1
Please Process the Signal, but Don’t Praise It:
How Compliments on Identity Signals Result in Embarrassment
LISA A. CAVANAUGH
JOSEPH C. NUNES
YOUNG JEE HAN
Lisa Cavanaugh is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Marshall School of Business,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0443,
lisa.cavanaugh@marshall.usc.edu. Joseph C. Nunes is Professor of Marketing, Marshall School
of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0443,
joseph.nunes@marshall.usc.edu. Young Jee Han is Assistant Professor of Marketing at
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, youngjee.han@gmail.com. Questions should be
directed to either lisa.cavanaugh@marshall.usc.edu or jnunes@marshall.usc.edu.
2
CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT
This research examines identity signaling as a two-way process by looking at the interaction
between signaler and a signal’s recipient. In doing so, we document how praising a consumer’s
identity signal can result in an arguably unforeseen negative response. Specifically, we show that
compliments related to an identity signal often result in embarrassment, a generally unwelcome
self-conscious emotion. We investigate the moderating role played by signal strength in terms of
the signal being loud versus quiet (i.e., more or less observable, recognizable, and interpretable,
respectively). This research also documents how congruency between consumers’ self-beliefs and
how signalers would like others to see them impacts their emotional response. Across four studies,
we show compliments related to a loud identity signal often result in embarrassment and that
people are most embarrassed when the identity signal and one’s beliefs about oneself are
incongruent. Finally, we examine possible boundary conditions to the effect prevalent in social
situations involving signaling by varying: 1) whether the compliment giver is a friend or stranger,
2) the type of compliment or remark made, and 3) whether a compliment giver exhibits a similar
signal at the time of the event.
ABSTRACT
As social beings, consumers seek approval from others and therefore frequently make an effort to
communicate aspects of their identity, actual or ideal, with the intention of impressing those
around them. They often express these aspects (e.g., being smart, funny, athletic, stylish, or sexy)
through the products they use and brands they exhibit. Conspicuous branding helps consumers
insure their signal will be noticed and validated by others. One of the most common forms of
validation is a compliment. However, we know surprisingly little about how compliments,
particularly compliments on identity signals, impact consumers. This paper explores how
consumers respond to compliments related to an identity signal. Four studies show such
compliments often result in embarrassment, an arguably unforeseen and generally unwelcome selfconscious emotion. We find the amount of embarrassment experienced depends on the
conspicuousness of the signal as well as the extent to which the signal and one’s beliefs about
oneself are incongruent. The emotional response is explained further by public self-awareness.
Consumers experience embarrassment regardless of whether the compliment comes from a friend
or stranger and whether or not the identity signal itself is explicitly acknowledged.
3
“Jennifer Metcalfe: Don't call me sexy – it’s embarrassing”
Headline in the Daily Mirror newspaper
When actress and model Jennifer Metcalfe stripped down to a miniscule bikini on a
Spanish beach for a photo shoot, locals walking by who recognized the former fitness instructor
called out “Wow, sexy lady” loudly enough for Metcalfe to hear. Metcalfe responded by
giggling, hiding her face in a towel and saying “Oh my God, I’m embarrassed” (mirror.co.uk
2010). For someone whose public persona encompasses being perceived as a sex symbol (she
was listed as #46 in FHM magazine’s world’s top 100 sexiest women that year), her response
exemplifies the phenomenon under investigation; people often become embarrassed after
receiving a compliment on some aspect of their identity they actively promote. Metcalfe
apparently does not see herself as quite as sexy as the sex symbol she portrays herself to be.
“These photo shoots come with the job and I know I’ve got to do it and be this sexy person,” she
is quoted as saying. “It’s not that I’m insecure as a person, it’s just completely normal to look at
your body and see insecurities.”
Whether it’s being seen as sexy, sophisticated, intelligent, or affluent, people care how
others perceive them. Impression management is the process by which people attempt to
influence others’ perceptions of them, and individuals regularly engage in identity signaling as a
means of influencing others’ perceptions (Schlenker 1980). According to signaling theory, “one
party, the sender, must choose whether and how to communicate (or signal) information, and the
other party, the receiver, must choose how to interpret the signal” (Connelly et al. 2011, 39). In
consumption, individuals regularly use possessions and brands to signal various aspects of their
identities to others (e.g., Escalas 2004; Fournier 1998; Belk 1988; McCracken 1989). Consumers
4
expect observers to make certain inferences about their identities based on which possessions
and brands they choose to display and how they display them (Belk, Bahn, and Mayer 1982;
Burroughs, Drews, and Hallman 1991; Richins 1994a, 1994b). Whether it is standing on the
beach in a skimpy bikini, sporting clothes with prominent brand names or logos, wearing horn
rimmed glasses, or driving up to a crowded event in an iconic car, consumers anticipate the
signal will be seen and understood by others. What consumers are less likely to anticipate is how
they themselves might respond to feedback on the signal.
This research is the first of which we are aware to study the dyadic process of identity
signaling vis-à-vis consumption. Previous research has investigated either: 1) consumers’
intentions and behaviors with respect to signaling with products/brands (Berger and Heath 2007;
Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky 2012; Wang and Griskevicius 2014) or 2) how recipients interpret
such signals (Bellezza, Gino, Keinan 2014; Shalev and Morwitz 2012; Sirgy 1982). Instead, we
study identity signaling as a two-way, iterative process with consequences for the signaler.
Signal recipients often provide feedback, such as acknowledging a signal with a compliment.
(For example, consider the common retail practice of complimenting customers on brand choices
or aspects of their appearance.) Yet, surprisingly little is known about how signalers respond to
compliments on their identity signals. In this research, we focus on the signaler’s emotional
response to a positive acknowledgment of an identity signal—that is, a compliment. By focusing
on interactions between individuals and the emotional consequences of compliments in this
context, this work links the literature on identity signaling in marketing with the literature on
self-conscious emotions.
We show that compliments on identity signals under certain circumstances cause
consumers embarrassment owing to heightened public self-awareness. We also show that the
5
extent to which the signaler feels embarrassed by a compliment depends on characteristics of
both the signal and the signaler. We observe a similar pattern of effects across both a field study
(study 1) and two different types of controlled experiments examining the effects of the signal
and the signaler’s self-beliefs using both deception (study 2) and self-identified gaps (studies 3
and 4), using both self-reported (studies 2-4) and observed measures of embarrassment (studies 1
and 2), as well as in studies in which consumers both self-selected (studies 1, 3, and 4) and were
randomly assigned (study 2) their identity signal.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. First, we briefly review the relevant
literature on identity signaling, compliments, and embarrassment. Next, we present our
conceptual framework followed by four studies supporting it using a multi-method approach. A
mixed methods approach generally is viewed as providing more effective investigative tools than
an isolated qualitative or quantitative approach (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003). In study 1, a field
study documents how consumers who have self-selected a particularly conspicuous as opposed
to inconspicuous identity signal are more likely to feel embarrassed after receiving a
compliment. Study 2 replicates the effect as well as documents how individual self-beliefs with
respect to the validity of the signal help determine the extent to which a consumer becomes
embarrassed. Studies 3 and 4 reinforce the robustness of the compliment effect across different
types of compliment-givers (friends and strangers) and in contrast to more generic remarks
addressed to the signaler. These last two studies also offer additional process evidence for the
role of public self-awareness as a principal mechanism. We conclude by discussing the
limitations of this work and offering avenues for future research.
6
IDENTITY SIGNALING, COMPLIMENTS, AND EMBARRASSMENT
Individuals attempt to manage others’ impressions of them in ways they believe are in
their best interest through their appearance and behavior, (Goffman 1959; Jones and Pittman
1982). Thus, strategic self-presentation is anchored in social motives. Through the construction
of a desirable social identity, a person attempts to bring his social self closer to an ideal he
expects to positively influence the way others treat him (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, and Riordan
1995). Previous research in marketing has shown consumers use possessions to communicate
various aspects of the self (Belk 1988), and these possessions often include favored brands (Han,
Nunes, and Dréze 2010). Using a brand to convey an otherwise unobservable aspect of one’s
identity serves an explicit identity signaling purpose (e.g., I ride a Harley to show others I am a
rebel). In this way, brands help consumers manage their social identities (Kleine, Kleine, and
Allen 1995; Berger and Heath 2007).
Consumers who employ identity signals are looking to garner attention from observers,
make a chosen impression, and hopefully receive the desired response (Schlenker and Leary
1982). Observers, however, may not provide the intended response. For example, they may make
negative inferences when the identity signal (e.g., brand) is seen as being driven by extrinsic
needs for social approval versus intrinsic factors (Ferraro, Kirmani, and Matherly 2013).
Knowing that others will appraise their signals presents both opportunities and potential
liabilities for the signaler. Signalers want to be perceived as possessing those aspects of their
identity signaled; however, they may worry about being perceived as sending a phony signal or
behaving in a manner purely for identity signaling purposes. How the signaler responds to an
appraisal of the signal predictably will depend on qualities of both the signal and the signaler.
First, an identity signal can be deemed as more or less purposeful depending on whether
7
it is more or less conspicuous, referred to as loud versus quiet in the context of brands (Han et al.
2010). Consistent with Han et al.’s notion of brand prominence, we define the more general
“signal strength” construct as the ease with which any identity signal (not just a brand) is: (1)
observable, (2) recognizable, and (3) interpretable. Observable refers to how obvious the signal
is to observers. Recognizable refers to how readily identifiable the signal is to observers (e.g.,
Louis Vuitton’s checked Damier print, the Oakland Raiders’ iconic logo of a pirate wearing a
football helmet, the distinctive scent of a woman’s perfume). Interpretable refers to how
decipherable the signal is in terms of what the signaler is trying to communicate (e.g., I am
affluent, I am an Oakland Raiders’ fan, I am sexy). For simplicity’s sake, we maintain the same
nomenclature as Han et al. (2010); a “loud” signal as opposed to “quiet” signal is considered
easier to observe, recognize, and interpret and is usually perceived to be a more purposeful
promotion of certain aspects of one’s identity.
Second, identity signals normally reflect how the signaler would ideally like to be
portrayed. Despite a sometimes confusing array of “self” terms in the literature (e.g., selfconcept, self-esteem, self-efficacy), notions of self share a common emphasis on an individual’s
beliefs about his or her attributes and abilities as a person (Hattie 1992). The extent to which the
signaler actually possesses the underlying attribute associated with the signal has been referred
to by a host of differing terms including signal honesty (see Durcikova and Gray 2009) and
signal veracity (Busenitz, Fiet and Moesel 2005). Importantly, whether the signal is objectively
true or not is largely irrelevant here (as our opening example with Jennifer Metcalfe illustrates).
Yet, how one depicts oneself as compared to one’s own prevailing self-belief regarding
possessing the attribute associated with the signal is critical and plays a large part in determining
how someone responds to feedback on his or her public portrayal.
8
Certain situations may make signalers acutely aware of their own self-presentation; one
such situation is when a signaler receives a compliment. A compliment is defined broadly as a
“speech act which explicitly or implicitly attributes credit to someone other than the speaker,
usually the person addressed, for some ‘good’ (possession, characteristic, skill, etc.) which is
positively valued by the speaker and the hearer” (Holmes 1986, p. 485). Beyond their apparently
transparent function as a positively affective speech act, compliments are particularly interesting
to study because, as anthropological linguists have pointed out, giving and responding to
compliments is part of a much more complex social dynamic between the speaker (the signal
recipient) and the hearer (the signaler). A compliment makes the signaler aware that the
compliment-giver has noticed something about the signaler’s “interests, needs and wants” that
warrants a response (Brown and Levinson 1978, p.108).
Generally speaking, deciding how to respond to any compliment creates psychological
tension due to two competing maxims of speech behavior: 1) the agreement maxim and 2) the
modesty maxim (Pomerantz 1978). On the one hand, the “agreement” maxim compels the hearer
to agree with the speaker by accepting the compliment. On the other hand, the “modesty
maxim,” compels the hearer to be modest and avoid self-praise by deflecting or evading the
compliment. Thus, a compliment creates internal tension—agree with the compliment at the risk
of being immodest versus disagree with the compliment at the risk of creating social strain by not
agreeing. This internal tension and self-awareness about how one may appear to others is likely
to manifest itself in an outward emotional response.
Previous work suggests that being the center of attention can cause embarrassment
(Sabini et al. 2000). Embarrassment is a negative self-conscious emotion resulting from
presumed deficiencies in one’s presented self (Goffman 1955; Tangney et al. 1996; Tracy and
9
Robins 2004). As it involves attentional focus on the public self-representation, embarrassment is
distinguishable from other negative self-conscious emotions (e.g., guilt or shame) that can be
experienced even when someone is alone (Keltner and Buswell 1997; Tangney et al. 1996; Tracy
and Robins 2004; but see also Krishna, Herd, and Aydinoglu 2015). Although multiple theories
of embarrassment have been described in the literature (see Keltner and Buswell 1997 for a
review), the two most influential models describe embarrassment as a response to: (1) an
awkward social interaction and (2) a concern regarding negative social evaluation. The former,
or awkward interaction model, suggests embarrassment results from uncertainty and loss of
direction within a social interaction while the social evaluation model suggests embarrassment
arises from one’s concern for what others think rather than a discontinuity in communication.
