Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 549–555

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / jesp

Report

Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levelsof power shape consumer behavior

Derek D. Rucker a,*, Adam D. Galinsky b

a Department of Marketing, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208, United Stateb Department of Management and Operations, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208, United State

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 August 2008Revised 9 December 2008Available online 31 January 2009

Keywords:PowerConsumption

0022-1031/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.005

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: d-rucker@kellogg.northwestern.ed

a b s t r a c t

The present work examines how experiencing high versus low power creates qualitatively distinct psy-chological motives that produce unique consumption patterns. Based on accumulating evidence thatstates of power increase focus on one’s own internal desires, we propose that high power will lead toa greater preference for products that are viewed as offering utility (e.g., performance, quality) to theindividual. In contrast, extending past research showing that powerlessness fosters a compensatorymotive to restore power; we demonstrate that the powerless prefer visible or conspicuous consumptionthat signals status to others. Regardless of whether high and low power were measured, episodicallyprimed, or structurally manipulated, and regardless of how consumption patterns were measured (e.g.,purchasing intentions, consumer attitudes, or creation of one’s own advertising slogan), five experimentssupport a parsimonious model for how different levels of power impact consumer behavior. Given thepervasiveness of everyday fluctuations in power, and the governing role of consumption in everyday life,these findings have potentially broad implications, from tailored advertising to different market seg-ments to understanding the rise in consumer debt.

� 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

At the end of 2007, America’s consumer debt, excluding realestate debt, was at $2.5 trillion dollars, with credit card debt alonea staggering $972 billion. This debt might be attributed to manyfactors, but we suggest one cause is consumer overspending andpurchasing of exorbitantly priced products. For example, althoughone can buy a pair of sneakers or a toaster for $30, consumers can,and do, spend $175 on Air Jordan’s or $380 on a Dualit Toaster.Although the spending on such luxuries is likely to be multifaceted,the prevalence of these purchases and the ensuing economic con-sequences for individuals makes understanding the factors thatdrive consumption of great importance and interest.

The current research examines how consumption patterns andpreferences can be informed by differences in power. Power, oftendefined as the capacity to control one’s own and others’ resourcesand outcomes (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Magee &Galinsky, 2008), is one of the most ubiquitous psychological forcesof our social world. There are both individual differences in peo-ple’s sense of power (e.g., Anderson & Berdahl, 2002) and situationsthat temporarily thrust people into feeling powerful and powerless(Keltner et al., 2003). For example, being ordered by one’s boss ordealing with a canceled flight on an airline in which one has nopreferred status can make one feel powerless. In contrast, giving

ll rights reserved.

u (D.D. Rucker).

an order to another employee or giving advice to a friend can evokethe state of feeling powerful.

Psychologists’ interest in power has gained momentum inrecent years with power being shown to have profound conse-quences for people’s propensity to take action (Galinsky, Gruen-feld, & Magee, 2003), risk-taking (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006),information processing (Briñol, Petty, Valle, Rucker, & Becerra,2007; Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008),level of abstract thinking (Smith & Trope, 2006), and accuracy inestimating the interests and emotions of others (Galinsky, Magee,Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006; Keltner & Robinson, 1997). We contendthat power also has important and unstudied effects on consump-tion. In the current research, we demonstrate for the first time theeffects of feeling powerful on consumption patterns and extendpast research on how powerlessness leads individuals to seek sta-tus. By detailing the unique effects that high and low power haveon consumption, we provide a parsimonious model of how differ-ent levels of power impact consumer behavior.

Motives underlying consumption

Before delving into the role of power in consumer behavior, it isworth reviewing potential motives underlying consumption. Twohistorical advertising strategies, the soft-sell and the hard-sell(Fox, 1984) seem to cater to two distinct consumer needs. Thesoft-sell approach appeals to the positive image associated with

550 D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 549–555

using the product. For example, in some print advertisements,Mercedes depicts the status associated with owning the brand bysimply showing consumers posing for pictures with a Mercedes,one implication being it is a vehicle you want to be seen with.Absent from the advertisement are references to the quality orfunctional benefit of the product. This strategy is not about high-lighting product features that offer utilitarian advantages to theindividual over rival products, but emphasizing how the consumerwill gain respect in the eyes of others. The soft-sell strategy speaksto a motive of seeking status and approval from others throughone’s consumption decisions.

