Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Status, Race and Money: The Impact of Racial Hierarchy on Willingness-to-Pay
Aarti S. Ivanic
University of San Diego
Jennifer R. Overbeck and Joseph C. Nunes
University of Southern California
Author Note
Studies 1 and 2 were part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation. Address
correspondence to Aarti S. Ivanic, ivanic@sandiego.edu.
1
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Abstract
A deeply entrenched status hierarchy exists between African-Americans and Caucasians
whereby the former often are classified as lower status. Concurrently, African-Americans face
marketplace discrimination whereby they are treated as inferior and poor. Because having and
spending money signify status, we explore how African-Americans may elevate their
willingness-to-pay for products in order to fulfill status needs. Studies 1 and 2 find that explicit
activation of race leads some African-Americans to pay more compared with what they would
otherwise pay and with Caucasians. Individual differences in perceived status disadvantage and
racial identification moderate this result. Study 3 shows that an overt status threat (inferior
treatment in a purchasing context) similarly leads African-Americans, but not Caucasians, to pay
more. This research illustrates how African-Americans whose status is threatened use spending
as a way to assert status.
Keywords: status, race, stereotypes, money, willingness-to-pay
2
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Status affects one’s opportunities, relationships, and self-concept. Regardless of whether
we choose to acknowledge it, society is vertically stratified on several dimensions (e.g., income,
education, race) and status hierarchies persist. Status is defined as the prominence, respect, and
influence that one holds in others’ eyes (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006).
Whether achieved (through merit) or endowed (through birth), status hierarchies are socially
imposed, and manifested in the way certain groups are treated. Consequently, they affect how
their members behave. In this research, we examine how the ingrained status hierarchy between
African-Americans and Caucasians affects individuals’ spending behavior. Specifically, we
explore whether, when, and why African-Americans may willingly pay more for products and
services than they would otherwise, and more than Caucasians would pay.
Historically, African-Americans have had lower endowed status than Caucasians, which
has led to persistent discrimination (Thoits, 1991; Webster & Driskell, 1978). African-Americans
are often stereotyped as being poor, lazy, and uneducated and thus treated as inferior (e.g.,
Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997). In the marketplace, African-Americans feel categorized as
‘low value’ customers because of the perception they cannot afford purchases at upscale stores
(Ainscough & Motley, 2000; Lee, 2000) and frequently report being ‘skipped over’ by sales
associates who serve Caucasian customers first. Past work has demonstrated that members of
racial minorities respond by consuming status-related goods as a way of asserting status (Fontes
& Fam, 2006; Lamont & Molnar, 2001). More generally, individuals purchase status-conveying
products to restore a sense of power or repair self-integrity (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008, 2009;
Sivanathan & Petit, 2010).
Our argument goes beyond the consumption of status goods. We propose that paying
more money itself constitutes a status-asserting strategy. Consequently, African-Americans may
3
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
elevate their willingness-to-pay (henceforth, WTP) to negate perceptions of inferiority. We
distinguish WTP from purchase likelihood. While consumers with a higher WTP are generally
more likely to purchase a product at any given price, consumers with equivalent purchase
likelihoods are not necessarily willing to pay equivalent sums. Hence, while African-Americans
and Caucasians may report similar purchase intentions, African-Americans may exhibit a higher
WTP in a deliberate attempt to assert status.
The ability to spend money represents success, wealth, and social status (Goldberg &
Lewis, 1978; Veblen, 1899). Spending money engenders feelings of equality because money
begets respect from others (Goldberg & Lewis, 1978). In the early 1980s, the NAACP created
“Black Dollar Days,” encouraging African-Americans to spend money to demonstrate economic
parity with Caucasians and the strength of African-Americans’ purchasing power (Boyer, 1985).
Our work documents how increasing WTP (for both status- and non-status-conveying products)
can represent attempts by some African-Americans to assert their status, particularly those who
are concerned their social standing is seen as inferior. This concern may arise from a chronic
sense of status disadvantage or from explicit awareness of race (and associated low-status
stereotypes).