Our conceptualization of how consumers respond to compliments on identity-signals
builds on insights from both of these models. With respect to the awkward interaction model, a
loud (vs. quiet) signal intensifies the conflict arising from not knowing how to respond (i.e.,
whether the recipient should agree or avoid self-praise). The recipient becomes less sure of what
to say next and is less able to gracefully continue the interaction, resulting in embarrassment.
With respect to the social evaluation model, when the signaler feels out-of-sync with a presented
social identity (a signal that is incongruent with one’s self-beliefs), the possibility of unwanted
negative social evaluation – imagined or real – results in embarrassment.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT: THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Building from previous work examining how people respond to compliments (Pomerantz
1978), we propose that the internal tension between the agreement and modesty maxims is
exacerbated when a consumer receives a compliment on an identity signal. This occurs because
10
the signaler who is intentionally self-promoting an aspect of his or her identity: 1) recognizes
that he or she has done something deliberate to draw attention to the self (i.e., signaled) and 2)
experiences apprehension regarding how the self appears or is perceived by others (i.e., as truly
having the identity vs. simply using an identity prop). A compliment focuses the signaler’s
attention on his or her own self-presentation motives and raises awareness of having executed a
calculated self-enhancement strategy. This realization may also increase concerns that the
strategy could be or become obvious to others. Thus, a compliment on an identity signal
generally heightens public self-awareness for the signaler.
To be clear, public self-awareness concerns how the self appears to others, that is
considering how I may appear to others (Govern and Marsch 2001). The public self consists of
the overt, externally observable aspects of self, such as appearance. In contrast, the private self
consists of those aspects of the self that cannot be observed by others. An identity signal
purposefully makes aspects of the self that otherwise cannot easily be observed by others
observable. Public self-awareness is typically accompanied by a certain discomfort and
evaluation apprehension due to feelings of being the subject of others’ appraisals (Govern and
Marsch 2001, p. 367). If a signaler perceives the self as outwardly overstating aspects of his or
her own identity, public self-awareness can cause feelings of embarrassment. The extent to
which the signaler feels embarrassed by a compliment on an identity signal will likely depend on
characteristics of both the signal (i.e., one’s outward display) and the signaler (i.e., one’s inward
self-beliefs).
First, an identity signal can be deemed as more or less purposeful depending on the signal
strength (i.e., whether it is loud or quiet. Loud signals are more likely to exacerbate selfpresentational concerns because they are more obvious and leave less room for ambiguity about
11
self-representation. In other words, a compliment on a loud signal (relative to a quiet signal)
increases the salience of the signaler’s own self-presentation motives and heightens the potential
for anxiety about how one appears to others. Thus, we expect loud signals to elevate both the
signaler’s public self-awareness and concomitant feelings of embarrassment.
Second, a signaler’s self-beliefs can also contribute to the emotional response. More often
than not, an individual’s self-belief differs from an ideal identity (e.g., I am not as a successful as
I would like to be). If a signaler believes s/he does not fully possess the attribute(s) signaled, a
compliment may cause the signaler to assess the extent to which the compliment was “internally
caused” (i.e., brought on by an aspect of the “self”) versus caused by the signal (i.e., brought on
by an identity prop). We expect such reflection and the realization of any self-perceived identity
incongruence to similarly result in heightened public self-awareness and concomitant feelings of
embarrassment. Consistent with this notion, Buss (1980) posits that blushing (a display of
embarrassment) can occur in situations where people are overpraised, that is, when others’
evaluations are perceived by the signaler as more positive than warranted. An identity signal that
overstates a signaler’s self-belief regarding an identity may imply that a compliment is
unwarranted. If the identity signal is accurate, the signaler will be less likely to be concerned
about being overpraised. However, if the signaler believes the signal exaggerates characteristics
of the self, he or she is more likely to experience discomfort over how he or she appears to others
that is, unless the signal recipient is signaling in the same way (for the sake of brevity, the
question of Signal Similarly is taken up in more detail the General Discussion).
12
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Framework
Our complete conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1. To summarize, we expect a
compliment on a relatively loud signal to result in greater public self-awareness and
embarrassment. Additionally, when a signal is relatively quiet, a compliment causes
embarrassment when the signal promotes an aspect of one’s identity that is incongruent with the
signaler’s self-belief. Stated differently, only when a signal is relatively quiet and congruent with
one’s self-beliefs is the signaler unlikely to become embarrassed after being complimented.
Finally, we identify an additional moderator of the effect, documenting how a compliment
coming from someone perceived to be sending a similar signal can mitigate these effects.
STUDY 1: EMBARRASSING PRODUCTS, EXPECTED AND UNEXPECTED
In study 1, we test the prediction that a signaler utilizing a loud (quiet) signal will be
more (less) embarrassed after their signal is acknowledged with a compliment. We do so in a
field study in which a researcher interviewed women carrying luxury handbags in public. We
chose handbags as our target product category in this study as they are widely regarded as a selfexpressive symbol of wealth and status and differ significantly with respect to signal strength.
13
Further, it seems counterintuitive to expect a compliment to embarrass someone who self-selects
to signal status in this way. The compliment was delivered during an interview conducted under
the pretense of a study investigating general shopping behavior. We used Layered Voice
Analysis to assess whether women interviewed while exhibiting loud signals were more
embarrassed by the compliment than their counterparts exhibiting quiet signals.
Layered Voice Analysis Pilot Study
Layered Voice Analysis (henceforth LVA) is software developed by Nemesysco Ltd., a
provider of voice analysis technologies to fields ranging from security (e.g., border control,
police) to insurance and banking providers. The software utilizes a set of proprietary signal
processing algorithms to extract vocal parameters from each voice segment and identify stress
levels and various types of emotional responses (embarrassment, anger, happiness, and sadness).
By measuring changes in vocal patterns, LVA can help researchers efficiently measure changes
in emotional states in a natural setting. The software creates an emotional profile by measuring
changes in high and low frequencies in the speech waveform and classifying them in terms of
emotional states correlated with these changes. Because waveforms are person specific, the
software requires a calibration period for each individual to measure inherent characteristics of
the speaker’s voice. Accordingly, the software creates an instantaneous benchmark when a
person begins speaking after which it measures deviations at constant intervals that can range in
length from 4/10th of a second to two seconds. The program then assigns a numerical score
between 0 and 30 to each deviation and produces an emotional profile for each vocal segment
across time (see figure 2 for an example).
14
FIGURE 2
Study 1: Example of an Emotional Profile from LVA
Prior studies have tested the validity of LVA in distinguishing between truthful and
deceptive speech segments (Adler 2009; Damphousse et al. 2007). Further, research published in
the Journal of Finance by Mayew and Venkatachalam (2011) utilized LVA effectively to show
changes in speech patterns among executives provide important clues about the financial
prospects of their firms. The authors found executives’ affective states during earnings calls as
measured by LVA conveyed important information about their emotional state that effectively
predicted their firms’ future profitability and returns. However, we were unaware of any
published studies that employed LVA metrics to capture changes in a single emotion. To
reassure the reader of the reliability of the LVA technology’s (software version QA5) ability to
adequately capture changes in embarrassment per se, we conducted the following pilot study.
Fifty undergraduate business students (35 male and 15 female) at a major business school
participated in exchange for course credit. An interview with each respondent was conducted and
recorded digitally. Each interview was conducted individually in two phases. The first phase
15
consisted of a calibration period during which respondents’ answers to a pre-specified question
were expected to require little emotional processing. In this phase, the interviewer asked all
respondents to describe how college students typically spend their days. The second phase was
described as a separate study intended to assess college students’ familiarity with a variety of
products. Respondents were presented either with condoms, an embarrassing product (Dahl,
Mamchanda, and Argo 2001), or instant oatmeal, a non-embarrassing product. Following the
interview, respondents completed a questionnaire regarding their feelings while describing
condoms or instant oatmeal. We determined the efficacy of the software by examining how
LVA’s metric for embarrassment changed across phases between the two products as well as the
relationship between LVA’s embarrassment measure and respondents’ self-reported measures of
embarrassment.
First, using Adobe Audition software 3.0, we removed the researcher’s voice from each
recording. The resulting audio files were used to calculate an average level of embarrassment for
each individual for each phase of the interview. If the LVA software was successful in capturing
embarrassment, we would expect a difference between the two phases for those who described
the condoms but not for those who described the oatmeal. This is exactly what we observe.
Analyses of the voice samples revealed equivalent levels of embarrassment at baseline
before participants were asked to provide descriptions of condoms or oatmeal (Mpre-condom = 3.37;
Mpre-oatmeal = 3.04; F<1, NS). However, after providing the descriptions, the voices of individuals
describing condoms registered higher levels of embarrassment than those describing oatmeal
(Mcondom = 5.34; Moatmeal = 3.03; F(1, 48) = 17.94, p < .0001). Using the change in embarrassment
(time 2 – time 1), we found similar results; those who described condoms exhibited an increase
16
in embarrassment (Mcondom = 1.98; Moatmeal = -0.01; F(1, 48) = 11.40, p < .001). No significant
differences or changes were found for any of the other emotions captured by LVA (see table 1).
TABLE 1
Pilot Study (Condoms vs. Oatmeal): LVA Analyses
Condoms
Oatmeal
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Embarrassment T1
Embarrassment T2
Change in Embarrassment
Range
3.37 (2.17)
5.34* (2.04)
1.98* (2.14)
3.04 (1.52)
3.03 (1.74)
-0.01 (1.96)
0 to 7.64, M = 3.22 (1.90)
0 to 9.50, M = 4.33 (2.22)
-4.00 to 7.39, M = 1.10 (2.27)
0.02 (.11)
0.20 (.73)
0.18 (.74)
0.24 (.89)
0.16 (.44)
-0.08 (.55)
0 to 4.19, M = .12 (.60)
0 to 3.79, M = .18 (.62)
-2.27 to 3.79, M = -.06 (.67)
“Happiness/Excitement” T1
“Happiness/Excitement” T2
Change in
“Happiness/Excitement”
15.72 (1.17)
16.08 (1.53)
0.36 (1.32)
15.98 (1.49)
16.31 (2.01)
0.33 (1.64)
13.08 to 20.50, M = 15.83 (1.31)
12.35 to 21.64, M = 16.18 (1.74)
-2.73 to 3.66, M = 0.34 (1.46)
“Sadness” T1
“Sadness” T2
Change in “Sadness”
4.19 (3.22)
5.20 (3.55)
1.00 (3.48)
3.09 (2.08)
4.53 (2.51)
1.45 (3.10)
0 to 14.42, M = 3.71 (2.80)
0 to 14.00, M = 4.90 (3.12)
-3.68 to 8.47, M = 1.20 (3.29)
7.87+ (2.12)
6.45 (1.80)
-1.42 (1.59)
6.83 (2.08)
6.10 (1.86)
-0.74 (1.55)
2.75 to 12.25, M = 7.41 (2.14)
2.32 to 10.14, M = 6.30 (1.82)
-5.09 to 2.17, M = 1.12 (1.59)
Anger T1
Anger T2
Change in Anger
Stress T1
Stress T2
Change in Stress
Note: *p < .001, +p < .10; for all other emotions p > .17
Further, we find a significant correlation between the embarrassment scores measured by LVA
during the second phase and self-reports of embarrassment collected from respondents at the
conclusion of the task (r = .41, p < .01). Taken together, these results affirmed the ability of the
LVA software to detect changes in embarrassment in voice recordings and allowed us to proceed
confidently with our field study.
Main Study
17
In the main study, we test whether consumers exhibiting loud signals will be more
embarrassed after receiving a compliment than those exhibiting quiet signals. This is
accomplished by recording the interactions outside of a lab setting and subsequently analyzing
the voice recordings, including their emotional responses to a compliment, using LVA.
Method and Procedure
Interview Procedure. A researcher visited three different prestigious shopping malls in a
major metropolitan area where she approached women carrying designer handbags to request an
interview about shopping behavior in general. Owing to our expressed interest in understanding
differences between loud and quiet signals, the interviewer was instructed to sample at the
extremes (McClelland and Judd 1993) by identifying women carrying perceptibly “loud” and
“quiet” handbags (i.e., signal strength). Ninety women were approached. Thirty-eight (42%)
women agreed to participate. The participants were primarily Caucasian (75.7% Caucasian, 5.4%
African American, 13.5% Hispanic, 2.7% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2.7% other) and ranged in
age from 16 to 60 (M = 36). These women carried handbags produced by Gucci, Louis Vuitton,
and Hermès, among other prominent luxury brands. Respondents who completed the interview,
which lasted about five minutes and was recorded with a digital voice recorder, received a $5 gift
card as a token of appreciation. The researcher’s portion of the interview was entirely scripted.
