example, a self-esteem threat stemming from a
weak performance relative to one’s own prior performance
might not trigger greater desire for status products and thus
not affect one’s preference for size within a choice set. This
possibility is an interesting potential direction for future re-
search.
CONCLUSION
Returning to our opening example, our findings hold two
potentially new insights for understanding rising rates of
obesity among underprivileged individuals. First, they high-
light a paradox: although larger options may afford im-
mediate status, underprivileged individuals might actually
hinder their long-term place and rank by choosing these
options. Our findings suggest that threats that lead consum-
ers to seek status might encourage consumers to turn to
larger options within a set of food options, which ultimately
jeopardizes their future rank through weight gain and the
accompanying stigma of being overweight (e.g., Brownell
2005; Carr and Friedman 2005; Puhl et al. 2010). Second,
and perhaps more positive, we suggest that consumer threats
might not always trigger increases in food consumption. In
fact, we offer promising ground for future interventions:
merely changing the size-to-status relationship can lead con-
sumers in need of status to eat less, not more.
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE SCENARIO, EXPERIMENT 1
In this research, we are interested in how individuals make
snap judgments about others based on their behavior. You
will read several scenarios describing a person performing
a behavior, and will be asked to answer some questions about
this person.
You’re at a local smoothie shop. An individual enters in
the smoothie shop, and asks for a smoothie. The cashier
explains to him that the smoothies come in three sizes: small
(16 oz), medium (24 oz) and large (30 oz), and asks him
which size he would like to choose. The individual orders
the largest size.
000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
APPENDIX B
FIGURE B1
EXAMPLES OF THE BANNERS USED IN THE POWERFUL,
POWERLESS, AND BASELINE CONDITIONS, EXPERIMENT 3
N
OTE
.—Color version available as an online enhancement.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Cameron and Jennifer L. Berdahl (2002), “The Expe-
rience of Power: Examining the Effects of Power on Approach
and Inhibition Tendencies,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83 (6), 1362–77.
Anderson, Cameron and Adam D. Galinsky (2006), “Power, Op-
timism, and Risk-Taking,” European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 36 (4), 511–36.
Argyle, Michael (1994), The Psychology of Social Class, London:
Routledge.
Bain (2010), Luxury Goods Worldwide Market Study, 7th ed., Bos-
ton: Bain.
Barton, Robert A., Richard W. Byrne, and Andrew Whiten (1996),
“Ecology, Feeding Competition and Social Structure in Ba-
boons,” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology,38(5),321–
29.
Baudrillard, Jean (1998), The Consumer Society: Myths and Struc-
tures, London: Sage.
——— (2005), The System of Objects, London: Verso.
Berger, Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010), “Subtle Signals of In-
conspicuous Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research,
37 (4), 555–69.
Berger, Joseph, Susan J. Rosenholtz, and Morris Zelditch (1980),
“Status Organizing Processes,” Annual Review of Sociology,
6 (1), 479–508.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), “The Social Space and the Genesis of
Classes,” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales,52–53
(June), 3–12.
Brin˜ol, Pablo, Richard E. Petty, Carmen Valle, and Derek D.
Rucker (2007), “The Effects of Message Recipients’ Power
before and after Persuasion: A Self-Validation Analysis,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (Decem-
ber), 1040–53.
Brownell, Kelly D. (2005), Weight Bias: Nature, Consequences,
and Remedies, New York: Guilford.
Bruner, Jerome S. and Cecile C. Goodman (1947), “Value and
Need as Organizing Factors in Perception,” Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology,42(1),33–44.
Carr, Deborah and Michael A. Friedman (2005), “Is Obesity Stig-
matizing? Body Weight, Perceived Discrimination, and Psy-
chological Well-Being in the United States,” Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 46 (3), 244–59.
Chandon, Pierre and Nailya Ordabayeva (2009), “Supersize in One
Dimension, Downsize in Three Dimensions: Effects of Spatial
Dimensionality on Size Perceptions and Preferences,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 46 (December), 739–53.