People do not spend their days cognizant of their race, but often find themselves in
situations (e.g., being African-American in a predominantly Caucasian neighborhood) that make
race salient (Lee, 2000). We propose that the manner in which race, or endowed status, is made
salient will affect African-Americans’ WTP. Substantial research has studied the behavioral
repercussions of how social identity is activated (cf. Wheeler & Petty, 2001). Stereotypes guide
behavior in ambiguous contexts (Dunning & Sherman, 1997) such that individuals either confirm
or disconfirm group-related stereotypes, depending on how they are activated (Dijksterhuis et al.,
4
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
1998; Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001). When stereotypes are implicitly activated, the
automatic response is to confirm the stereotype (Bargh & Pietromonaco, 1982; Devine, 1989;
Moskowitz & Skurnik, 1999). With explicit activation, individuals become more mindful of the
stereotype and may behave in stereotype inconsistent ways (Wheeler & Petty, 2001).
Stereotype-inconsistency occurs primarily when the stereotype implicates a controllable
behavior that the target is motivated to contradict (Fiske, 1989). For example, Kray and
colleagues (2001) showed that women outperformed men on a negotiation task when explicitly
reminded of their gender, and worse when implicitly reminded. Explicit activation led women to
resist the stereotype that they were poor negotiators, by becoming more assertive; in contrast,
implicit activation led them to confirm the stereotype (Martin, 1986). Similarly, we argue, when
race is explicitly activated, African-Americans are reminded of the stereotype that they are poor
and low status. Consequently, they elevate their WTP to fight against the stereotype and assert
their status—particularly if they perceive themselves to be disadvantaged with regard to status.
Conversely, implicit activation should lead African-Americans to decrease WTP, because
implicit activation occurs outside awareness and thus does not prompt stereotype resistance.
Not everyone considers race an important source of identity. Brewer and Silver (2000)
suggest that a given social category (e.g., race, gender) is a more important source of identity for
some individuals than others. The extent of category identification affects individuals’ selfevaluations, self-stereotyping, and behavior (Hall & Crisp, 2008; Schmader, 2002). We
anticipate that individual differences in racial identification might moderate the effect of identity
salience: Highly-identified African-Americans may feel a greater sense of pride in group
membership, which may counteract societally-imposed low status and thus reduce their need to
pay more to assert status (i.e., they pay less).
5
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
We test our predictions in three studies. Study 1 demonstrates the differential effect of
race salience on WTP for African-Americans versus Caucasians. One’s sense of perceived status
disadvantage (henceforth, PSD) relative to others should heighten WTP, given the greater
experience of threatened status. Conversely, stronger racial identification may lower WTP. Study
2 examines the moderating role of both PSD and racial identification on WTP. In Study 3, we
show how, for African-Americans but not Caucasians, an overt status threat produces the same
effect as making race explicitly salient in ambiguous situations, supporting our claim that
African-Americans who feel disadvantaged use payment behavior as a way to assert status.
Study 1: Race, Salience and Willingness-to-Pay
Participants and Design
Respondents were 113 individuals (72% African-American, 53% men, Mage = 36 years)
recruited in a Los Angeles shopping plaza by a Lebanese-American experimenter who appeared
neither Caucasian nor African-American. Respondents participated in exchange for entry into a
drawing for a prize worth $120. The study used a 2 (Race: African-American, Caucasian) x 3
(Race Salience: Explicit, Implicit, Control) between-subjects design. Race was appraised
visually and confirmed by self-report. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the three
salience conditions.
Procedure
Respondents in the explicit condition were told we were interested in individual
perceptions of racial differences in behavior. We adapted our explicit manipulation from
Cialdini, Wosinska, Dabul, Whetstone-Dion, and Heszen (1998). Participants received a list of
10 behaviors (e.g., drink domestic beer, enjoy gardening), and reported their opinion of whom
the behavior best characterized. They circled ‘WA’ if the behavior was more characteristic of
6
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
White Americans, ‘AA’ if more characteristic of African-Americans, or ‘ND’ if there was no
difference1.