As in the pilot study, each interview included two phases. In the first phase, respondents
were asked generic questions about shopping such as which day of the week they prefer to shop,
how often they go shopping, and whether they prefer to go shopping alone or with others. The
conversations about respondents’ shopping behavior masked the true intent of the study and were
used for calibration purposes. In the second phase of the conversation, the researcher paid each
woman the identical compliment, saying “I really like your bag. It is very nice.” The woman was
18
given time to respond, after which the researcher asked further questions including when they
had obtained the handbag, what they liked about it, and their feelings about the brand. At the end
of every interview, the researcher took a picture of the respondent’s handbag that was rated later
by three independent judges on the 7-point brand prominence scale (Han et al. 2010). The
women approached by the experimenter were chosen randomly, given they were carrying either
a “loud” or “quiet” handbags (see figure 3).
FIGURE 3
Study 1: Distribution of Brand Prominence
Number of Participants
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
Quiet
2
3
4
5
Avg. Brand Prominence Rating
6
7
Loud
As in the pilot study, we compared measurements of interviewees’ affective states before
and after the compliment to assess any changes due to the compliment. Individuals differ in their
general susceptibility to embarrassment (Modigliani 1968); hence, it was possible some
respondents may have felt embarrassed not because of the compliment but simply because they
were part of an unusual experience. Note, however, that each woman’s voice prior to the
compliment served as an individualized baseline for our analyses, which takes into consideration
any embarrassment resulting from being interviewed (the general context).
Emotional Profile. Among the 38 respondents, four reported carrying counterfeit designer
19
handbags (we address the special case of counterfeit goods in our general discussion) and one
interview was interrupted unexpectedly. Hence, five recordings were removed from the data,
leaving 33 usable audio files. Using each of the four specific emotions (embarrassment, anger,
happiness, and sadness) and the stress level measured by the LVA software, we calculated a
series of averages for each individual both the period before (first phase) and after the
compliment (second phase). We then computed change scores (post-compliment average – precompliment average) for each of the five different voice profile measures. In our analysis, we use
the change in emotions and stress level as detected by the LVA software, as our dependent
measure. For embarrassment, the focal DV, this change ranged from -4.76 to 5.13 with M = 0.78.
Results
We estimated a series of linear regressions with the change in emotion scores as the
dependent variable and signal strength rating (the judges’ rating of brand prominence) as the
predictor variable. Several additional measures were included as planned covariates: the brand of
handbag, the number of designer handbags the respondent owned, age, and employment status.
The results are shown in table 2.
TABLE 2
Study 1: Effects of Signal Strength on Embarrassment
Brand
Employment
status
(LV=1,
nonLV=0)
The number
of designer
handbags
Age
.49** (.17)
-1.44 (.94)
.04 (.05)
-.09* (.04)
1.52 (.85)
Happy/Excited
.07 (.15)
1.21 (.84)
.02 (.05)
-.06 (.04)
-.80 (.76)
Sad
-.06 (.23)
-.29 (1.30)
<.01 (.07)
.07 (.06)
-.29 (1.17)
Angry
.02 (.12)
-.11 (.66)
<.01 (.04)
-.03 (.03)
.57 (.60)
Stressed
-.22 (.12)
-.33 (.70)
<.01 (.04)
.04 (.03)
.21 (.63)
Signal
Strength
Embarrassed
(Yes=1, No=0)
Note: *p < .05, ** p < .01; Entries in the table correspond to parameter estimates in OLS regression. Standard errors
20
are in parentheses.
Consistent with our prediction, consumers carrying louder signals exhibited greater
embarrassment in response to the compliment (β = .49, p < .01); no such differences were found
for any of the other emotions (i.e., happiness, sadness, anger). These findings indicate that
consumers displaying loud signals experienced significantly more embarrassment in response to
a compliment on that identity signal than consumers displaying quieter signals. These results
support our prediction and provide initial support for our proposed conceptual model.
Given the interviewer sought out respondents based on self-selected signals, it was
important to consider whether the interviewer’s voice changed based on signal strength as a
change in the interviewer’s voice might have influenced respondents’ affective states. To rule
this out, we used a similar procedure to analyze the interviewer’s voice across conditions. We
examined the interviewer’s emotional states throughout the interview with particular attention to
both the moment when the interviewer delivered the compliment and when the interviewer asked
questions about the respondent’s handbag. As shown in table 3, none of the interviewer’s
emotional measures varied with the signal strength of respondents’ handbags.
TABLE 3
Study 1: Analyses of Interviewer’s Emotional States
DV: Interviewer’s
emotional states
IV: Interviewee’s signal strength
While delivering
compliment
Embarrassed
-.02
Happy/ Excited
0
Sad
-.37
Angry
0
Stressed
.02
Second part of interview
(.53)
.01
(.26)
(0)
-.02
(.02)
(.32)
-.52
(.32)
(0)
.03
(.03)
(.25)
-.08
(.14)
Note: Entries in the table correspond to parameter estimates in OLS regression. Standard errors are in
parentheses.
21
Discussion
The results from study 1 demonstrate that consumers who signal more loudly are more
likely to become embarrassed when complimented on their signal. Recall our prediction was that
people are expected to become embarrassed with a loud signal regardless of self-beliefs. In this
study, we demonstrate this effect with actual consumers displaying self-selected signals in a
natural environment. By measuring respondents’ emotional reaction using LVA technology, we
were able to measure embarrassment in a field setting where explicit self-report measures were
likely to have conflicted with our cover story. This approach helps insure the external validity of
our results and the applicability of our conceptual model to the real world.
In study 2, we replicate the effects for signalers displaying loud signals while providing
additional evidence for the proposed mechanism. We also document how and when a
compliment on a quiet signal is likely to produce embarrassment. More specifically, in study 2
we provide additional evidence for the proposed public self-awareness mechanism by showing
that compliments on a quiet signal also result in social anxiety and greater embarrassment when
individuals’ self-beliefs are incongruent with an aspect of their identity signaled (“sexiness”).
STUDY 2: VICTORIA’S SECRET VERY SEXY PERFUME
Study 2 was designed to test if and how respondents’ self-beliefs about an important
characteristic of their self-concept—sexiness—would impact the level of embarrassment
experienced in response to a compliment. Unlike study 1, in this study, we randomly assigned
respondents to different levels of brand-related identity signal strength. The study thus employed
an identity Self-belief (measured) x 2 Signal Strength (manipulated: Loud/ Quiet) design. The
22
cover story revolved around Victoria’s Secret, the largest American retailer of lingerie and
beauty products. The brand and its marketing are strongly associated with being sexy. For a
sample of Victoria’s Secret branded materials used to ensure the credibility of the study, please
see the web appendix.
Female students at a major west coast university were recruited under the pretext of a
special event on campus orchestrated by Victoria’s Secret (henceforth VS) in which participants
would receive a free individual consultation concerning first impressions and the art of social
influence. In addition, participants were offered a $15 VS brand gift card and goodie bag in
exchange for providing VS product feedback. Upon arriving in the lab, each participant was
greeted by a confederate who asked whether they were checking in for the VS consultation or an
unrelated “mobile technology study.” This provided a plausible explanation for encountering a
male confederate (the compliment giver) later in the study. Respondents were run individually in
an elaborate four-stage session designed to reinforce the credibility of VS’s role. Fifty-three
participants completed the study, and each session lasted approximately 25 minutes.
In stage 1 (room 1), participants completed a three-part computerized questionnaire
consistent with the cover story of getting to know them better prior to their consultation. Because
women vary considerably regarding the extent to which their appearance influences selfevaluations (Breines, Crocker, and Garcia 2008), part one of the questionnaire was designed to
collect individual difference measures unobtrusively for appearance self-esteem and appearance
contingent self-worth. These measures were planned covariates in our analyses. Participants
completed assessments for three facets of self-esteem (appearance, social, and performance)
using 21-items (Heatherton and Polivy 1991) each on a 7-point scale (1=not at all, 7=extremely).
Participants also completed 20 items comprising four facets of the contingencies of self-worth
23
scale (Crocker et al. 2003): academic competence, appearance, approval from others, and
competition, each on a 7-point scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree).
To lend legitimacy to the false feedback provided in the next stage of the study, part two
of the questionnaire measured each participant’s level of extraversion. This was achieved using
items from the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann 2003) and
the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A; Francis, Brown, and Philipchalk
1992). Each item was measured on a 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree).
Responses to these measures were converted into what was dubbed the “Demeanor/Social
Aptitude” score (see figure 4) presented to participants along with the false feedback.
In part three of the questionnaire, respondents answered a series of questions related to
managing first impressions and social relations with potential dating partners. These questions
were gathered from non-scientific quizzes found in popular women’s magazines and were linked
to the impending consultation to reinforce the premise of the study. Participants also filled in a
paper and pencil “Self-Description” survey asking them to complete four fill-in-the-blank items
[e.g., “I would describe myself as ____ (adjective).”]. These adjectives were used to facilitate the
individual consultation conducted in stage 2. After finishing the entire questionnaire, the
participant was escorted into an adjoining room (room 2) for stage 2 of the study.
In room 2, a male confederate wearing a black suit and VS credentials acted the part of
the VS Specialist brought in to conduct the individual consultation. The confederate explained
that he was engaged by VS to research how women’s demeanor and body language affects
others’ perceptions in various social situations. As part of the script, he stated that…
“…recent research suggests that up to 93% of all communication is nonverbal. Nonverbal behaviors are important because they are often
automatic and influence how individuals are perceived by others. I will
ask you to complete some everyday tasks that will allow me to better
24
observe your non-verbal physical behaviors and what they communicate
about you.”
The entire consultation was conducted under the pretense of assessing the respondent’s
first impressions and various abilities involving social influence. The VS Specialist began by
asking respondents to complete the following three nonverbal tasks, some involving items
provided in the room: 1) “Please walk across the room, and then turn around and walk back,” 2)
“Please make yourself comfortable in that chair,” and 3) “Please select a cookie or brownie and
eat it.” Next, the VS Specialist conducted a structured interview based on the participant’s
responses to the Self-Description survey completed in Room 1. Paraphrasing a participant’s
responses, he asked her to elaborate on her answers. For example, he would say “You described
yourself as … enthusiastic. Give me an example of a situation when you exhibited being
enthusiastic.” The verbal task was used for calibration purposes, as in study 1, to measure
baseline levels of emotion. Throughout the session, the specialist made a series of notes on his
clipboard. After the final task, the specialist left the room, explaining that he would return
momentarily with the results.
After returning, the VS Specialist explained how demeanor and body language are two
major dimensions of sex appeal and that the individual’s results were based on comparisons with
a representative sample of 25,482 female college students at universities across the U.S. While
reviewing the results, the respondent was told that the assessment was informed by data collected
from thousands of male college-aged students about what they find “sexy.”
Following common practice in false-feedback paradigms (e.g., Mead et al. 2011; Stillman
et al. 2009), participants first received accurate, self-relevant feedback to increase the perceived
credibility and legitimacy of the false feedback. To this end, each participant received a form
depicting her actual level of extraversion drawn from the measures collected in Room 1. More
25
critically for our purposes, the respondent also received manufactured scores supposedly based
on her body language for affectation, confidence, mannerisms, and comportment (see figure 4).
FIGURE 4
Study 2: Sample Consultation Results Provided to Participants
These body language scores did not differ across participants and were intended to influence
(decrease) the extent to which they viewed themselves as sexy. Each participant was told she
ranked in the “27th to 32nd percentile in Sex Appeal, which is significantly below average.”
Due to the elaborate nature of the study and relatively small sample size, the false
feedback helped insure heterogeneity with respect to the congruency between self-beliefs and an
26
ideal regarding sexiness exemplified by VS models (displayed throughout the study). Note that
because we are interested in the more realistic situation where one’s ideal exceeds one’s actual
identity, we did not include positive false feedback (i.e., by telling participants that they were
significantly above average in their sexiness). At the end of stage 2, the specialist explained that,
due to time constraints, he was unable to go into more detail. The participant proceeded to room
3 for the VS product evaluation, considered stage 3 of the study.
In room 3, a box set of the VS signature line of “Very Sexy” lotion and perfume was
prominently displayed, and testers were provided for product trial (see figure 5).
FIGURE 5
Study 2: Victoria’s Secret Very Sexy Perfume Gift Set Used in Stimuli
Stage 3 allowed us to administer a two-part survey. The first part was designed to
measure self-beliefs about being sexy. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with
ten separate “I believe I am a ______ person” statements, each on a 7-point scale (1=completely
disagree, 7=completely agree). The focal self-belief rating (“sexy”) was embedded in the list,
consisting of several aspirational attributes common among college students (items: powerful,
intelligent, charming, patient, devoted, sexy, giving, hardworking, honest, and athletic).
The second part of the survey was titled “Product Evaluation—Victoria’s Secret VERY
27
SEXY Lotion & Fragrance.” The VS associate dispensed some lotion on the participant’s left
hand and spritzed the perfume on her right wrist. Participants next indicated their agreement with
statements addressing the attractiveness of the packaging, ease of application, extent to which the
VS brand was conveyed, and whether the lotion and perfume complemented each other, each on
a 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Participants also indicated how they
would describe the scent by providing ratings for a series of fragrance notes (citrus, earthy,
floral, fresh, herbal, spice, vanilla, warm, woodsy) each on a 7-point scale (1=not at all, 7=very
much), all intended to maintain the cover story.