Chandon, Pierre and Brian Wansink (2007), “Is Obesity Caused
by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of
Meal Size Estimation,” Journal of Marketing Research,44
(February), 84–99.
Charles, Kerwin Kofi, Erik Hurst, and Nikolai Roussanov (2009),
“Conspicuous Consumption and Race,” Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 124 (2), 425–67.
Dalton, Amy N. (2008), “Look on the Bright Side: Self-Expressive
Consumption and Consumer Self-Worth,” unpublished dis-
sertation, Department of Business Administration, Duke Uni-
versity.
D’Amato, Francesca R. (1988), “Effects of Male Social Status on
Reproductive Success and on Behavior in Mice (Mus mus-
culus),” Journal of Comparative Psychology, 102 (2), 146–
51.
Dannenmaier, W. D. and F. J. Thumin (1964), “Authority Status
as a Factor in Perceptual Distortion of Size,” Journal of Social
Psychology, 63 (August), 361–65.
Dre`ze, Xavier and Joseph C. Nunes (2009), “Feeling Superior: The
Impact of Loyalty Program Structure on Consumers’ Percep-
tions of Status,” Journal of Consumer Research,35(6),
890–905.
Dubois, Bernard and Gilles Laurent (1996), “The Functions of
STATUS, SIZE, AND FOOD CONSUMPTION 000
Luxury: A Situational Approach to Excursionism,” Advances
in Consumer Research, 23 (1), 470–77.
Dubois, David, Derek D. Rucker, and Adam D. Galinsky (2010),
“The Accentuation Bias: Money Literally Looms Larger (and
Sometimes Smaller) to the Powerless,” Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 1 (3), 199–205.
——— (2011), “Power and Preference for Size, Sound, and
Shape,” unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University.
Emerson, Richard M. (1962), “Power-Dependence Relations,”
American Sociological Review,27(1),31–41.
Fast, Nathaniel J., Deborah H. Gruenfeld, Niro Sivanathan, and
Adam D. Galinsky (2009), “Illusory Control: A Generative
Force behind Power’s Far-Reaching Effects,” Psychological
Science, 20 (April), 502–8.
Fennis, Bob M. (2008), “Branded into Submission: Brand Attri-
butes and Hierarchization Behavior in Same-Sex and Mixed-
Sex Dyads,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology,38(8),
1993–2009.
Fiske, Susan T. and Jennifer Berdahl (2007), “Social Power,” in
Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2nd ed.,
ed. Arie W. Kruglanski and E. Tory Higgins, New York: Guil-
ford, 678–92.
French, John R. P., Jr., and Bertram Raven (1959), “The Bases of
Social Power,” in Studies in Social Power, ed. Dorwin Cart-
wright, Ann Arbor: Research Center for Group Dynamics,
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 150–
67.
Galinsky, Adam D., Deborah H. Gruenfeld, and Joe C. Magee
(2003), “From Power to Action,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 85 (3), 453–66.
Galinsky, Adam D., Joe C. Magee, Deborah H. Gruenfeld, Jennifer
A. Whitson, and Katie A. Liljenquist (2008), “Power Reduces
the Press of the Situation: Implications for Creativity, Con-
formity, and Dissonance,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95 (6), 1450–66.
Galinsky, Adam D., Joe C. Magee, M. Ena Inesi, and Deborah H.
Gruenfeld (2006), “Power and Perspectives Not Taken,” Psy-
chological Science, 17 (12), 1068–74.
Granger, C. W. J. and A. Billson (1972), “Consumers’ Attitudes
toward Package Size and Price,” Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 9 (3), 239–48.
Guinote, Ana (2007), “Power Affects Basic Cognition: Increased
Attentional Inhibition and Flexibility,” Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 43 (5), 685–97.
Han, Young Jee, Joseph C. Nunes, and Xavier Dre`ze (2010), “Sig-
naling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prom-
inence,” Journal of Marketing,74(4),15–30.