The implicit salience manipulation was adapted from Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady
(1999). Respondents were told we were interested in how people’s self-perceptions affect their
behaviors. They received a list of 10 stereotypical African-American behaviors (e.g., low
performance on an academic test; high athletic ability) and circled Yes or No to indicate whether
the behavior was self-characteristic2. This procedure implicitly primed awareness of race.
In the control condition, we used the same list of behaviors as in the explicit condition.
However, respondents reported whether the behaviors were more characteristic of Los Angeles
residents (‘LA’), California residents excluding Los Angeles (‘CA’), or no difference (‘ND’).
All respondents viewed a picture and description of high-end noise-canceling
headphones. They reported the amount they were willing to pay for the headphones. To ensure
there was no racial bias in product attractiveness, respondents were asked how likely (1 = not at
all, 7 = very much) they would be to purchase the headphones. We predicted no difference
between African-Americans’ and Caucasians’ purchase likelihood.
To confirm that African-American participants believed they rank lower, on average,
than Caucasians in the social hierarchy, participants were shown a picture of a vertical
thermometer with lines indicating 0 to 100, in 10% intervals. Participants circled which line best
represented their rank relative to others in society. They also reported their age, income and
gender.
Results and Discussion
Perceived Rank
7
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
African-Americans (M = 52.12%, SE = 2.32%) reported ranking significantly lower on
the social hierarchy than Caucasians (M = 73.0%, SE = 3.22%), t(88) = 4.83, p < .01, consistent
with the notion that they perceive themselves as having lower endowed status. There was no
difference in reported income across the two groups, t(93) =.03, p > .9.
Purchase likelihood
As expected, we found no difference in purchase likelihood across the two racial groups,
t(110) = .57, p > .5; thus, differences in WTP cannot be attributed to differences in affinity for
the product.
WTP
Data were analyzed with a 2 x 3 (Race x Salience) General Linear Model (GLM).
Gender, age, and income were non-significant predictors of WTP for the headphones, Fs < .75,
ps > .15. Controlling for their effects did not change our results; hence, they are not discussed
further.
The predicted interaction of race and salience was significant, F(2, 107) = 7.76, p < .01
(see Table 1). When race was not activated, the difference between African-Americans’ and
Caucasians’ WTP was not significant, t(37) < 1.0, p > .10. When race was activated explicitly,
African-Americans were willing to pay significantly more than Caucasians, t(36) = 3.90, p < .01,
d = 1.55 and more than African-Americans in the control condition, t(54) = 4.07, p < .01, d =
1.09. Conversely, when race was activated implicitly, African-Americans were willing to pay
less than African-Americans in the control condition t(51) = 2.35, p < .05, d = .65.
The data suggest that when race is explicitly activated, African-Americans become
sensitized to stereotypes of being “poor” and “inferior,” and hence increase WTP in what we
argue is an attempt to assert their status. Conversely, these stereotypes and related behaviors are
8
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
so ingrained that implicit activation leads African-Americans to decrease their WTP as they do
not feel a need to assert their status.
The lack of a race-based difference in purchase likelihood suggests it is not product
preference but the meaning of spending that led African-Americans to pay more. This finding is
directly in line with our predictions. While purchase likelihood and WTP are correlated, r(112) =
.33, p < .01, WTP activates thoughts of money, which activates distinct psychological states
(DeVoe & Iyengar, 2010; Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006). For example, Vohs et al. (2006) show
that offering cash instead of equally-valued products activates relational models associated with
hierarchy. As such, only WTP captures our predicted status-money dynamic. African-Americans
did not find the headphones more attractive, but when asked how much they would pay, they
inflated their bid due to status concerns.
Study 2: Perceived Status Disadvantage and Racial Identification Moderate
Willingness-to-Pay
If, as we argue, African-Americans’ propensity to pay more when their race is made
explicitly salient is driven by status concerns, then PSD should strengthen this effect and racial
identification might weaken it.