After completing the product evaluation, the associate handed the participant a bag
containing the $15 gift card, a sample of “Very Sexy” perfume, and some candy (pink Orbit gum
and Hershey’s kisses). The “goodie bag” provided a seamless way to manipulate signal strength
in a random manner. Half of the participants received a plain, unmarked, glossy pink bag (quiet)
while the other half received the same glossy pink bag embellished with a “VERY SEXY
Victoria’s Secret” brand decal (see figure 6 for photos of the stimuli). At the end of stage 3, the
participant was thanked for her input and instructed to bring her things (including the “goodie
bag”) with her to the next room where she would be asked to provide feedback about the entire
experience. At this point, the official study ostensibly was complete. All participants exited the
evaluation room wearing the same fragrance. They differed only in terms of the type of bag
carried (loud vs. quiet signal) and thus the extent to which the identity signal (scent they were
wearing) was observable, recognizable, and interpretable in the next room.
28
FIGURE 6
Study 2: Very Sexy Product Gift Bags (Left: Loud, Right: Quiet)
As each participant entered the final room (room 4) for stage 4 of the study, she
encountered an attractive male student (another confederate) completing the fictitious “Mobile
Technology Study” mentioned at check-in. Careful staging ensured both the female participant
and male confederate were there for clearly different purposes yet still noticed by each other. The
male student sat at a table on the opposite side of the room containing a variety of mobile devices
(e.g., cell phones, an iPod, and cameras), ostensibly completing a different survey. When the
female participant entered the room, the male student looked up, making eye contact and smiling
warmly before returning his attention to his own survey. As the associate logged the female
participant into a computer, she told the participant to place her things on a side-table
(engineered to make the VS bag clearly visible) and that someone would be by to sign her out
shortly. The associate exited the room, leaving the participant and confederate alone.
Participants saw the following instructions on the computer: “In order for us to get to
know you and improve our offerings to the college student market, we would like to ask you
some additional questions about your background and experience today.” On the first screen
participants completed the following three items regarding their consultation: 1) I found the
29
assessment to be (1=very inaccurate, 5=very accurate), 2) I found the information to be (1=very
useless, 5=very useful), and 3) I enjoyed the experience (1=not at all, 5=completely). As the
female participant began to move the mouse over to click her first response, the male student
paid her the following compliment: “Wow, I really like your perfume. Is that what you’re
wearing?” while alluding to the pink VS bag. The confederate was instructed to allow the
participant to respond without encouraging further conversation. Regardless of whether the
participant simply smiled or spoke, the confederate always brought closure by saying “It’s nice”
and returning his attention to his survey while allowing her to complete hers. (See web appendix
for additional details.)
Following the carefully timed and choreographed compliment, participants then just so
happened to complete a “Thoughts and Feelings” questionnaire about the session on the second
screen that captured our focal dependent variable—feelings of embarrassment. Participants
completed a two-item embarrassment measure: “Right now I am feeling…” 1) not at all
embarrassed/very embarrassed and 2) not at all awkward/very awkward, each on a 7-point scale
(Dahlet al. 2001; Modigliani 1968; Parrott and Smith 1991). They also completed a third
measure assessing the extent of their discomfort: 3) not at all uncomfortable/very uncomfortable.
Participants completed measures for a variety of other emotions: happy/lively, calm/content,
loving/caring, proud/self-assured, grouchy/fed up, tired/drowsy, and gloomy/sad, each on a 7point scale (1=not at all, 7=very much).
Participants also rated the extent to which they were experiencing anxiety as measured by
feeling jittery and nervous (α = .77), each on a 7-point scale (1=not at all, 7=very much). The
composite Anxiety measure is considered a reflective indicator for the latent variable Public
Self-Awareness and any mediating effect between Signal Strength and Embarrassment would be
30
seen as supporting evidence for our conceptual framework. Further, participants completed a
measure of momentary self-consciousness (i.e., right now, I feel self-conscious) on a 7-point
scale and the SCS Revised scale (Scheier and Carver 1985; Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss 1975),
a 23-item measure of dispositional self-consciousness; each item was measured on a 5-point
scale (1=not at all like me, 5=very much like me). Finally, participants completed basic
demographic questions (age, ethnicity, and academic major) and a funneled debrief. We also
administered an extended debrief along with having them sign a nondisclosure statement
intended to prevent them from telling others about their experience (the nature of the experiment)
before leaving the building.
Results
Initial analyses indicated evaluations of the Session experience did not differ by
condition. Participants reported finding the consultation to be equally accurate (Mloud = 3.26,
Mquiet = 3.35; β = -0.09), useful (Mloud = 3.56, Mquiet = 3.58; β = -0.07), and enjoyable (Mloud =
3.52, Mquiet = 3.62; β = -0.10), all t<1 across Signal Strength conditions. Similarly, we find no
differences in the levels of emotions other than embarrassment by condition (see table 4). Next,
we examined our focal dependent measures: Embarrassment and Anxiety.
A model predicting Embarrassment (α = .89) was estimated using participants’ SelfBelief regarding being sexy (continuous measure), Signal Strength as a dummy variable
(0=quiet, 1=loud), their interaction, and appearance self-esteem as a covariate. The model
revealed a significant effect for Self-Belief (β = -.58, SE = .23, t(48) = -2.51, p < .02) in the
expected direction and a marginally significant Self-Belief X Signal Strength interaction (β =
.69, SE = .37; t(48) = 1.89, p < .06). Appearance self-esteem was highly significant (β = -.49, SE
31
= .19; t(48) = -2.62, p < .01), and results substituting appearance contingent self-worth in lieu of
appearance self-esteem were substantively the same. Within the quiet condition, simple slope
analyses revealed that as one’s Self-Belief regarding sexiness increased, Embarrassment in
response to the compliment decreased (β = -.62, t(48) = -2.73, p < .01). In the loud condition,
one’s Self-Belief regarding sexiness had no significant effect on Embarrassment (β = -.15, t<1)
in response to the compliment, as expected.
TABLE 4
Study 2: Levels of Other Specific Emotions by Signal Strength Condition
Emotion measure
Loud condition
Quiet condition
Test statistic
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
t(48)
Happy (α = .75)
4.46 (1.12)
4.85 (1.09)
t = -1.26, p>.21
Content (α = .39)*
4.98 (1.02)
5.38 (0.94)
t = -1.49, p>.14
Loving (α = .81)
4.52 (1.35)
4.58 (1.30)
t = -0.16, p>.87
Proud (α = .57)
4.17 (1.12)
4.58 (1.23)
t = -1.27, p>.21
Angry (α = .82)
2.20 (1.32)
1.94 (1.32)
t = 0.72, p>.48
Tired (α = .87)
3.09 (1.77)
3.02 (1.73)
t = 0.15, p>.88
Sad (α = .86)
2.17 (1.41)
1.88 (1.21)
t = 0.78, p>.44
*We re-analyzed the component items for emotion measures for which reliabilities were low (i.e., content and
proud). No significant differences were found for those individual items; however, a marginal difference was
found for the item “calm” (t = -1.80, p < .08).
A second model with Anxiety (nervous, jittery; α = .77) as the DV was estimated using
the same set of predictors. The model revealed significant main effects for Self-Belief (β = -.70,
SE = .20, t(48) = -3.52, p < .0009) and Signal Strength (β = -3.51, SE = 1.38; t(48) = -2.54, p <
.01), qualified by a significant interaction (β = .99, SE = .31; t(48) = 3.18, p < .003). Simple
32
slope analyses revealed that increased Self-Belief in one’s sexiness had a negative effect on
Anxiety within the quiet condition (β = -.71, t(48) = -4.37, p < .0002) but a non-significant effect
in the loud condition (β = .22, t<1).
Robustness Checks. Given that our model implies changes in self-consciousness, as a
robustness check we estimated a model predicting momentary self-consciousness using the same
set of predictors. The model revealed a significant effect for sexiness Self-Belief (β = -.61, SE =
.21, t(48) = -2.93, p < .005) qualified by a marginally significant sexiness Self-Belief X Signal
Strength interaction (β = .62, SE = .33; t(48) = 1.89, p < .06). Simple slope analyses revealed
that sexiness had a negative effect on anxiety within the quiet condition (β = -.63, t(48) = -3.37,
p < .003), but a non-significant effect in the loud condition (β = -.10, t<1). In sum, the means and
pattern of results are consistent with the results for Embarrassment and Anxiety, corroborating
the predicted negative consequences brought about by a compliment.
As an additional robustness check, we examined respondents’ physical and verbal
responses to the compliment as recorded on video during the study. Previous work has shown
that negative self-conscious emotions such as embarrassment are associated with more speech
disfluencies and disturbances (Edelmann and Hampson 1981; Leary 1983), less eye contact
(Barrett 2005; Edelmann and Hampson 1981; Modigliani 1971), and fewer Duchenne smiles
(Ekman, Davidson, and Friesen 1990; see also Edelmann 1985a and 1985b). A Duchenne smile
raises the corners of the mouth and the cheeks and forms crow’s feet around the eyes. Using the
video recordings, verbal and physical reactions to the compliment were coded by an independent
judge blind to the hypotheses with respect to four behavioral correlates of embarrassment: (1)
number of words spoken, (2) speech disfluencies such as “ums” and “uhs,” (3) the amount of eye
contact, and (4) Duchenne smiles. In table 5, we provide basic descriptive statistics for the
33
sample both combined and by condition.
TABLE 5
Study 2: Responses to Compliment by Signal Strength
Observed
Behavior
Variables
Range
Overall
Loud condition
Quiet condition
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Test statistic
Number of
words spoken
Min=1,
Max=43
12.10 (11.44)
12.65 (11.66)
11.55 (11.49)
F<1, NS
Disfluencies
Min=0,
max=5
0.60 (.98)
0.90 (1.21)
0.30 (0.57)
F = 4.02, p <.05
Smiles
(no/yes)
Min=0,
max=1
67.5%
45%
90%
Chi-sq = 7.59,
Eye contact
(no/yes)
Min=0,
max=1
57.5%
p < .006
20%
95%
Chi-sq = 13.74,
p < .0002
Analyses of the behavioral responses revealed participants in the loud condition
displayed fewer smiles (β = -.45, t = -3.38, p < .002) and used more disfluencies (β = .60, t =
2.01, p < .05) than participants in the quiet condition. None of the interactions were significant.
An additional regression model was estimated on the number of words spoken using the same set
of predictors as in our earlier models. This revealed significant effects for signal strength (β =
32.97, t = 2.50, p < .02) and sexiness (β = 5.08, t = 2.01, p < .02) qualified by a significant
interaction (β = -7.29, t = 2.47, p < .02). Simple slope analyses revealed that sexiness had a
positive effect on word count within the quiet condition (β = 5.08, t = 2.76, p < .01) but a nonsignificant effect in the loud condition (β = -2.21, t<1). Similarly, analyses on the amount of eye
contact made with the confederate revealed a marginally significant effect for the Self-Belief by
Signal Strength interaction (β = -.16, t = -1.76, p < .09). Simple slope analyses revealed that Self-
34
Belief had a positive effect on eye contact within the quiet condition (β = .09, t = 2.24, p < .04),
and again a non-significant effect in the loud condition (β = -.07, t<1). These results are all
consistent with and thus support our conceptual model.
In addition to the behavioral and self-report data, we also conducted supplementary
analyses using the LVA software used in study 1. Using the video recordings obtained in rooms
2 and 4, we obtained baseline and post-manipulation voice samples for each participant.
Compared to study 1, participants’ responses to the compliment (in room 4) were exceedingly
brief, sometimes only one or two words such as “Yes” or “Thank you.” In such cases, the
software cannot produce output owing to a lack of sufficient data. This is essentially why we
consider these analyses supplementary. Using the audio files, we calculated the average level of
embarrassment for each individual for the periods before (baseline in room 2; nloud = 17, nquiet =
15) and after the compliment (post compliment in room 4; nloud = 16, nquiet = 15).
A model predicting embarrassment was estimated using participants’ self-belief
regarding sexiness, signal strength, and their interaction. LVA revealed equivalent levels of
embarrassment in the loud and quiet conditions before the signal strength manipulation, or at
baseline (Mloud = 1.04; Mquiet = 1.33; F(1, 28) = 1.08, p < .31). Baseline embarrassment ranged
from 0 to 2.58 with M =1.18 (0.71). However, after the compliment, the voices of individuals in
the loud condition registered higher levels of embarrassment than those in the quiet condition
(Mloud = 4.87; Mquiet = 3.45; F(1, 27) = 3.54, p < .07); post compliment embarrassment ranged
from 0 to 17.50 with M = 4.19 (4.67). We also calculated the difference or change in emotion
(time 2 – time 1) for each individual and found similar results; those in the loud condition
exhibited a larger increase in embarrassment (Mloud = 3.82; Mquiet = 2.12; F(1, 27) = 2.76, p <
.10), albeit this difference was marginally significant likely due to sample size constraints. This
35
change in embarrassment ranged from -2.58 to 17.50 with M = 3.00 (4.80) (see table 6). Again,
these voice analyses provide supplementary non-self-report evidence of embarrassment
consistent with the primary self-report emotion measures.