The hard-sell approach, in contrast, focuses on the utilitarianbenefits of the product, such as quality and performance. Theseads focus on superior functionality and the performance benefitsto the user. Mercedes can also be seen employing this strategy ina different set of print ads in which the smooth comfortable rideoffered by the vehicle is emphasized, without any references tostatus. The hard-sell strategy is focused on how a product willadd utility and functionality to the individual consumer, not whatothers will think of the consumer for acquiring the product.

Insight into these approaches comes from work on individualdifferences in self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974). High self-monitorsprefer products advertised via a soft-sell approach, whereas lowself-monitors prefer products advertised through a hard-sellapproach (DeBono, 2006; Snyder & Debono, 1985). These authorsreasoned that because high self-monitors strive to ‘‘fit in” acrossa variety of social situations, they are naturally more concernedabout what others will think of them and thus more swayed byadvertisements related to image and status. Low self-monitors,however, are less concerned with fitting in with the situation orwith others; rather, they are focused on their own internal desires,leading to a preference for product attributes that will providethem utility.

Power and consumption

Lacking power and compensatory consumption

There has been only one prior examination exploring howpower affects consumption. Rucker and Galinsky (2008) observedthat (a) lacking power is an aversive state and thus individualsare often motivated to reduce a state of powerlessness, (b) that sta-tus is one basis of power (e.g., French & Raven, 1959), and (c) lux-ury goods can signal status (e.g., Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982). As aresult, high-status luxury goods were predicted to be particularlyvalued by the powerless as they offer a potential means of restor-ing power. Indeed, Rucker and Galinsky found a consistent patternof compensatory consumption; in preparing for bargaining situa-tions, individuals set higher reservation and reserve prices for lux-ury goods.

Other complementary, albeit suggestive insights, come fromresearch by economists investigating racial differences in visibleconsumption, such as clothing, jewelry and cars (Charles, Hurst,& Roussanov, 2008). They found that Blacks and Hispanics devotea larger percentage of their income to these visible consumptionitems than do comparable Whites. These findings can be inter-preted as evidence that conspicuous consumption might allowpeople to signal status to compensate for being lower in the soci-etal hierarchy.

Although past research has found that lacking power produces apreference for products that signal status to others, no research hasprovided any evidence for the effects of high power on consump-tion. For instance, Rucker and Galinsky left untested whether thereare times when the powerful would be more attracted to luxuryobjects than the powerless.

Having power and attending to functional utility

Although prior work has not broached the topic of how highpower affects consumption, research on the effects of power hintsat what the consumption patterns of the powerful might be.Perhaps the most consistent effect in the power literature is thatthe powerful display an increased focus on their own attitudesand desires (Briñol et al., 2007; Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001;Galinsky et al., 2008). For example, Briñol et al. (2007) found thatthe powerful were less likely to process information about a per-suasive message because their power suggested their own attitudewas correct, making attending to the thoughts of others unneces-sary. Similarly, work by Galinsky et al. (2008) found that the pow-erful generate ideas that are less influenced by others’ opinions.The powerful are also more sensitive to their own subjective expe-riences and feelings when evaluating the self (Weick & Guinote,2008).

Because a focus on one’s internal thoughts and needs producesa focus on what a product will do for an individual as opposed towhat others will think of the individual who owns it (Snyder &Debono, 1985), we propose that high power will lead to a prefer-ence for products that provide individuals with the greatest utilityand will be less swayed by products pitched solely on status. Thatis, high power signals to individuals that they should focus onthemselves and how things will affect them as opposed to whatothers will think of them. Furthermore, because utilitarian aspectsof products, such as their quality and function, might not serve astatus-seeking or image motive (Snyder & Debono, 1985), framinga luxury product around its functionality might lessen the prefer-ences of the powerless for that item. Such findings would informus about high power and provide a new boundary condition onthe relationship between powerlessness and compensatory con-sumption (e.g., Rucker & Galinsky, 2008).