Participants and Design
Study 2 was conducted online with participants recruited from an independent survey
panel, which was filtered based on respondents’ race. Respondents also reported their race at the
end of the study. Of 484 invitees, 344 participated (27% African-American, 67% women, Mage =
45 years). This study used a 2 (Race Salience: Explicit, Implicit) x 2 (Race: African-American,
Caucasian) between-subjects design.
Procedure
9
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Respondents participated in what they believed were two unrelated studies. The first,
described as a study of how consumers perceive social behaviors, made race explicitly or
implicitly salient in a manner identical to Study 1. The second purportedly investigated how
individuals book online vacation packages. Respondents were asked to imagine they were
planning a vacation using a website to make travel arrangements. They were presented with a
standard vacation package that included airfare and hotel room. They were then provided the
opportunity to bid on customizing two components of the vacation in a fashion similar to popular
auction websites (e.g., ebay.com).
A “Standard” hotel room was the package default. The room had basic amenities (e.g.,
king/2 double beds, television with basic cable) and cost $200 per night. Respondents could
choose to upgrade to a “Luxury Club” room with additional amenities (e.g., Jacuzzi, wireless
internet). The luxury room had no stated price, but participants were told it would be more
expensive and were asked how much above the standard rate of $200 per night they would bid to
upgrade. As in Study 1, we assessed differences in the attractiveness of the upgrade by asking
respondents how likely (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) they would be to bid. Participants viewed
a similar scenario for the flight upgrade (base price $300) and again reported their likelihood of
bidding and bid amount to upgrade.
Subsequently, participants answered questions measuring their PSD, racial identification,
affect3, and demographic characteristics (age, gender, income).
Measures
PSD. Individuals reported their PSD (e.g., extent to which they believed others received
more attention, had more status) on an eight-item, seven-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very
10
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
much) adapted from Overbeck and Tansuwan (2010) and averaged into a composite score (α =
.94). Higher values indicated a greater degree of PSD.
Racial Identification. Respondents completed the four-item, seven-point (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree) identity subscale of Luhtanen and Crocker’s (1992) Collective Self
Esteem scale, which applied to race (e.g., extent to which racial group was an important part
their self-image, reflection of who they were, etc.). Items were averaged into a composite racial
identification score (α = .70).
Data were analyzed using two 2 x 2 (Race x Salience) GLMs, one for each upgrade (hotel
room, flight). Results for the two models are consistent. For brevity, we discuss only the room
upgrade, but provide results for both upgrades in Table 2. Because our model includes covariates
(affect, gender, age, income), we report Least Squares Means (LSM).
Purchase Likelihood. As in Study 1, African-Americans (M = 4.49, SE = .20) and
Caucasians (M = 4.13, SE = .12) reported no difference in propensity to upgrade, F(1, 331) =
2.37, p = .13. Thus, differences in WTP are not attributable to differences in product
attractiveness.
WTP. Thirteen individuals (4%) did not report WTP for either upgrade. Two bid
amounts were outliers (Cook’s D > .05) and were excluded from analysis. Gender and income
were not significant predictors of WTP, ts(312) < 1.0, ps > .40. Age was negatively correlated
with WTP, b = -11.99, t(312) = 4.70, p < .01, consistent with past research (Schau, Gilly, &
Wolfinbarger, 2009).
There was a significant interaction of race and salience, F(1, 312) = 7.81, p < .01 on
WTP to upgrade. When race was explicitly activated, African-Americans were willing to pay
more to upgrade their room than Caucasians, t(178) = 4.32, p < .01, d = .76, replicating results
11
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
from Study 1 (see Table 1). As expected, African-Americans were willing to pay more when
race was explicitly, versus implicitly, activated, t(86) = 3.40, p < .01, d = .73. WTP did not differ
for African-Americans and Caucasians when race was implicitly activated, t(150) < .50, p > .50.
PSD. The predicted three-way interaction between PSD (centered around its grand mean;
Aiken & West, 1991), race, and salience was significant, F(1, 312) = 7.46, p < .01 (see Table 2,
Figures 1-2). For African-Americans with higher PSD, explicit activation of race increased
WTP, b = 35.35, t(312) = 2.73, p < .01. This suggests that African-Americans who feel highly
disadvantaged and sensitized to their race see paying more as an opportunity to assert their
status.