TABLE 6
Study 2: LVA Analyses
Loud
Mean (SD)
Quiet
Mean (SD)
Range
Embarrassment T1
1.04 (.67)
1.33 (.75)
0 to 2.58, M = 1.77 (.71)
Embarrassment T2
4.87 (4.76)*
3.45 (4.61)
0 to 17.50, M = 4.19 (4.67)
Change in Embarrassment
3.82 (4.85)+
2.12 (4.75)
-2.58 to 17.50, M = 3.00 (4.80)
Anger T1
0.03 (.10)
0.04 (.10)
0 to 0.40, M = .03 (.10)
Anger T2
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 to 0, M = 0 (0)
-0.02 (.10)
-0.04 (.10)
-0.40 to 0, M = -.033 (.10)
“Happiness/Excitement” T1
14.57 (1.21)
14.62 (1.76)
11.50 to 17.09, M = 14.59 (1.46)
“Happiness/Excitement” T2
15.64 (2.89)
14.44 (3.25)
9.67 to 23.33, M = 15.60 (3.02)
Change in
“Happiness/Excitement”
1.09 (3.36)
0.93 (3.81)
-4.45 to 7.93, M = 1.01 (3.53)
“Sadness” T1
5.64 (2.16)
5.08 (3.00)
1 to 10.48, M = 5.38 (2.56)
“Sadness” T2
2.54 (3.05)
2.62 (3.48)
0 to 11.33, M = 2.58 (3.21)
Change in “Sadness”
-3.15 (3.71)+
-2.46 (3.71)
-10.36 to 3.91, M = -2.82 (3.66)
Stress T1
14.96 (4.02)
11.77 (4.55)
5.85 to 23.14, M = 13.47 (4.51)
Stress T2
6.99 (4.62)
7.45 (4.69)
0.67 to 17.67, M = 7.21 (4.58)
Change in Stress
-8.12 (5.58)
Note: *p < .07, +p < .10; All other F<1.
-4.33 (4.63)
-18.00 to 3.64, M = -6.29 (5.42)
Change in Anger
Moderated Mediation. We also find evidence that the Signal Strength x Self-Belief
interaction on Embarrassment was mediated by Anxiety. We tested for moderated mediation
using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro with 5,000 bootstrapped samples. Model 8 was specified
36
with Y = embarrassment, X = loud signal, W = sexiness self-belief, and M = anxiety. The
indirect effect of the highest-order interaction (signal strength x sexiness self-belief) was
significant (β = .6726, SE = .2711, 95% CI = .1863, 1.2812), providing evidence of moderated
mediation. This result implies that both the direct and indirect effects are conditional on selfbelief concerning sexiness. The conditional indirect effect of signal strength on embarrassment
was significant at the mean (β = .5318, SE = .2723, 95% CI = .0548, 1.1094) and one SD above
the mean level of sexiness (β = 1.3358, SE = .4359, 95% CI = .5975, 2.2981).
Discussion
Study 2 provides compelling evidence that receiving a compliment on a loud signal
produces embarrassment regardless of the congruency between the signal and one’s self-beliefs.
In addition, receiving a compliment on a quiet signal produces embarrassment but only for those
who believe themselves to be low in sexiness, a self-belief that is incongruent with the identity
signal exhibited by all participants (VS’s Very Sexy perfume). As participants’ self-belief in
their own “sexiness” increased, embarrassment decreased. In other words, congruency between
the signal and self-belief moderated the effect.
The embarrassment that results from a compliment is mediated by anxiety, a typical
manifestation of public self-awareness. Both studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that compliments on
loud identity signals produce embarrassment, and study 2 offers evidence that public selfawareness (reflected here in reported anxiety) underlies this process. However, both of these
studies have their limitations. More specifically, the range of identities signaled (status and
sexiness) and the base of comparison (quiet signals) were constrained owing to the complex
logistics inherent in the interaction constructed for both studies. Perhaps most importantly, both
37
the field (study 1) and lab (study 2) studies involved compliments received from relative
strangers, making it unclear whether the resulting embarrassment was purely in response to a
compliment on the identity signal (as hypothesized) or some other aspect of the interaction. One
may argue interactions with strangers are generally more disconcerting and likely to produce
embarrassment in response to a compliment and therefore question the generalizability of our
results. However, it is important to point out that in both studies the effects obtained depended on
signal strength condition, and all conditions involved strangers.
Nevertheless, to address these potential limitations, studies 3 and 4 employ a new study
paradigm created to examine a broader range of self-selected aspects of one’s identity displayed
in a gender-neutral product category (clothing) commonly used in identity signaling. Most
importantly, in studies 3 and 4 we hold the loud identity signal constant while systematically
varying both the source of the compliment and the type of remark made (control conditions),
providing further evidence of the extent to which a consumers’ embarrassment can vary in
response to compliments per se.
STUDY 3: RECEIVING COMPLIMENTS FROM FRIENDS VS. STRANGERS
Study 3 was designed to address three specific objectives. First, we vary the source of the
feedback to the signaler to determine whether the same compliment received from friends (i.e.,
not strangers) would produce a similar emotional response. Second, we include two different
control conditions, allowing us to compare the emotional response to a compliment versus a less
flattering comment or an unrelated question. Third, our design allows us to identify an
individualized and idealized aspect of a respondent’s identity that is both important to them and
where they see a significant discrepancy between how they would ideally like to be perceived
38
and how they believe they are actually perceived. In addition, unlike our first two studies, our
sample includes men as well as women, further extending the generalizability of our findings.
Finally, we also provide additional process evidence by including an improved measure intended
to capture the nature and source of the resulting public self-awareness as well as embarrassment.
Method
Participants and Design. Two hundred and twenty-eight adults (44% male) ages 19 to
77 (M = 37.16, SD = 13.31) completed a 10-minute study using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(mTurk) and were compensated $0.50 for their time. Online sampling offers a number of
advantages, such as increased demographic diversity (Gosling et al. 2004), and recent evidence
supports the reliability of data obtained from mTurk samples in particular (Buhrmester, Kwang,
and Gosling, 2011). Study 3 consists of a 2 (Source: friend v. stranger) x 3 (Remark: compliment
v. comment v. unrelated question) between subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned
to one of the six conditions. For this study and the next, to better accommodate the diversity of
identities and their differential value, we developed technology that allowed individuals to
personally customize t-shirts (the signal) online.
Procedure. Participants were told that they would be completing a study on “Self-Identity
and Social Interaction” and would be asked some questions about their identity and then asked to
envision a social interaction. After logging into the study website, participants were given a list
of adjectives describing commonly valued aspects of one’s identity (athletic, smart, funny,
rugged, sexy, stylish, healthy, helpful, successful, rebellious, powerful, charming, and creative).
Participants were told the list contained aspects of one’s identity that may or may not be of
39
particular importance to them and were asked to rate how important each aspect was to them on
a 7-point scale (0=not at all important to me, 3=important to me, 6=very important to me). Next,
they were asked to choose an aspect of their identity from the list that “represents how you
would IDEALLY like to be seen but that is not reflective of how you ACTUALLY perceive
yourself at present. That is, please select an identity where there is a significant gap between
your ideal self and your actual self.” Participants selected the adjective using a dropdown menu,
and the chosen aspect of their identity was used in the identity signaling scenario that followed.
Signaling and Compliment Scenario. On the next screen, participants were presented
with an image of a navy blue t-shirt. Based on the participant’s idiosyncratic response, the t-shirt
was customized to incorporate the chosen aspect of the participant’s identity where there was a
significant gap between the ideal and the self-belief. This adjective was printed across the t-shirt
in large, all-capitalized white lettering constituting a loud signal. For example, if a participant
chose “smart,” the t-shirt had the word “SMART” printed across the front; if a participant had
chosen athletic, the t-shirt had the word “ATHLETIC” printed across the front (see figure 7).
FIGURE 7
Study 3: Identity Signaling T-Shirt Stimulus Example
40
Note all participants imagined wearing an equally loud identity signal; only the Source (friend or
stranger) and the type of Remark varied by condition. Directly below the image, participants
were presented with a visualization scenario in which both the source (friend v. stranger) and the
type of remark (compliment v. comment v. unrelated question) were manipulated. The remark
always included a question to insure the participant felt engaged in a dialogue. This was the case
for the compliment, the (signal unrelated) comment on the product, and the unrelated question.
Participants read the following scenario:
“Imagine that you are wearing the high thread count pima cotton
(considered a superior blend of cotton) t-shirt pictured above while out
shopping on a summer evening. While you are in one of the stores you
encounter a CLOSE FRIEND that knows you well [STRANGER that does
not know you well] who looks at you, smiles, and says ... “I like your shirt.
Is it new?” [“Is your shirt black or blue?” / “Do you know if it is still
light outside?”]
Feelings Inventory. Following the scenario, participants completed a “Your Thoughts
and Feelings” questionnaire containing a randomized list of focal and filler emotion items.
Participants completed multi-item measures for embarrassment (α = .90: embarrassed, awkward,
uncomfortable), pride (α = .83: proud, self-assured, confident), anxiety (α = .85: jittery, selfconscious, nervous), anger (α = .87: angry, grouchy, fed up), happiness (α = .84: happy, excited,
lively), sadness (α = .89: sad, gloomy), love (α = .89: loving, caring), contentment (α = .88:
content, calm), and tiredness (α = .76: tired, drowsy). For all items, their emotional response was
described in terms of “In that moment, I would feel…” on a 7-point scale (1=not at all, 7=very
much).
Self-Awareness Measures. Our measure of public self-awareness is reflected by the
public facet of Situational Self-Awareness scale (SSAS; Govern and Marsch 2001) that gauges
41
attentiveness to features of one’s self that are presented to others. For completeness, however, we
measured all three facets of situational self-awareness (public self-awareness, private selfawareness, and surroundings awareness). Using the prompt “At that moment, I would be…,”
respondents completed the following items for: (1) public self-awareness (“concerned about the
way I present myself,” “self-conscious about the way I look,” “concerned about what other
people think of me”), (2) private self-awareness (“conscious of my inner feelings,” “reflective
about my life,” “aware of my innermost thoughts”), and (3) surroundings awareness (“keenly
aware of everything in my environment,” “conscious of what is going on around me,” and
“conscious of all objects around me”) each on a 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly
agree).
Manipulation Checks and Demographics. Participants were asked to recall what the
person they had encountered said to them and rate their perceptions about the remark (i.e., what
was said) in terms of friendliness (1=not at all friendly, 7=very friendly), genuineness (1=not at
all genuine, 7=very genuine), and valence (1=very negative, 7=very positive). As an additional
check on the source manipulation, participants completed a single item measure of relational
closeness (Aron, Aron, and Smollan 1992). They also completed explicit measures asking “who
made the remark to you?” and “specifically, what did that person say to you?” Finally,
participants provided basic demographic information including age and gender.
Results
Preliminary analyses indicate participants did indeed choose a valued aspect of their
identity as reflected by the average importance rating (M = 5.01, SD = 1.81). Recall the scale
42
went from 0-to-6 with 3=important to me and 6=very important to me. Initial analyses also
indicated that our source and remark manipulations were successful. As expected, relational
closeness for friends (M = 3.38) was significantly higher than for strangers (M = 1.62; F(1, 226)
= 83.94, p < .0001). In addition, compliments were viewed as significantly more friendly (M =
5.72) than both comments (M = 4.96; F(1, 223) = 9.74, p < .002) and unrelated questions (M =
4.87; F(1, 223) = 11.99, p < .0006). Compliments were also viewed as more positive (M = 5.50)
than comments (M = 4.46; F(1, 223) = 23.12, p < .0001) or unrelated questions (M = 4.34; F(1,
223) = 28.09, p < .0001). Compliments were perceived as equally genuine (M = 5.24) as
comments (M = 5.00; F(1, 223) = 0.83, p < .36) and marginally more genuine than unrelated
questions (M = 4.76; F(1, 223) = 3.25, p < .07).
A model predicting Embarrassment was estimated using Source, Remark, and the Source
by Remark interaction as predictor variables. This revealed only a main effect for Remark (F(2,
222) = 5.29, p < .006); yet neither the effect of Source (F(1, 222) = 2.55, p < .11) or the Sourceby-Remark interaction (F<1) were significant. Planned contrasts indicate compliments produced
significantly more embarrassment (M = 3.42) than either comments (M = 2.54; F(1, 222) =
10.50, p < .001) or unrelated questions (M = 2.89; F(1, 222) = 3.71, p < .05); comments and
unrelated questions did not differ from each other (F(1, 222) = 1.72, p < .19). This supports our
conceptualization in that it is compliments per se that elicit these effects, whereas identical social
interactions involving other feedback (comments and unrelated questions) do not.