Overview

The present research tested if high power leads to a preferencefor utilitarian aspects of products such as their functionality andquality compared to low power. In addition, we replicated andextended past findings that low-power consumers would exhibita preference for status compared to high power by looking at con-spicuous consumption. Experiment 1 explored the relationshipbetween individual differences in sense of power and purchasingintentions for a product advertised as providing either perfor-mance or status. Experiment 2 induced power through an episodicpriming task and examined, relative to baseline conditions, howhigh and low power affected individuals’ attitudes towards a prod-uct advertised as conferring performance versus status. Experi-ment 3 manipulated power through hierarchical roles andexamined how power permeates into the qualities that individualsnaturally emphasize when thinking about products. Experiment 4examined individuals’ attitudes towards products that were highin quality, but low in status, versus products low in quality, buthigh in status. Finally, Experiment 5 examined how hierarchicalroles affect consumers’ preferences for conspicuous consumption.Across experiments, we used a variety of dependent measures aswell as operationalizations of power to provide the first of evidenceof how high power affects consumption and offer a more completemodel of the relationship between power and consumer behavior.

Experiment 1: seeking status versus preferring performance

Experiment 1 provided an initial test of our hypothesis that lowand high power would produce different responses depending onwhether a luxury product emphasized a soft-sell strategy (i.e.,

D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 549–555 551

focusing on the status conveyed to others) or a hard-sell strategy(i.e., focusing on the functional value offered to the individual).We measured individuals’ chronic sense of power and predictedthat the greater one’s sense of power, the more inclined one wouldbe towards purchasing a product that appealed to performance,but the less inclined one would be towards purchasing the sameproduct whose advertisement emphasized status.

Method

Participants and designSixty Northwestern undergraduates were randomly assigned to

receive an advertisement for a Parker pen using either a hard-sellor soft-sell emphasis. Power was measured as an individualdifference.

ProcedureParticipants first completed a study ostensibly interested in

consumers’ evaluation of advertising. Subsequently, individual dif-ferences in power were measured.

Ad frame. Participants were told the study was examiningconsumers’ reaction to advertising. Participants received an adver-tisement for a Parker pen (retailed at approximately $100) thateither focused on the pen’s ability to confer status (soft-sell) orfocused on the pen’s performance (hard-sell). The tagline for the sta-tus-related advertisement read, ‘‘A Wonderful Display of your Statusto all those around you.” In addition, the ad copy discussed howthe product was ‘‘designed to impress” and ‘‘commands respect fromothers.” In contrast, the tagline for the performance-related ad read,‘‘A Wonderful Instrument for Performance whenever you need it.”Furthermore, the ad copy stated that the product was ‘‘designedfor quality,” and provided ‘‘consistency and quality.”

Measures. Participants indicated their intention to purchase thepen and completed the generalized sense of power scale.

Generalized sense of power (GSP). We assessed GSP using the8-item scaled reported in past research (Anderson & Berdahl,2002; Anderson & Galinsky, 2006), in which higher numbers reflecta higher sense of power. Scores on the scale ranged from 18 to 56,with a median of 42 (a = .89).

Purchase intentions. Participants reported their purchasingintentions using a 12-point scale, where 1 = Definitely would notpurchase, 12 = Definitely would purchase.

Results and discussion

Regression analyses were used with main effects entered intothe model on the first stage and then a mean centered interactionterm entered on the second stage. We found a significant GSP � adframe interaction, b = .37, p < .01. Using standard procedures(Aiken & West, 1991), simple slope analyses confirmed that for

Fig. 1. Scatter plot of participants’ purchasing intentions towards a pen as afunction of their general sense of power and the advertisement strategy imple-mented, Experiment 1.

the performance-related advertisement, there was a positiverelation between individuals’ GSP and their purchase intentions,b = .37, p < .05. In contrast, for the status-related advertisement,individuals’ GSP was negatively associated with purchase inten-tions, b = �.36, p < .05. A scatter plot of these findings is presentedin Fig. 1.

These findings support our predictions that high power leads toa preference for quality and performance (Snyder & Debono, 1985)and replicate past research suggesting that low power leads to afocus on status (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008).

Experiment 2: high and low power versus baseline on consumerattitudes

Experiment 2 served to converge on the correlational findings ofExperiment 1 by manipulating power and measuring consumerattitudes. We also included a baseline condition to examine iflow and high power produce differential evaluations relative tothis comparison.

Method

Participants and designSixty-nine Northwestern undergraduates were randomly

assigned to a 3 (power: low, high, baseline) � 2 (ad frame: perfor-mance, status) between participants design.