Racial identification. African-Americans (M = 3.98, SE = .14) reported identifying with
their race significantly more than Caucasians (M = 2.97, SE = .09), t(323) = 6.09, p < .01. The
predicted three-way interaction of racial identification (centered around its grand mean), race,
and salience, F(1, 312) = 6.73, p < .01, revealed that more strongly-identified AfricanAmericans, but not Caucasians, reported a lower WTP when their race was explicitly, versus
implicitly, activated, b = -39.34, t(312) = 2.59, p < .01 (see Table 2, Figures 3-4). This suggests
that, indeed, high-identifiers may feel a lower need to assert their status by paying more. As
such, when race is explicitly activated, they pay less.
Discussion
When status, vis-à-vis race, was explicitly activated, African-Americans were willing to
pay considerably more to upgrade, compared with Caucasians and with African-Americans for
whom race was implicitly activated. While African-Americans exhibited no greater preference
for the upgrades, when asked their WTP, they inflated their bids due to status concerns. As
predicted, PSD and racial identification yielded opposing effects on WTP. Greater feelings of
12
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
status disadvantage resulted in a higher WTP as African-Americans tried to assert status. In
contrast, highly-identified African-Americans had a lower WTP. We suggest that this may reflect
their greater pride in group membership, which reduces felt vulnerability with regard to status.
However, we do not examine this result further in this paper, so stronger confirmation of this
dynamic awaits future research.
Study 3: Perceived Status Disadvantage, Treatment Type, and Willingness-to-Pay
In this study, we examine whether an overt threat to one’s status produces the same effect
as explicit race salience on WTP. As such, we further test whether increasing WTP represents a
status-asserting strategy for African-Americans who believe their status is threatened. This study
extends the previous two in three key ways. First, in Study 2, implicit activation of AfricanAmericans’ race did not result in an increase in WTP to assert status while explicit activation did.
Study 3 uses only explicit activation, comparing its effects to a control condition. Second, a
status threat was merely implied in our earlier studies, by negative stereotypes that guide
construal of ambiguous situations. In Study 3, we manipulate threat overtly by comparing
inferior treatment (high threat) with superior treatment in a purchasing context. We predict a
Race x Treatment x Salience effect whereby only poorly-treated African-Americans, explicitly
reminded of race, show a status-asserting increase in WTP.
Participants and Design
This study was conducted online with 510 new respondents (44% African-American,
64% women, Mage = 40) from the same survey panel as Study 2. We used a 2 (Race Salience:
Explicit, Control) x 2 (Race: African-American, Caucasian) x 2 (Treatment Type: Inferior,
Superior) design. The scenario asked individuals to bid on a room upgrade alone.
Procedure
13
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Respondents were presented with three ostensibly unrelated studies. The first contained
the explicit salience manipulation, identical to that in Studies 1 and 2. The control condition
contained no explicit or implicit reference to race.
The second component was presented as a survey about how individuals respond to
various shopping experiences. It contained the Treatment manipulation. Respondents read three
different shopping scenarios in which they imagined themselves as a customer: purchasing a
necklace at a high-end jewelry store, dining at an expensive restaurant, and browsing at an
electronics shop. The inferior treatment condition described events such as being shown inferior
products, being brushed aside while others were served, and being followed and accused of
stealing. The superior treatment condition described prompt, respectful service. After reading
each scenario, respondents wrote about how the interaction made them feel.
Finally, in part three, participants responded to the same scenario as in Study 2,
indicating their WTP to upgrade to a “Luxury Room.”
We used the same eight-item composite as in Study 2 to measure PSD (α = .94).
Respondents were also asked to report their affect4 and demographic characteristics (age, gender,
income).
Results
WTP
Gender and income were non-significant predictors of WTP, ts < 1.0, ps > .40. Age was
negatively correlated with WTP, b = -7.87, t(493) = 3.31, p < .01. There was a four-way
interaction of PSD, Race, Salience and Treatment Type, F(1, 493) = 2.67, p = .07. We report
results for the 229 individuals who reported a high PSD (greater than median 4.0, on a seven-
14
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
point scale), as these are the ones who are expected to respond to a status threat. Results for the
full sample are presented in Figure 5.