We also estimated the same model for anxiety, pride, and happiness. Analyses for Anxiety
again revealed only a main effect for Remark (F(2, 222) = 3.99, p < .02); neither the effect for
Source nor the Source-by-Remark interaction were significant (Fs<1). Compliments produced
significantly more Anxiety (M = 3.32) than comments (M = 2.60; F(1, 222) = 7.29, p < .007) or
43
unrelated questions (M = 2.74; F(1, 222) = 4.50, p < .03), which did not differ from each other
(F<1). This is consistent with our conceptualization and the role of public self-awareness.
Analyses for Pride again revealed only a main effect for Remark (F(2, 222) = 3.06, p <
.05); neither the main effect for Source nor the Source-by-Remark interaction were significant
(Fs<1). Compliments produced significantly more pride (M = 3.90) than either comments (M =
3.33; F(1, 222) = 5.17, p < .02) or unrelated questions (M = 3.39; F(1, 222) = 4.08, p < .04),
which did not differ from each other (F<1). It is important to point out that similarly selfconscious emotions such as pride and embarrassment can and often do co-occur and that
compliment recipients can feel both embarrassed and proud simultaneously.
Analyses for Happiness revealed a main effect for Remark (F(2, 222) = 3.34, p < .04)
such that happiness was higher in the compliment condition (M = 3.87) than the unrelated
question condition (M = 3.25; F(1, 222) = 6.25, p < .01) but not higher than in the comment
condition (M = 3.41; F<1). No such differences were found for any of the other emotions
assessed in this study: anger, sadness, contentment, tiredness, or love (all Fs<1.12, p > .33).
Self-Awareness Measures. Analyses for public self-awareness revealed only a main
effect for Remark (F(2, 222) = 4.77, p < .009); neither the effect of Source nor the Remark-bySource interaction was significant (both F<1). Compliments produced significantly higher levels
of public self-awareness (M = 4.76) than both comments (M = 4.10; F(1, 222) = 5.73, p < .02)
and unrelated questions (M = 3.94; F(1, 222) = 8.48, p < .004), which did not differ from each
other (F<1). Analyses for private self-awareness revealed an effect for source (F(1, 222) = 6.30,
p < .01), such that remarks from friends produced higher levels of private self-awareness (M =
4.73) than strangers (M = 4.22); no other effects were significant (Fs<1). Additionally, no
differences in surroundings awareness were found for source, remark, or their interaction (all
44
Fs<1.27).
Mediation. We tested for mediation using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro Model 4 with
5,000 bootstrapped samples. To test mediation involving a three-group independent variable
(Hayes 2013, p. 196), we constructed two dummy variables, X1 and X2, representing the
comment and unrelated question conditions respectively. Because there were three groups, there
are two indirect effects: 1) the indirect effect of comment vs. compliment on embarrassment
through public self-awareness and 2) the indirect effect of unrelated question vs. compliment on
embarrassment through public self-awareness. As outlined by Hayes (2013), running PROCESS
twice, once with X1 as the IV and X2 as a covariate and once with X2 as the IV and X1 as the
covariate, allows one to recover each indirect effect. The indirect effect of comment vs.
compliment was β = -.4039 (SE = .1658) with a 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence
interval that excluded 0 (95% CI [-.7284, -.0881]). The indirect effect of unrelated question vs.
compliment was β = -.5003 (SE = .1748) with a 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence
interval that excluded 0 (95% CI [-.8592, -.1704]), supporting our hypothesis. The positive
indirect effect of a compliment relative to both a comment and an unrelated question provides
evidence that the mediational path predicting embarrassment from a compliment is explained by
increasing one’s public self-awareness.
Discussion
Study 3 provides additional evidence supporting the assertion that compliments on loud
identity signals result in embarrassment above that of merely interacting with someone unknown
(i.e., a stranger) and above that of drawing attention to a non-identity relevant aspect of the
product (i.e., being asked about a characteristic—in this case, color—of the shirt). Feelings of
45
embarrassment increased in response to a compliment regardless of whether it came from a
stranger or a close friend. Notably, neither the main effect for Source nor the Remark-by-Source
interaction was significant for any of the dependent measures. Study 3 also offers further
evidence of public self-awareness as the underlying mechanism illustrating how it is critical to
explaining the emotional response—embarrassment—that results in response to the compliment.
Worth reiterating here is that participants who received compliments reported
experiencing both greater embarrassment and pride (i.e., a mixture of negative and positive selfconscious emotions). This result is consistent with findings from study 2 whereby loud signalers
who received a compliment also reported experiencing elevated levels of both embarrassment
and pride. These results are also consistent with the notion that individuals’ emotional reactions
to compliments are neither universally positive nor universally negative but rather are
emotionally rich, complex, and perhaps mixed as in these studies.
STUDY 4: COMPLIMENTS ON IDENTITY SIGNALS VS. OTHER ASPECTS OF SELF
Study 3 demonstrated how a compliment on a loud identity signal causes more
embarrassment than either a comment or unrelated question. Building on this finding, study 4
tests an important boundary condition. Specifically, study 4 was designed to determine: 1)
whether receiving a more explicit identity-related compliment (i.e., explicitly calling out the
identity signal—product or brand—per se) would cause greater embarrassment and 2) whether
receiving any appearance-related compliment (i.e., about the person rather than the product)
could result in similar levels of embarrassment.
Method
46
Participants, Design, and Procedure. One hundred and fifty three adults (51.3% male)
ages 18 to 65 (M = 35.22, SD = 11.79) completed a 10-minute study online. Study 4 was a
single-factor, between-subjects design employing four different types of compliments (person/
product/ identity-explicit product/ control). The set-up and procedure were identical to that of
study 3 with the exception of the wording of the compliment. Participants completed the same
identity ratings and identity selection task but were then randomly assigned to one of four
compliment conditions. In the person condition, the compliment was made about an aspect of the
person (i.e., a new haircut). In the product condition, the compliment was made about the shirt
(“your shirt”). In the identity-explicit condition, the compliment explicitly referred to the selfselected aspect of that person’s identity, collected the same way as in study 3 (e.g., “your smart
shirt”). In the control condition, the remark made was about the light outside, just as in study 3.
Identity Signal and Compliment Scenario. In conjunction with an image of the t-shirt
displayed, participants read the following scenario:
“Imagine that you recently had your hair cut and are wearing the high thread count pima
cotton (considered a superior blend of cotton) t-shirt pictured above while out shopping
on a summer evening. While you are in one of the stores you encounter a stranger that
does not know you who looks at you, smiles, and says... “I really like your haircut. Is it
new?” [“I really like your shirt. Is it new?” / “I really like your [identity piped] shirt. Is
it new?”/ “Do you know if it is still light outside?”]
Participants then completed the same feelings inventory, self-awareness measures, manipulation
checks, and demographics measures as in study 3.
Results
Preliminary analyses indicated that participants again chose valued identities as reflected
47
by importance rating of the identity chosen (M = 5.43, SD = 1.62). Initial analyses indicated that
the complimentary remark manipulation was successful. All remarks were viewed as friendly (all
M > 5.21), genuine (all M > 5.03), and positive (all M > 4.36) such that all conditions were well
above scale midpoints (see table 7 for details).
TABLE 7
Study 4: Manipulation Checks on Compliment Received
Measure
Person
Product
Unrelated
Question
Mean
Test statistic
Mean
Identified
product
Mean
Mean
Friendliness
6.34b
5.68a,b
5.90a,b
5.21a
F=5.16, p < .002
Genuineness
6.03b
5.41a
5.23a
5.03a
F=3.39, p < .02
Valence
6.32c
5.57b
5.59b
4.36a
F=14.35, p < .0001
F(3,149)
Note: Means within the same row with different superscripts (a, b, c) differ at p < .05.
Notably, no significant differences were found between the product and identity-explicit product
conditions for any manipulation checks, emotion measures, or self-awareness measures; thus, we
collapsed across the product and identified product conditions for parsimony in reporting the
results from the remaining analyses. We note that the results are substantively the same when
each condition is compared separately.
A model predicting Embarrassment (α = .92) was estimated using the remaining three
compliment types as conditions. Independent contrasts indicate that product compliments
produce marginally more embarrassment (M = 3.37) than person compliments (M = 2.82; F(1,
150) = 2.57, p < .10) and significantly more embarrassment than unrelated questions (M = 2.33;
F(1, 150) = 9.11, p < .003). We estimated the same model for anxiety (α = .88), pride (α = .86)
and happiness (α = .80). Contrasts indicate that product compliments also produced marginally
48
more Anxiety (M = 3.28) than person compliments (M = 2.71; F(1, 150) = 2.96, p < .08) and
significantly more anxiety than unrelated questions (M = 2.51; F(1, 150) = 5.45, p < .02).
Somewhat interestingly, product compliments produced significantly less Pride (M = 4.08) than
person compliments (M = 5.17; F(1, 150) = 12.53, p < .01) but the same amount of pride as
unrelated questions (M = 3.97; F<1). Finally, product compliments produced significantly less
Happiness (M = 3.92) than person compliments (M = 4.83; F(1, 150) = 10.86, p < .001), but the
same amount of happiness as unrelated questions (M = 3.88; F<1).
Self-Awareness Measures. Analyses for public self-awareness revealed a marginally
significant effect for the type of compliment (F(2, 150) = 2.83, p < .06). Both compliments on
products (M = 4.70) and the person produced similar levels of public self-awareness (M = 4.32;
F(1, 150) = 1.36, p < .24); however, product compliments produced significantly more public
self-awareness than unrelated questions (M = 3.93; F(1, 150) = 5.50, p < .02). Analyses for
private self-awareness revealed no significant differences (F(2, 150) = 1.16, p < .32). Finally,
analyses for surroundings awareness revealed a significant effect for remark (F(2, 150) = 3.14, p
< .05) whereby product compliments produced marginally less surroundings awareness (M =
4.48) than person compliments (M = 4.95; F(1, 150) = 3.17, p < .08) and unrelated questions (M
= 5.07; F(1, 150) = 5.12, p < .03).
Mediation. We tested for mediation using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro Model 4 with
5,000 bootstrapped samples. To test mediation of a three-group independent variable (Hayes
2013, p. 196), we constructed two dummy variables, X1 and X2, representing the unrelated
question and person compliment conditions respectively. Because we examined three groups,
49
there are two indirect effects: 1) the indirect effect of unrelated question vs. product compliment
on embarrassment through public self-awareness and 2) the indirect effect of person compliment
vs. product compliment on embarrassment through public self-awareness. The indirect effect of
unrelated question vs. product compliment was β = -.2960 (SE = .1404) with a 95% biascorrected bootstrapped confidence interval that excluded 0 (95% CI [-.6360, -.0731]). The
indirect effect of person compliment vs. product compliment was β = -.1483 (SE = .1375) with a
95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval that included 0 (95% CI [-.4562, .0917]).
These findings provide some additional evidence that the mediational path predicting
embarrassment from a product-related compliment is explained by public self-awareness.
Discussion
Study 4 provides converging evidence that receiving a compliment on an identitysignaling product (i.e., a product-related compliment) produces greater embarrassment. This
embarrassment ensues even when the compliments are perceived as friendly, genuine, and
positive. Study 4 also suggests that product-related compliments—for products linked to
signaling aspects of one’s identity—produce a similar emotional response (i.e., roughly
equivalent levels of embarrassment, anxiety, pride, and happiness). The resulting embarrassment
and anxiety generated by product compliments tended to be higher (although not necessarily
achieving traditional levels of statistical significance) than compliments related to one’s personal
appearance (person compliments) such as a compliment on one’s haircut. Study 4 also provides
some additional evidence supporting the notion that compliments produce embarrassment
through heightened public self-awareness.
50
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This research examines what occurs when a signaler receives feedback on his or her
identity signal, exploring the dynamic process of signaling with real brands and real behavior
within dyadic interactions. We document a distinct and arguably unforeseen consequence of
identity signaling—consumer embarrassment. We investigate the role of signal strength and
show how consumers who display loud signals, implying they are seeking attention for their
signal, become more embarrassed when others pay them a compliment on the signal. We also
show how the signaler’s self-belief, particularly any incongruence between an ideal and the
signaler’s self-belief, influences his or her emotional response to a compliment. The results
consistently show that signalers are more likely to feel embarrassed when: (1) their signal is loud
(versus quiet) and (2) when a signal is quiet but the signaler’s self-belief is incongruent with the
signal.
While previous research has focused on consumer behavior involving either the signal
being sent or the impressions that signal made on recipients, this research differs from past work
by viewing identity signaling as a two-way interactive process and investigating how the nature
of feedback from the signal recipient impacts the signaler’s emotional response. More
specifically, this work focuses on how the signaler responds when a recipient notices the signal
and positively acknowledges it with a compliment. We show that the signaler’s emotional
reaction is explained by heightened public self-awareness (i.e., concern about how he or she
might appear to the compliment giver and how to reply). Such concerns about others’ evaluation
depend on the signaler’s signal choice regarding the strength of the signal as well as the
individual’s perceptions regarding the congruency of the signal with his or her self-beliefs.