ProcedureParticipants first completed the power manipulation followed

by a tasked portrayed as studying consumers’ evaluations ofadvertising.

Power manipulation. Power was manipulated using an episodicprime adapted from Galinsky et al. (2003). In the high-power condi-tion, participants read:

‘‘Please recall a particular incident in which you had power overanother individual or individuals. By power, we mean a situa-tion in which you controlled the ability of another person orpersons to get something they wanted, or were in a positionto evaluate those individuals. Please describe this situation inwhich 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 hadpower over you. By power, we mean a situation in which some-one had control over your ability to get something you wanted,or was in a position to evaluate you. Please describe this situa-tion in which you did not have power—what happened, howyou felt, etc.”

Participants in the baseline condition wrote about their last tripto the grocery store.

Following the manipulation of power, participants receivedeither the performance or status advertisement used in Experi-ment 1.

Measures. We assessed participants’ attitudes using a compositeof two 12-point semantic differential scales (1 = unfavorable, dis-like, 12 = favorable, like), which were combined prior to analysis(r = .91).

Results and discussion

There was a significant power � ad frame interaction on partic-ipants’ attitudes, F(2, 63) = 3.22, p < .05, g2

p = .09, see Fig. 2. For the

Fig. 2. Participants’ attitudes favorability towards a pen as a function of their statelevel of power and the advertisement strategy implemented, Experiment 2.

Table 1Effects of power on qualities emphasized in slogan generation, Experiment 3.

Low power (employee) High power (boss)

Slogan generatedHard-sell (quality) 5 13Soft-sell (status) 15 4Both 2 4

552 D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 549–555

soft-sell advertisement that emphasized status, low-power partic-ipants (M = 8.14, SD = 3.06) indicated significantly more favorableattitudes compared to the high power (M = 6.29, SD = 2.80) andbaseline (M = 5.81, SD = 2.45) conditions, t(63) = 2.21, p = .03,d = .56, but there was no difference between these latter two con-ditions, t(63) = .47, p = .64, d = .12. In contrast, for the hard-selladvertisement that emphasized performance, high-power partici-pants (M = 8.45, SD = 2.45) indicated significantly more favorableattitudes compared to the low power (M = 6.30, SD = 1.48) andbaseline (M = 6.55, SD = 2.81) conditions, t(63) = 2.00, p < .05,d = .50, but there was no difference between these latter two con-ditions, t(63) = .21, p = .83, d = .05. Thus, the correlational findingsin Experiment 1 were replicated when power was manipulatedand global evaluations were assessed.

Experiment 3: sending signals by creating advertisementslogans

Whereas the prior experiments demonstrate that power leadsto a differential attraction to performance and status, Experiment3 sought to demonstrate that the powerful naturally think ofproducts, even luxury ones, in terms of performance comparedto low-power individuals who naturally think of products interms of status. Thus, instead of presenting participants withadvertisements, we asked participants to generate a slogan fora luxury product and examined how power affected the attri-butes individuals naturally emphasized in their slogans. In addi-tion, to enhance the generalizability of our results we used a rolemanipulation of power in which participants were placed intoeither manager or subordinate roles.

Method

Participants and designForty-three Northwestern undergraduates were randomly

assigned to low- or high-power roles.

ProcedureParticipants were first assigned to a high- or low-power role.

Next, participants took part in an ostensibly unrelated task thatrequired them to generate slogans for the advertising department.

Power manipulation. Power was manipulated by assigningparticipants to the role of an employee or boss for a task to be com-pleted later in the experiment. This manipulation has been usedsuccessfully in past research (see Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Briñolet al., 2007; Galinsky et al., 2003) and has been shown to affectpower but not other constructs, such as mood (e.g., Smith,Jostmann, Galinsky, & van Dijk, 2008). Specifically, participantscompleted a leadership questionnaire and were told their role

was based on the results on the questionnaire as well as theexperimenter’s observation of their non-verbal behavior. Partici-pants assigned to the low-power role were told.