Hyman, Herbert H. (1942), The Psychology of Status, New York:
Columbia University.
Inesi, Ena, Simona Botti, David Dubois, Derek D. Rucker, and
Adam D. Galinsky (forthcoming), “Power and Choice: Their
Dynamic Interplay in Quenching the Thirst for Personal Con-
trol,” Psychological Science.
Keltner, Dacher and Robert J. Robinson (1997), “Defending the
Status Quo: Power and Bias in Social Conflict,” Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 (10), 1066–77.
Kuper, Hannah and Michael Marmot (2003), “Job Strain, Job De-
mands, Decision Latitude, and Risk of Coronary Heart Dis-
ease within the Whitehall II Study,” Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 57 (2), 147–53.
Lerner, Jennifer S., Deborah A. Small, and George Loewenstein
(2004), “Heart Strings and Purse Strings—Carryover Effects
of Emotions on Economic Decisions,” Psychological Science,
15 (May), 337–41.
Magee, Joe C. and Adam D. Galinsky (2008), “The Self-Rein-
forcing Nature of Social Hierarchy: Origins and Consequences
of Power and Status,” in The Academy of Management Annals,
Vol. 2., ed. James Patrick Walsh and Arthur P. Brief, Abing-
don: Routledge.
Mandel, Naomi, Petia K. Petrova, and Robert B. Cialdini (2006),
“Images of Success and the Preference for Luxury Brands,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology,16(1),57–69.
Mandel, Naomi and Dirk Smeesters (2008), “The Sweet Escape:
Effects of Mortality Salience on Consumption Quantities for
High- and Low-Self-Esteem Consumers,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 35 (2), 309–23.
Marmot, Michael G. (2004), The Status Syndrome: How Social
Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity, 1st American ed.,
New York: Times.
McLaren, Lindsay (2007), “Socioeconomic Status and Obesity,”
Epidemiologic Reviews, 29 (January 1), 29–48.
Morton, Fiona S., Florian Zettelmeyer, and Jorge Silva-Risso
(2003), “Consumer Information and Discrimination: Does the
Internet Affect the Pricing of New Cars to Women and Mi-
norities?” Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 1 (1), 65–
92.
Nelissen, Rob M. A. and Marijn H. C. Meijers (forthcoming),
“Social Benefits of Luxury Brands as Costly Signals of Wealth
and Status,” Evolution and Human Behavior.
Ng, Sik Hung (1980), The Social Psychology of Power, London:
Academic Press.
Nielsen, Samara Joy and Barry M. Popkin (2003), “Patterns and
Trends in Food Portion Sizes, 1977–1998,” Journal of the
American Medical Association, 289 (January 22), 450–53.
Ordabayeva, Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011), “Getting Ahead
of the Joneses: When Equality Increases Conspicuous Con-
sumption among Bottom-Tier Consumers,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research,38(1),27–41.
Pliner, Patricia and Shelly Chaiken (1990), “Eating, Social Mo-
tives, and Self-Presentation in Women and Men,” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 26 (3), 240–54.
Prelec, Drazen, Birger Wernerfelt, and Florian Zettelmeyer (1997),
“The Role of Inference in Context Effects: Inferring What
You Want from What Is Available,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 24 (June), 118–25.
Puhl, Rebecca M., Chelsea A. Heuer, and Kelly D. Brownell
(2010), “Stigma and Social Consequences of Obesity,” in
Clinical Obesity in Adults and Children, 3rd ed., ed. Peter G.
Kopelman, Ian D. Caterson, and William H. Dietz, Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 25–40.
Raghubir, Priya and Aradhna Krishna (1999), “Vital Dimensions
in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 36 (3), 313–26.
Richins, Marsha L. (1994), “Valuing Things: The Public and Pri-
vate Meanings of Possessions,” Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 21 (3), 504–21.
Ridgeway, C. L. and S. J. Correll (2006), “Consensus and the
Creation of Status Beliefs,” Social Forces, 85 (September),
431–53.