Furthermore, by documenting embarrassment as a consequence of impression
management efforts—and more specifically identity signaling—we link the growing body of
51
work on identity signaling with the literature on self-conscious emotions. While previous
research on identity signaling has focused on cognitive aspects of the phenomenon, our research
begins to explore an important emotional consequence of identity signaling. People often expect
and desire others’ attention for their signals, particularly when the signals express their desired
identities. Previous research has focused on undesired social attention as the causes of blushing
and embarrassment (Leary et al. 1992). However, the current research demonstrates how people
also can feel embarrassed when they receive the attention they seemingly desire.
These findings are thought-provoking in light of the prevalence of conspicuously branded
goods in the marketplace that are clearly intended to facilitate consumer signaling. Evidence of
larger brand marks on products ranging from consumer packaged goods (e.g., Coke) to handbags
and automobiles (e.g., Gucci and Mercedes) are indicative of a more general trend toward louder
signal offerings. Over time, both the size of these logos and emblems as well as the amount of
brand ornamentation on products appears to have increased markedly. Further, blatantly
conspicuous consumption (usage of loud signals) does not appear to diminish even during a
recession, when others (potential signal recipients) are suffering financially and might be
expected to become resentful (Nunes, Drèze, and Han 2011). Perhaps somewhat ironically,
increased usage of conspicuously branded products makes it more likely that these loud signals
will be noticed and thus more likely that consumers will become embarrassed.
One might ask why people purchase and display conspicuously branded products in the
first place if many are going to feel embarrassed. Previous research has shown that people use
products and brands for symbolic self-presentation (Escalas and Bettman 2003, 2005; Kleine,
Kleine, and Kernan 1993; Belk 1988) and to associate or dissociate themselves from others (Han
et al. 2010). First, people may expect others to see the signal but not mention it. Second, it is
52
possible that people could expect to feel embarrassed when others acknowledge the signal, but
even so, they may still choose loud signals over quiet signals when they think the benefits of
sporting conspicuously branded goods outweigh the psychosocial costs of experiencing
embarrassment. This is not unheard of; Lau-Gesk and Drolet (2008) show that consumers may
be willing to suffer the embarrassment that comes from purchasing certain products when the
products can prevent other negative experiences.
In this research, we offer four studies that provide compelling evidence of the effect of
signal strength on consumer embarrassment. Study 1 demonstrates the effect of loud vs. quiet
signals in a natural field study involving self-chosen signals. Study 2 identifies public selfawareness (as reflected by anxiety) as a key mechanism explaining the relationship between
identity signals and embarrassment. Study 3 provides additional evidence for the public selfawareness mechanism as well as further distinguishes the effect of compliments from other types
of feedback (i.e., product related remark, unrelated question). Study 4 further demonstrates the
robustness of the effect by comparing more vs. less explicit identity signal-related compliments
and distinguishes the effect of identity signal-related compliments from other types of
compliments unrelated to an identity signal (e.g., one’s haircut).
The main effect of signal strength found in study 1 could be due to the fact that
consumers with discrepancies between their ideal and actual self tend to prefer loud signals,
perhaps in an effort to compensate for their insecurities about those identities. As a consequence,
the distribution of consumers would be skewed toward consumers whose signal is not consistent
with their self-beliefs and who use loud signals on one hand versus consumers with consistent
self-beliefs and quiet signals on the other hand. The results from an additional pilot study (not
reported here) indicate people who have larger differences between their actual and ideal selves
53
are more likely to favor louder products in terms of brand prominence. Further, the proposed
explanation for why we observe such a strong main effect in study 1 is consistent with work by
Braun and Wicklund (1989) who find that people who feel inadequate in a self-identified domain
tend to acquire materialistic displays of their identity. For example, beginners in tennis were
more likely to wear branded clothing than were expert players who were presumably more selfconfident. It is likely that many consumers who do not believe they possess a particular
characteristic prefer to use loudly-branded goods to bolster themselves or perhaps simply pose as
something they are not. To more fully understand how self-beliefs and signal strength interact,
we investigated these factors as orthogonal factors in study 2.
Limitations and Future Research
This research has limitations that highlight opportunities for future research. As
mentioned earlier, as a follow-up to study 1 we ran an additional version of the field study in
which we relied on the same interview procedure except for one key difference. The researcher
carried either a very loud or very quiet Louis Vuitton purse in terms of signal strength, or a “no
name” brand handbag, constituting Signal Similarity (see figure 1). We observed that a
compliment from someone who signals in the same way (i.e., loudly) leads to less
embarrassment as compared to a compliment from someone who signals quietly or not at all.
This result is consistent with prior work suggesting people expect more favorable evaluations
from similar others (Byrne and Clore 1967). Given that embarrassment is caused by an acute
concern for self-presentation, the intimacy or relational closeness between the signaler and the
compliment giver would be expected to affect the signalers’ emotional response (Keltner and
Buswell 1996; MacDonald and Davies 1983). And yet we find no such difference in reported
54
embarrassment in response to compliments received from close friends (presumably more
similar) versus strangers (study 3). Future work examining in more detail which attributes (e.g.,
familiarity, social status) of a signal recipient who provides feedback impact the signaler’s
concerns about others’ evaluations is warranted.
Our research documents the mediating role of public self-awareness in inducing
embarrassment. Additional work could help us understand what exactly loud signalers are
concerned about with regard to others’ evaluations. Signalers may be concerned recipients are
perceiving them, due to the strength of their signal, as signaling something about their identity
that is not accurate or presenting themselves as something that they are not. But they may also be
concerned about being perceived as trying too hard to impress others through consumption. At
present, we are agnostic about what exact inferences are being made by the signaler, but we
believe this latter explanation for embarrassment warrants further study.
The symbolic use of brands is robust across cultures (Aaker 1997). However, the nature
of the symbolic use and responses to others’ acknowledgment might differ across cultures. Aaker
and Schmit (2001) show individuals with an independent self tend to self-express by
demonstrating their points of differentiation while those with an interdependent self tend to selfexpress by demonstrating points of similarity. Further, Singelis and Sharkey (1995) find that
strength of independent self-construal is negatively correlated with embarrassability. The
interaction between the differences in motives of self-expressive behavior and embarrassability
across cultures offers additional opportunities for future research.
In this research, we focused on compliments and, as points of comparison, generally
positive or natural verbal acknowledgments. However, there are other forms of feedback, such as
an extended gaze or overt criticism, that we do not study. In the present research, we identified
55
the conditions whereby a compliment leads to concerns about social evaluation. A gaze is less
likely to lead to further interaction with the signal recipient, and concerns about others’
evaluation might be less intense with others simply staring at their signal. This may very well be
what loud signalers desire. Future work could examine how signalers respond to different forms
of acknowledgement that are less interactive and perhaps less emotionally intense.
In study 1, we eliminated respondents who were carrying a counterfeit handbag.
However, researchers could also examine how signalers with counterfeit goods would respond to
others’ acknowledgment. Wilcox, Kim, and Sen (2009) show that consumers’ moral beliefs
about counterfeit consumption affect counterfeit brand preferences, particularly when their
luxury brand attitudes serve a value-expressive function. Additionally, Gino, Norton, and Ariely
(2010) show that wearing counterfeit goods causes people to be something that they are not and
behave unethically. Therefore, consumers may experience more negative cognitive and
emotional consequences of such behavior when using counterfeit brand signals. However,
further research is needed to fully understand the emotional consequences of using counterfeit
goods as an identity signal and how these signalers would respond to acknowledgments.
Managerial Implications
What consumers experience while using branded products as a signal is not only of
interest from a theoretical perspective but also from the practitioner standpoint. As consumers,
we constantly use products and brands hoping to achieve the image we desire through signaling.
Managers should remember that people can be very sensitive to others’ reactions when they use
conspicuously branded products to express their desired self-image. This can apply to a retail
store context that involves interactions between consumers and salespeople. Consumers who use
56
loud items to express their desired identities may be more comfortable when salespeople are
wearing similarly loud and conspicuously branded items. This may be particularly relevant
within the context of luxury goods stores, especially when one considers some consumers feel
intimidated in luxury stores due to the notion that such stores and salespeople have a cold and
judgmental disposition (Okonkwo 2007; Ward and Dahl 2015). If salespeople at the store are
also wearing loud items, this could suggest the signal is entirely appropriate and may reduce
consumers’ concerns about how they are being perceived with their choice of branded product.
If consumers feel embarrassed when using brand signals, it might damage their
attachment to a brand and make them wonder whether the purchase was a good choice.
Consumers might be able to overcome the embarrassment themselves, but marketers may be able
to help, too. For example, they could run ad campaigns to help reduce concerns about others’
judgment (e.g., advising them to expect compliments and directing them in how to respond).
Brand prominence, or how prominently a brand is displayed on a product, has been left to the
designers as opposed to the marketers who are actually managing the brand. However, the
findings of this research suggest that brand prominence as a form of signal strength should be
used strategically and actively managed by marketers and should be considered when making
advertising and other communication decisions. In doing so, marketers are likely to be more
effective in managing consumers’ emotional responses related to their brands.
57
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research,
34 (3), 347-56.
Aaker, Jennifer L. and Bernd Schmitt (2001), “Culture-dependent Assimilation and
Differentiation of the Self: Preferences for Consumption Symbols in the United States
and China,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (5), 561-76.
Adler, J. Michael (2009), “Detecting Deceptive Responses in Sex Offenders: A Comparison of
Layered Voice Analysis (LVA) and the Polygraph,” working paper, Counseling and
Consultation Services, Inc. Limestone, TN.
Aron, Arthur., Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan (1992), “Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale
and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 596-612.
Barrett, Karen Caplovitz (2005), “The Origins of Social Emotions and Self-regulation in
Toddlerhood: New Evidence,” Cognition and Emotion, 19(7), 953-979.
Belk, Russell (1988) “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15
(2), 139-68.
Belk, Russell, Kenneth D. Bahn, and Robert N. Mayer (1982), “Developmental Recognition of
Consumption Symbolism,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 4-17.
Bellezza, Silvia, Francesca Gino, and Anat Keinan (2014), “The Red Sneakers Effect: Inferring
Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity,” Journal of Consumer Research,
41(1), June, 35–54.
Berger, Jonah (2008), “Who Drives Divergence? Identity-Signaling, Outgroup Dissimilarity, and
the Abandonment of Cultural Tastes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
95(3), 593-607.
Braun, Ottmar L. and Robert A. Wicklund (1989), “Psychological Antecedents of Conspicuous
Consumption,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 10 (2), 161-87.
Breines, Juliana G., Jennifer Crocker and Julie A. Garcia, (2008), Self-objectification and Wellbeing in Women’s Daily Lives,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 583598.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1978), Universals in Language Usage: Politeness
Phenomena. Question and Politeness, ed. by Esther N. Goody. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Buhrmester, Michael D., Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling (2011) “Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?” Perspectives on
58
Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
Burroughs, W. Jeffrey, David R. Drews, and William K. Hallman (1991), “Predicting
Personality from Personal Possessions: A Self-Presentational Analysis,” Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 147-63.
Busenitz, Lowell W., James O. Fiet, and Douglas D. Moesel, (2005), “Signaling in Venture
Capitalist – New Venture Team Funding Decisions: Does It Indicate Long-Term Venture
Outcomes? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 249-265.
Buss, Arnold H. (1980), Self-consciousness and Social Anxiety, San Francisco: Freeman.
Byrne, Donn and Gerald L. Clore (1967), “Effectance Arousal and Attraction,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 6 (4), 1-18.
Connelly, Brian L., S. Trevis Certo, R. Duane Ireland, and Christopher R. Reutzel (2011),
“Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment,” Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67.
Crocker, Jennifer, Ria K. Luhtanen, M. Lynn Cooper and Alexandra Bouvrette, A. (2003),
“Contingencies of Self-worth in College Students: Theory and Measurement,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894-908.
Cupach, William R. (1992), “The Effects of Type Of Predicament and Embarrassability on
Remedial Responses to Embarrassing Situations,” Communication Quarterly, 40, 149161.
——— (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dahl, Darren W., Rajesh V. Manchanda, and Jennifer J. Argo (2001), “Embarrassment in
Consumer Purchase: The Roles of Social Presence and Purchase Familiarity,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 28 (3), 473–81.
Damphousse, Kelly R., Laura Pointon, Deidra Upchurch, and Rebecca K. Moore (2007),
“Assessing the Validity of Voice Stress Analysis Tools in a Jail Setting,” Final Report to
the United States Department of Justice.
Dubois, David, Derek D. Rucker, and Adam D. Galinsky (2012), “Super Size Me: Product Size
as a Signal of Status,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1047-1062.
Durcikova, Alexandra, and Peter Gray (2009), “How Knowledge Validation Affects Knowledge
Contribution,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 25 (4), 81-107.
Edelmann, Robert J. (1985a), “Individual Differences in Embarrassment: Self-consciousness,
Self-monitoring and Embarrassability,” Personality and Individual Differences, 6 (2),
223-30.