‘‘As an Employee, you will be responsible for carrying out theorders of the boss in creating something called a Tangram.The boss will decide how to structure the process of creatingthe Tangram and the standards by which your work is to beevaluated. As the employee, you must follow the instructionsof the boss. In addition, you will be evaluated by the boss atthe end of the session. This evaluation will be private, that is,you will not see your boss’s evaluation of you. This evaluationwill help determine how the bonus reward, to be revealed atthe end of the experiment, will be divided between the employ-ees and the boss. You will not have the opportunity to evaluateyour boss. Only the boss will be in charge of directing produc-tion, evaluating your performance, and determining therewards you will receive.”

In contrast, participants in the high-power role were told:

‘‘As Boss, you will be in charge of directing your subordinates increating something called a Tangram. You will decide how tostructure the process of creating the Tangram and the standardsby which the work is to be evaluated. As the boss, you willinstruct and direct employees. You have complete control overthe instructions you give your employees. In addition, you willalso evaluate the employees at the end of the session in a pri-vate questionnaire – that is, the employees will never see yourevaluation. The employees will not have the opportunity toevaluate you. Your evaluation will determine whether theemployees receive a bonus reward that will be revealed at theend of the experiment. Thus, as a boss, you will be in chargeof directing the creating, evaluating your subordinates, anddetermining the rewards your subordinates will receive.”

Slogan measure. All participants were given a picture of a BMWautomobile and instructed to generate a slogan to accompany thephoto. Slogans were coded by two-independent coders withrespect to whether they reflected hard-sell (i.e., quality, perfor-mance) or soft-sell (i.e., status, image) strategies, or both. The cod-ers agreed on over 85% of the initial judgments, and disputes wereresolved via discussion with a third coder. An example of a soft-sellslogan was, ‘‘Prestige. It’s Yours.” An example of a hard-sell sloganwas ‘‘Experience a smooth ride.”

Results and discussion

Results revealed a significant effect of power, v2(2) = 10.57,p = .005, Cramer’s V = .50. As seen in Table 1, participants assignedto the high-power boss role emphasized performance (62% ofslogans generated) more than status (19% of slogans generated).In contrast, participants assigned to the low-power employee roleemphasized status (68% of slogans generated) more than perfor-mance (23% of slogans generated). Both low- (9% of slogans) and

D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 549–555 553

high-power (19% of slogans) participants generated a few sloganscontaining both types of selling strategy.

Fig. 3. Participants’ attitudes towards a product as a function of their state level ofpower and the product quality/status tradeoff, Experiment 4.

Experiment 4: accepting the tradeoff between quality andstatus

To this point, the experiments have used products that could beconsidered luxuries (i.e., a Parker pen, BMW). The astute readermight wonder if our proposed effects for high power are indeeddue to a focus on the functional utility of the product or ariseinstead due to an implicit means of conveying status. One mightargue that high-power participants shirk away from explicitlyhoarding status, perhaps because they don’t want to reveal theirconcern for it. However, they might value luxury products because(a) the price of the product tacitly communicates one’s status, and(b) the emphasis on performance provides a legitimate cover foracquiring the product beyond explicit status signaling.

This alternative hypothesis diverges from our account when anon-luxury product is considered. Specifically, if a product is ofhigh-quality, but not associated with status, our perspective wouldpredict that high-power individuals would still prefer it relative tolow-power individuals. In contrast, if the effects of high power areonly due to an effort to subtly convey status, then the powerful willnot prefer a high-quality, but low-status product. Experiment 4tested this possibility.

Method

Participants and designSixty-two Northwestern undergraduates were randomly

assigned to a 2 (power: low, high) � 2 (product description:high-quality/low-status, low-quality/high-status) between partici-pants design.

ProcedurePower was manipulated using the recall task from Experiment

2. Following the manipulation of power, participants read adescription of a picture frame.

Product description. In the low-quality/high-status condition, theframe was described as using an exotic wood designed to lookimpressive and stylish, but that the wood was relatively soft andvulnerable to damage. In the high-quality/low-status condition, theframe was describe as using a common wood known for its sturdi-ness and quality, but that was not eye-catching, stylish, or impres-sive in any way. Pre-testing on a separate sample of 60 participantsconfirmed that we were successful in manipulating the quality andstatus of the frames.

Measure. Attitudes were assessed using the same two 12-pointsemantic differential scales used in Experiment 2 (r = .92).