There was a significant interaction of race, treatment type and salience, F(1, 220) = 3.80,
p = .05. Overall, African-Americans who were treated well did not differ in WTP, regardless of
race activation t(47) = .96, p > .25. When race was not activated, African-Americans offered less
when they were treated poorly than when they were treated well, t(58) = 1.99, p = .05, d = .53,
consistent with the notion that one pays less for poor service (See Table 3). However, when
African-Americans received inferior treatment and race was salient, they offered to pay more
than in any other condition. In particular, they had higher WTP than poorly-treated AfricanAmericans whose race was not salient, t(50) = 2.63, p = .01, d = .81 and well-treated AfricanAmericans whose race was made explicitly salient, t(43) = 1.84, p = .07, d = .58 They also had
higher WTP than all Caucasians ps < .05. There were no significant differences in how much
Caucasians were willing to pay for the upgrade, ps > .25 (see Table 3).
Discussion
These results suggest threatening situations produce the same effect as making race
explicitly salient in ambiguous situations: African-Americans increase their WTP—using
payment behavior to assert status. We show that African-Americans sometimes lowered their
WTP in response to poor service. This highlights how African-Americans do not always respond
by paying more. Further, when treated well, African-Americans’ WTP did not change even when
race was salient: Superior treatment obviated any threat to status implied by race salience.
However, when treated poorly, and when race was explicitly activated, African-Americans felt
threatened and responded by increasing their WTP.
15
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
General Discussion
African-Americans are subject to many forms of discrimination in the marketplace, with
one of the most well-known being racial disparities in pricing for products and services. AfricanAmericans are often charged more for purchases, including food (Grady & Robertson, 1999),
cars (Henriques, 2001) and home loans (Fernandez, 2007). Our work shows that AfricanAmericans, who are assumed to have lower endowed status than Caucasians, may sometimes
increase their WTP for products voluntarily, as a means to assert status. As Austin (1994)
suggested, “blacks use money to purchase what they cannot earn, namely status” (p. 232).
It is important to note that our work does not advocate price discrimination or treating
African-Americans poorly in purchasing contexts. Further, it does not attempt to validate asking
African-Americans to pay more. Our goal is to raise awareness that some individuals may
sometimes support an unfair system through their own behavior. By underscoring how an
entrenched status hierarchy can create internalized imperatives for African-Americans to pay
more, we provide insight into race-based status dynamics and how they affect consumption
patterns.
On a broader scale, our work extends research on system justification, which proposes
that low-status individuals (e.g., women, ethnic minorities) are motivated to believe that the
social system is fair and status hierarchies are justified (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto,
1999). Our studies suggest that some African-Americans may try to challenge the hierarchy,
asserting their own status by paying more. This payment differential, however, can also reinforce
an unjust hierarchy.
Having high status has many benefits such as preferential treatment, respect in others’
eyes, and feelings of superiority. As such, low status individuals may engage in behaviors that
16
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
assert their status. When unjustly classified as having low status (e.g., by a race-based hierarchy),
low status group members may attempt to elevate their individual positions. For AfricanAmericans, this may entail voluntarily spending money to personally fight against the stereotype
that they are poor. Our work shows that, while asserting personal status seems advantageous, it
may come at a cost—literally.
17
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ainscough, T. L., & Motley, C. M. (2000). Will you help me please? The effects of race, gender,
and manner of dress on retail service. Marketing Letters, 11, 129-136.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006). Knowing your
place: Self perception of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 1094-1110.
Austin, R. (1994). “A Nation of Thieves”: Consumption, commerce and the Black public sphere.
Public Sphere, 7, 225-248.
Boyer, E. J. (1985, August 27). Project to demonstrate buying power of Blacks. Los Angeles
Times. Retrieved from: http://www.articles.latimes.com.