59
——— (1985b), “Social Embarrassment: An Analysis of the Process,” Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 2(2), 195-213.
Edelmann, Robert J., and Sarah E. Hampson (1981), “Embarrassment in Dyadic Interaction,”
Social Behavior and Personality, 9(2), 171-177.
Ekman, Paul, R.J. Davidson, and W.V. Friesen (1990), “The Duchenne Smile: Emotional
Expression and Brain Physiology II, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58(2), 342-353.
Escalas, Jennifer E. and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The Influence of
Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13(3), 339-48.
——— (2004), “Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to Brands,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 14(1 & 2), 168-179.
——— (2005), Self-construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning. Journal of Consumer
Research 32, (3), 378-389.
Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier and Arnold H. Buss (1975), “Public and Private SelfConsciousness: Assessment and Theory,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 43(4), 522-527.
Ferraro, Rosellina, Amna Kirmani and Ted Matherly (2013) “Look at Me! Look at Me!
Conspicuous Brand Usage, Self-Brand Connection, and Dilution,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 50 (4), 477-488.
Fisher, Robert J. (1993), “Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (2), 303-15.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373.
Francis, Leslie J., Laurence B. Brown and Ronald P. Philipchalk (1992), “The Development of
an Abbreviated Form of the Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A): Its
Use Among Students in England, Canada, the USA and Australia,” Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 443-449
Gino, Francesca, Michael I. Norton, and Dan Ariely (2010), “The Counterfeit Self: The
Deceptive Costs of Faking It,” Psychological Science, 21(5), 712–20.
Goffman, Erving (1955), “On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social
interaction,” Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18, : 213-231
——— (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Doubleday.
60
Gosling, Samuel D., Peter J. Rentfrow, and William B. Swann Jr. (2003), “A Very Brief
Measure of the Big-Five personality Domains,” Journal of Research in Personality, 37,
504–528.
———, Simine Vazire, Sanjay Srivasta and Oliver P. John (2004), “Should We Trust WebBased Studies? A Comparative Analysis of Six Preconceptions About Internet
Questionnaires,” American Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104.
Govern, John M. and Lisa A. Marsch (2001), “Development and Validation of the Situational
Self-Awareness Scale,” Consciousness and Cognition, 10, 366-378.
Han, Young Jee, Joseph C. Nunes, and Xavier Drèze (2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury
Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,” Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15-30.
Hattie, John (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press
Heatherton, Todd F. and Janet Polivy (1991), “Development and Validation of a Scale for
Measuring State Self-esteem,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895–
910.
Holmes, Janet (1986), “Compliments and Compliment Responses in New Zealand English,”
Anthropological Linguistics, 28 (4), 485-508.
Jones, Edward E. and Thane S. Pittman (1982), “Toward a General Theory of Strategic Selfpresentation,” in J. Suls (ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 231-261, Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Keltner, Dacher and Brenda N. Buswell (1996), “Evidence for the Distinctness of
Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt: A Study of Recalled Antecedents and Facial
Expressions of Emotion,” Cognition and Emotion, 10(2), 155-71.
——— (1997), “Embarrassment: Its Distinct Form and Appeasement Functions,” Psychological
Bulletin, 122, 250-270.k
Kleine, Susan Schultz, Robert E. Kleine III, and Chris T. Allen. 1995. “How is a possession ‘me’
or ‘not me’? Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession
Attachment,” Journal of Consumer Research 22, (3): 327-343,
Kleine, Robert E., III, Susan Schultz Kleine, and Jerome B. Kernan (1993), “Mundane
Consumption and the Self: A Social-Identity Perspective,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 2 (3), 209-35.
61
Krishna, Aradhna, Kelly B. Herd, and Nilufer Z. Aydinoglu (2015), “Wetting the Bed at Twentyone: Embarrassment as a Private Emotion,” forthcoming, Journal of Consumer
Psychology.
Lau-Gesk, Loraine and Aimee Drolet (2008), “The Publicly Self-Consciousness Consumer:
Prepared to Be Embarrassed,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (2), 127-136.
Leary, Mark R. (1983), “Social Anxiousness: The Construct and Its Measurement,” Journal of
Personality Assessment, 47(1), 66-75.
Leary, Mark R., Thomas W. Britt, William D. Cutlip II, and Janice L. Templeton (1992), “Social
Blushing, “ Psychological Bulletin, 112 (3), 446-60.
MacDonald, Linda M. and Martin. F. Davies (1983). “Effects of Being Observed by a Friend or
Stranger on Felt Embarrassment and Attributions of Embarrassment,” Journal of
Psychology, 113 (2), 171–74.
Mayew, William J. and Mohan Venkatachalam (2011), “The Power of Voice: Managerial
Affective States and Future Firm Performance,” Journal of Finance, forthcoming.
McClelland, Gary and Charles M. Judd (1993), “Statistical Difficulties of Detecting Interactions
and Moderator Effects,” Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–90.
McCracken, Grant (1989), “Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the
Endorsement Process,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 310-321.
Mead, Nicole L., Roy F. Baumeister, Tyler F. Stillman, Catherine D. Rawn, and Kathleen D.
Vohs (2011), “Social Exclusion Causes People to Spend and Consume Strategically in
the Service of Affiliation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (February), 902–19.
Miller, Rowland S. (1995), “On the Nature of Embarrassability: Shyness, Social-evaluation, and
Social Skill,” Journal of Personality, 63 (2), 315–39.
Mirror.co.uk (2010) “Jennifer Metcalfe: ‘Don't call me sexy – it’s embarrassing,’” Celebrity
News, August 1, accessed on August 13, 2014 at http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebritynews/jennifer-metcalfe-dont-call-me-sexy-238057
Modigliani, Andre (1968), “Embarrassment and Embarrassability,” Sociometry, 31 (3), 313-26.
——— (1971), “Embarrassment, Facework, and Eye Contact: Testing a Theory of
Embarrassment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17 (1), 15-24.
Nunes, Joseph C., Xavier Drèze, and Yan Jee Han (2011), “Conspicuous Consumption in a
Recession: Toning it Down or Turning it Up,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2),
199-206.
62
Okonkwo, Uché (2007), Luxury Fashion Branding, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Parrott, W. Gerrod and Stefanie F. Smith (1991), “Embarrassment: Actual vs. Typical Cases,
Classical vs. Prototypical Representations,” Cognition and Emotion, 5 (5&6), 467-88.
Pomerantz, Anita. (1978), “Compliment Responses. Notes on the Cooperation of Multiple
Constraints. In Jim Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the Organisation of Conversational
Interaction (pp. 79-112). New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press.
Richins, Marsha L. (1994a), “Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Possessions,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 504-21.
——— (1994b), “Special Possessions and the Expression of Material Values,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 21(3), 522-33.
Rosenfeld, Paul, Robert A. Giacalone, and Catherine A. Riordan (1995), Impression
Management in Organizations: Theory, Measurement, and Practice, New York:
Routledge.
Sabini, John, Michael Siepmann, Julia Stein and M Meyerowitz, M. (2000), “Who is
Embarrassed by What?” Cognition and Emotion, 14, 213–240.
Scheier, Michael F. and Charles S. Carver (1985), “Optimism, Coping, and Health: Assessment
and Implications of Generalized Outcome Expectancies,” Health Psychology, 4(3), 219247.
Schlenker, Barry R. (1980), Impression Management: The Self-concept, Social Identity and
Inter-personal Relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schlenker, Barry R. and Mark R. Leary (1982), “Social Anxiety and Self-Presentation: A
Conceptualization and Model,” Psychological Bulletin, 92 (3), 641-69.
Shalev, Edith and Vicki G. Morwitz (2012), "Influence via Comparison-Driven Self Evaluation
and Restoration: The Case of the Low-Status Influencer," Journal of Consumer Research,
38 (5), 964-980.
Singelis, Theodore M., and William F. Sharkey (1995), “Culture, Self-construal, and
Embarrassability,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 622-644.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in Consumer Behaviour: A Critical Review,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 9(3), 287-300.
Stillman, Tyler F., Roy Baumeister, Nathaniel Lambert, Will Crescioni, Nathan DeWall, and
Frank Fincham (2009), “Alone and Without Purpose: Life Loses Meaning Following
Social Exclusion,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 686–94
Tangney, June P., Rowland S. Miller, Laura Flicker, and Deborah H. Barlow (1996), “Are
63
Shame, Guilt and Embarrassment Distinct Emotions?” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70 (6), 1256-269.
Tashakkori, Abbas and Charles Teddlie (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research (eds.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tracy, Jessica L., and Richard W. Robins (2004), “Putting the Self into Self-conscious Emotions:
A Theoretical Model,” Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103-25.
Wang, Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014), “Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and
Rivals: Women's Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 40(5), 834-854.
Ward, Morgan K., and Darren W. Dahl (2015), “Should the Devil Sell Prada? Retail Rejection
Increases Aspiring Consumers’ Desire for the Brand,” Journal of Consumer Research.
Wilcox, Keith, Hyeong Min Kim, and Sankar Sen (2009), “Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit
Luxury Brands?” Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247-59.
64
WEB APPENDIX
Pilot Study: Compliment Validation
Because the participants in the main study were unaware that the male student who
complimented them was a confederate, we could not ask them about their perceptions of him and
his statement. However, in an effort to ensure the consistency of how the compliment was
delivered across the two hired male confederates, we recorded sessions each day. We later used
these videos in a separate pilot study to further assess the perceived attractiveness of the male
student confederates and the perceived genuineness of the compliments they delivered.
Participants and design. One hundred and eighty female participants (M age = 32.6, SD
= 11.1) were asked to view these recorded sample sessions in an online pilot study. Each female
was randomly assigned to view one of eight video clips in a 2 signal condition (loud/ quiet) x 2
actor (actor 1/ actor 2) x 2 session sample (sample 1/ sample 2) with the expectation that we
would collapse across the session sample factor. Participants were told that they would watch a
short video clip of a social interaction and answer a series of questions about it. They read the
following instruction: “We are interested in your reactions to what you see and hear, particularly
what you hear the male student say. Please answer the questions to the best of your ability.”
Each video clip lasted approximately 90 seconds, and it consisted of the female VS associate
showing the participant to her computer and then leaving the room followed by the male
confederate complimenting the female student and her response.
Measures. After viewing the video, participants were asked to evaluate the statement
made by the male student. Specifically they were asked to indicate the extent to which the
statement made was positive, negative, genuine, and a compliment on a 5-point scale (1=not at
all, 5=very much). On the next screen, participants were asked for their evaluations of the male
student. They were asked to indicate the extent to which the male student was attractive, sincere,
handsome, genuine, and friendly on a 5-point scale (1=not at all, 5=very much).
Results. We first collapsed across session samples for each actor within a given signal
condition (i.e., two samples of the same actor delivering his compliment in the same (e.g., loud)
condition). A multivariate analysis of all the measures revealed no significant differences for
signal condition (loud vs. quiet) or actor (actor 1 vs. actor 2). The statements delivered in the
loud and quiet conditions were viewed as equally positive (F<1), negative (F<1), genuine (F(1,
176) = 1.38, NS), and complimentary (F<1). Moreover, the male student was perceived as
equally attractive (F<1), handsome (F<1), genuine (F<1), sincere (F<1), and friendly (F<1) in
both the loud and quiet signal conditions.
Similarly, no differences were found between the two actors. The statement was viewed
as equally positive, negative, genuine, and complimentary (all F<1), and the male student was
perceived as equally attractive, handsome, genuine, sincere, and friendly (all F<1) regardless of
which of the two male confederates had delivered it.
65
Pilot Study: Compliment Evaluation Means and Standard Errors By Condition
Signal Strength
Condition
Confederate
Dependent Variable
Quiet
Mean (SE)
Loud
Mean (SE)
Actor 1
Mean (SE)
Actor 2
Mean (SE)
The statement made was positive.
4.49 (.07)
4.51 (.07)
4.47 (.07)
4.54 (.07)
The statement made was negative.
1.27 (.07)
1.34 (.07)
1.32 (.07)
1.29 (.07)
The statement was genuine.
3.86 (.10)
4.03 (.10)
3.90 (.10)
4.00 (.10)
The statement was a compliment.
4.57 (.08)
4.52 (.08)
4.50 (.08)
4.59 (.08)
The male student was attractive.
3.99 (.09)
3.94 (.09)
4.01 (.09)
3.92 (.09)
The male student was handsome.
3.98 (.09)
3.92 (.09)
3.99 (.10)
3.91 (.09)
The male student was genuine.
3.80 (.10)
3.90 (.10)
3.81 (.10)
3.89 (.10)
The male student was sincere.
3.80 (.10)
3.85 (.10)
3.76 (.10)
3.89 (.10)
The male student was friendly.
4.36 (.08)
4.33 (.08)
4.37 (.08)
4.33 (.08)
Note: No significant differences were found between the two signal conditions or between the two actors.
66
Study 2: Recruitment Poster
Study 2: Sample Victoria Secret
Materials (e.g., Name Tag)
Study 2: Screensaver