Results and discussion

There was a significant power � product description interactionon participants’ attitudes, F(1, 58) = 11.73, p < .001, g2

p = .17, seeFig. 3. For the low-quality/high-status picture frame, low-powerparticipants (M = 5.68, SD = 2.93) indicated significantly morefavorable attitudes compared to high-power participants(M = 3.76, SD = 2.86), t(58) = 2.05, p < .05, d = .54. In contrast, andof most relevance to our present concerns, the high-quality/low-status picture frame was liked more by high-power participants(M = 6.68, SD = 2.27) compared to low-power participants(M = 3.82, SD = 2.72), t(58) = 2.80, p < .01, d = .74. Consistent withour hypotheses, when a product was described as mundane anda non-luxury, eliminating any inferences, even implicit ones, aboutthe status of the owner, high-power participants still preferred the

product more than low-power participants and compared to aproduct that offered status but without quality.

Experiment 5: power and conspicuous consumption

A final experiment was conducted to provide converging evi-dence against the hypothesis that high-power participants weresomehow using products to convey status. If high-power individu-als are focused on signaling status to others like low-power people,we would expect them to have similar preferences for conspicuousconsumption (i.e., how visible their purchases are). After all, if thebrand name that gives a product its status is unlikely to be seen ornoticed by others, its ability to impress others will be limited. Wepredicted that high power will lead to relatively lower levels ofconspicuous consumption compared to low power. This predictionis consistent with findings by Charles and colleagues (2008) whereminorities, who have less power in society, spend more on visibleproducts compared to Whites. To test this idea, we examined howpower affected individuals relative preference for visibility of logoson high-end clothing.

Method

Participants and designParticipants were 31 Northwestern university undergraduates.

Participants were randomly assigned to low- and high-power roles.

ProcedureParticipants took part in what they believed to be separate stud-

ies for different experimenters. The first task manipulated powerusing the employee–boss task used in Experiment 3. The secondtask measured their preference for conspicuous consumption. Spe-cifically, participants were asked to imagine they were buying apiece of high-end clothing. We asked participants to indicate, ona 12-point scale, their preference for visible versus non-visible lo-gos on the clothing (1 = visible, 12 = non-visible), small versus bigbrand logos (1 = very small, 12 = very large), unnoticeable versusnoticeable brand logos (1 = unnoticeable, 12 = noticeable), andbrand labels to be conspicuous (1 = conspicuous, 12 = inconspicu-ous). The first and last items were reverse scored such that highernumbers indicated a preference for conspicuous consumption anditems were then aggregated (a = .71).

Results and discussion

Low-power individuals indicated a relatively greater preferencefor visibly displayed logos (M = 5.29, SD = 2.24) compared to high-power individuals (M = 3.53, SD = 1.95), t(29) = 2.33, p < .03, d = .87.

554 D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 549–555

Consistent with our hypotheses, high power showed relatively lessinterest in having logos displayed to others, a finding inconsistentwith the notion that the powerful are interested in using their pur-chases to implicitly signal status to others in their environment.

General discussion

Across five experiments, we provide the first evidence that beingor feeling powerful affects consumption. Consistent with the notionthat high power leads one to think about how a product will benefitone personally, we find that high power, relative to low power, indi-viduals are more persuaded by hard-sell advertising that empha-sized utilitarian properties of products (Experiments 1 and 2),more likely to produce advertising slogans relying on a hard-sellstrategy (Experiment 3), hold more favorable attitudes towards ahigh-quality product of low-status (Experiment 4), and show lessconcern for visible, conspicuous consumption (Experiment 5). Inaddition, and building off of previous research (Rucker & Galinsky,2008), the experiments demonstrate that low power, relative tohigh power, are driven to obtain products that demonstrate theirstatus to others, but extend these findings by demonstrating theirattraction to conspicuous consumption and that lacking powereven bleeds into the types of advertisements one creates for others.

A consistent strength of this program of research is that we usedan individual difference measure and multiple manipulations ofpower (role assignment and episodic priming) and a variety ofdependent measures (e.g., purchasing intentions, attitudes, slogansgenerated, conspicuous consumption) to converge on our theoret-ical perspective.

Contributions of the present research

The present research paints a dynamic portrait of the role ofpower in consumption. Consumption is not uniquely affected bystates of low power, but extends to states of high power. Whereaslow power leads to a preference for status objects, as demonstratedin prior research (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008), the present researchfinds that high power affects people’s focus on the functional valueoffered by the product. Furthermore, high-power individuals didnot seem motivated, in the present experiments, to express statusthrough more subtle measures. The powerful, compared the pow-erless, were more favorable towards a quality product even whenit lacked status and reported less interest in visibly displaying theirbrands to others.