Brewer, M. B., & Silver, M. D. (2000). Group distinctiveness, social identification and collective
mobilization. In S. Stryker & T.J. Owens (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements,
(pp. 153-171). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Cook, D. R. (1979). Influential observations in linear regressions. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 74, 169-174.
Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Heszen, I. (1998). When
social role salience leads to social role rejection: modest self-presentation among women
and men in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 473-481.
DeVoe, S. E. and Iyengar , S. S. (2010). Medium of Exchange Matters: What's Fair for Goods
Is Unfair for Money. Psychological Science, 21, 159-162.
18
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., Postmes, T., Stapel, D., Koomen, W., van Knippenberg, A., &
Scheepers, D. (1998). Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 862-871.
Dunning, D. & Sherman, D. A. (1997). Stereotypes and Tacit Inference. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 459-471.
Fiske, S. T. (1989). Examining the role of intent: Toward understanding its role in stereotyping
and prejudice. In J. S. Ulema & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 253-283).
New York: Guilford Press.
Fontes, A., & Fam, J. X. (2006). The effects of ethnic identity on household budget allocation to
status conveying goods. Journal of Family Economic Issues, 27, 643-663.
Goldberg, H., & Lewis, R. T. (1978). Money madness: The psychology of saving, spending,
loving, and hating money. London, U. K.: Springwood Books.
Grady, K., & Robertson, D. C. (1999). Fairness of pricing decisions. Business Ethics Quarterly,
9, 225-243.
Henriques, D. B. (2001, July 4). Review of Nissan car loans finds that Blacks pay more. The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the
production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
Kray, L.J ., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype
confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 942-958.
Lamont, M., & Molnar V. (2001). How Blacks use consumption to shape their collective
identity. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1, 31-45.
19
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Lee, J. (2000). The salience of race in everyday life: Black consumers’ shopping experiences
in Black and White neighborhoods. Work and Occupations, 27, 353-376.
Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing
ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology,
19, 373–404.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s
social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.
Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use/disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493-504.
Moskowitz, G. B., & Skurnik, I. (1999). The differing nature of contrast effects following
exemplar versus trait primes. Standard of comparison versus motivated correction
processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 911-927.
Overbeck, J. R., & Tansuwan, E. (2010). When jerks come out on top: Arrogance, status
prototypes, and status conferral. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 257–267.
Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals:
How different levels of power shape consumer behavior. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 549–555.
Schau, H., Gilly, M. C., & Wolfinbarger, M. (2009). Consumer identity renaissance: The
resurgence of identity-inspired consumption in retirement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 36, 255-276.
20
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201.
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience
and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80-3.
Sidanius J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sivanathan, N., & Pettit, N. C. (2010). Protecting the self through consumption: Status goods as
affirmational commodities. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 564-570.
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group
status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538-553.
Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54, 101-112.
Veblen, T. (2001). The theory of the leisure class. New York, NY: Random House. (Original
work published 1899).
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., and Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating the concept of money
changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 17, 208–212.
Webster, M., Jr., & Driskell, J. E., Jr. (1978). Status generalization: A review and some new
data. American Sociological Review, 43, 220-36.
Wheeler, C. S., & Petty, R. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review
of possible mechanisms. Psychology Bulletin, 127, 797-826.
21
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Wittenbrink, B., Judd C. M., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level
and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 262-274.
Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a
disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 994-1003.
22
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Footnotes
1, 2
3, 4
Complete stimuli are available from the first author.
We found no main or moderating effects of affect, so it is not discussed.
23
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
24
Table 1
Study 2: Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) for Willingness-to-Pay for Headphones (Study 1)
and Upgrades (Study 2)
Race – Salience
Headphones
Room upgrade
Flight upgrade
African-American –
Explicit
$22.75a ($1.59)
$128.19a ($13.11)
$131.34a ($16.97)
Caucasian – Explicit
$10.60 b ($2.65)
$65.72b ($6.65)
$66.81b ($8.64)
African-American –
Implicit
$7.48 c ($1.68)
$62.33 b ($14.57)
$77.38 b ($18.86)
Caucasian – Implicit
$11.64 b, c ($2.53)
$60.34 b ($7.69)
$67.84 b ($9.91)
African-American –
Control
$12.89b ($1.59)
Caucasian – Control
$13.36 b ($2.53)
Note. Means that do not share a superscript differ at p < .05. Same superscripts indicate no
difference (p > .10).