Rivers, Jacqueline J. and Robert A. Josephs (2010), “Dominance
and Health: The Role of Social Rank in Physiology and Ill-
ness,” in The Social Psychology of Power, ed. Ana Guinote
and Theresa K. Vescio, New York: Guilford, 87–112.
Rucker, Derek D. (2009), “Compensatory Consumption: How
000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Threat Directs Consumers’ Product Preferences,” Advances
in Consumer Research, 36, 131–34.
Rucker, Derek D., David Dubois, and Adam D. Galinsky (2011),
“Generous Paupers and Stingy Princes: Power Drives Con-
sumer Spending on Self and Others,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 37 (April), 1015–29.
Rucker, Derek D. and Adam D. Galinsky (2008), “Desire to Ac-
quire: Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 257–67.
——— (2009), “Conspicuous Consumption versus Utilitarian Ide-
als: How Different Levels of Power Shape Consumer Be-
havior,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45(3),
549–55.
Rucker, Derek D., Adam D. Galinsky, and David Dubois (forth-
coming), “Power and Consumer Behavior: How Power
Shapes Who and What Consumers Value,” Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology.
Schubert, Thomas W., Sven Waldzus, and Steffen R. Giessner
(2009), “Control over the Association of Power and Size,”
Social Cognition,27(1),1–19.
Sharpe, Kathryn M., Richard Staelin, and Joel Huber (2008), “Us-
ing Extremeness Aversion to Fight Obesity: Policy Implica-
tions of Context Dependent Demand,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 35 (3), 406–22.
Shrout, Patrick E. and Niall Bolger (2002), “Mediation in Exper-
imental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and
Recommendations,” Psychological Methods, 7 (4), 422–45.
Sidanius, Jim and Felicia Pratto (1999), Social Dominance: An
Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression,New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Pamela K. and John A. Bargh (2008), “Nonconscious Ef-
fects of Power on Basic Approach and Avoidance Tenden-
cies,” Social Cognition, 26 (1), 1–24.
Smith, Pamela K., Nils B. Jostmann, Adam D. Galinsky, and Wilco
W. van Dijk (2008), “Lacking Power Impairs Executive Func-
tions,” Psychological Science, 19 (5), 441–47.
Smith, Pamela K. and Yaacov Trope (2006), “You Focus on the
Forest When You’re in Charge of the Trees: Power Priming
and Abstract Information Processing,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 90 (4), 578–96.
Spurlock, Morgan (2004), Super Size Me, movie, Con Production
Studio, New York.
Wang, Jeff and Melanie Wallendorf (2006), “Materialism, Status
Signaling, and Product Satisfaction,” Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 34 (4), 494–505.
Wang, Youfa and May A. Beydoun (2007), “The Obesity Epidemic
in the United States—Gender, Age, Socioeconomic, Racial/
Ethnic, and Geographic Characteristics: A Systematic Review
and Meta-regression Analysis,” Epidemiologic Reviews,29
(1), 6–28.
Wansink, Brian (1996), “Can Package Size Accelerate Usage Vol-
ume?” Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 1–14.
Wansink, Brian and Koert Van Ittersum (2003), “Weight and Height
and Shape and Size: When Do Peripheral Cues Drive Eval-
uation and Consumption?” Advances in Consumer Research,
30 (1), 363–65.
Weick, Mario and Ana Guinote (2008), “When Subjective Expe-
riences Matter: Power Increases Reliance on the Ease of Re-
trieval,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,94
(6), 956–70.
Wilson, Paul R. (1968), “Perceptual Distortion of Height as a Func-
tion of Ascribed Academic Status,” Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 74 (1), 97–102.
Wong, Jimmy and Sharon Shavitt (2010), “Be Rude to Me and I
Will Buy a Rolex: Effects of Culture Orientation on Responses
to Power Threat in a Service Setting,” paper presented at the
Society for Consumer Psychology conference, Tampa, FL.