A second contribution of the present research is that it signifi-cantly qualifies our understanding of low power on the consump-tion of luxury products. The powerless do not consume luxury forthe sake of luxury, but do so in an effort to demonstrate status toothers. As soon as a luxury product is associated with the qualityor performance, but not with status, low-power participants’ eval-uations of the product are similar to baseline. Thus, the present re-search tells us when luxury products are unlikely to fulfill theneeds of the powerless.

Limitations and alternative explanations

Although we believe the most parsimonious account acrossexperiments is that high power creates an internal focus that pro-duces an emphasis on the utility that a product offers the individual,one might wonder if high power leads to more careful thought aboutconsumption decisions and greater thought leads people to viewfunctional attributes as more valuable than status. This seems unli-kely because high power has been shown to lead individuals to thinkless, rather than more carefully (Briñol et al., 2007; Galinsky et al.,2008). In addition, in the present research we also made an effort

to encourage participants to think through the task carefully, and pi-lot-testing found equal levels of self-reported thought and attention.Finally, the results of Experiment 5, on conspicuous consumption,follow from our predictions, but it is unclear why differences ininformation processing would affect such measures. Nonetheless,it might be interesting for future research to further probe howpower affects attention to, and thinking about, consumer products.

A limitation of the present research is that we did not directlymeasure individuals’ focus on their internal states. However, thiseffect is perhaps the most robust finding in the power literature(e.g., Briñol et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2001; Galinsky et al., 2008;Weick & Guinote, 2008). Based on this robust finding from past re-search, and the work of Snyder and Debono (1985) on hard versussoft-sell approaches to advertising, we aimed to establish that highpower could affect consumption by orientating consumers to thefunctional utility of products. And, as noted earlier, in doing sowe also significantly qualified our understanding of the relation-ship between power and luxury (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008).Although we believe the present paper sheds light on how highpower affects consumption, future research could explore thismechanism in a more direct fashion.

Conclusions

The present work offers a parsimonious model for how both lowand high power drive consumption. Consistent with past efforts,we found that low power appears to focus consumers on the statusconveyed by various products leading them to prefer visible, con-spicuous consumption. In contrast, we found a novel effect of highpower on consumption. The powerful focused on and showed apreference for the utilitarian aspects of products while rejectingconspicuous consumption. A deeper understanding of how differ-ent levels of power affect consumer preferences might pave theway for the pareto efficient dream: more satisfied consumers andmore wealthy companies.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretinginteractions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effectsof power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 83, 1362–1377.

Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.

Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D., & Mayer, R. N. (1982). Developmental recognition ofconsumption symbolism. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 4–17.

Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., Valle, C., Rucker, D. D., & Becerra, A. (2007). The effects ofmessage recipients’ power before and after persuasion: A self-validationanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1040–1053.

Charles, K. K., Hurst, E., & Roussanov, N. L. (2008). Conspicuous consumption andrace. NBER working paper no. W13392. Available at SSRN: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1014340>.

Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as amoderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 80(2), 173–187.

DeBono, K. (2006). Self-monitoring and consumer psychology. Journal of Personality,74(3), 715–738.

Fox, S. (1984). The mirror makers. NY: Morrow.French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). In The bases of social power. In Dorwin Cartwright

(Ed.). Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: Institute for SocialResearch.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A.(2008). Social power reduces the strength of the situation: Implications forcreativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 95, 1450–1466.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power andperspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.

Keltner, D., & Robinson, R. J. (1997). Defending the status quo: Power and bias insocial conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1066–1077.

D.D. Rucker, A.D. Galinsky / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 549–555 555

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature ofpower and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398.

Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness andcompensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 257–267.

Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & van Dijk, W. W. (2008). Lacking powerimpairs executive functions. Psychological Science.

Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of thetrees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 90, 578–596.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring and expressive behavior. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.

Snyder, M., & Debono, K. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality:Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 49(3), 586–597.

Weick, M., & Guinote, A. (2008). When subjective experiences matter: Powerincreases reliance on the ease of retrieval. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 94(6), 956–970.