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
25
Table 2
Regression Coefficients for Willingness-to-Pay for Room and Flight Upgrade
Room upgrade
Parameter
Intercept
B
SE( B)
Flight upgrade
p
B
SE (B)
p
55.62
29.92
0.06
17.73
38.71
0.65
Race: African-American
1.91
16.43
0.91
9.45
21.22
0.66
Salience: Explicit
5.37
0.59
-1.03
12.94
0.94
Race* Salience: African-American –
Explicit
10.00
61.00
21.82
0.01
55.32
28.19
0.05
6.84
9.06
0.45
18.45
11.71
0.12
-11.99
2.55
<.001
-7.03
3.31
0.03
Income
2.06
3.15
0.51
7.79
4.07
0.06
Affect
8.69
5.49
0.11
9.57
7.09
0.18
PSD
0.89
4.88
0.86
0.11
6.30
0.99
PSD *Race: African-American
-7.03
8.86
0.43
-12.26
11.44
0.28
PSD * Salience: Explicit
-1.52
6.19
0.81
0.15
8.00
0.99
PSD *Race* Salience: AfricanAmerican – Explicit
35.35
12.94
0.01
41.96
16.71
0.01
Racial Identification
1.33
5.67
0.81
5.83
7.32
0.43
Racial Identification*Race: AfricanAmerican
5.43
10.88
0.62
2.84
14.05
0.84
Racial Identification* Salience:
Explicit
0.38
7.33
0.96
-0.97
9.51
0.92
-39.34
15.16
0.01
-21.51
19.60
0.27
Gender: Female
Age
Racial Identification*Race* Salience:
African-American – Explicita
Note. aWhile the three-way interaction of racial identification, race and salience is not
statistically significant for the flight upgrade (p > .10), the means are directionally correct and
the pattern is consistent with our other results.
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
Table 3
Study 3: Mean (Standard Error) Willingness-to-Pay for Room upgrade
Treatment Type
Race – Salience
Superior Treatment Inferior Treatment
African-American – Control
$74.82a,* ($15.72)
$40.00b ($7.65)
Caucasian – Control
$55.97a ($12.67)
$46.88 a ($10.60)
African-American – Explicit
$50.48 a, b ($19.75) $109.95c,* ($25.43)
Caucasian – Explicit
$49.26 a ($12.99)
$61.30 a ($13.37)
Note. *These two cells differ at p = .07. Otherwise, means with different superscripts differ at p
< .05. Any shared superscript indicates no difference (p > .10).
26
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
27
Figure 1
Study 2: Mean Willingness-to-Pay for Room Upgrade by Perceived Status Disadvantage (meancentered)
$250.00
Willingness-to-Pay
$200.00
AA-Explicit
$150.00
AA-Implicit
C-Explicit
$100.00
C-Implicit
$50.00
$0.00
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Perceived Status Disadvantage
2
3
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
28
Figure 2
Study 2: Mean Willingness-to-Pay for Flight Upgrade by Perceived Status Disadvantage (meancentered)
$250.00
Willingness-to-Pay
$200.00
AA-Explicit
$150.00
AA-Implicit
C-Explicit
$100.00
C-Implicit
$50.00
$0.00
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Perceived Status Disadvantage
2
3
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
29
Figure 3
Study 2: Mean Willingness-to-Pay for Room Upgrade by Racial Identification (mean-centered)
$250.00
Willingness-to-Pay
$200.00
AA-Explicit
$150.00
AA-Implicit
C-Explicit
$100.00
C-Implicit
$50.00
$0.00
-3
-2
-1
0
Racial Identification
1
2
3
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
30
Figure 4
Study 2: Mean Willingness-to-Pay for Flight Upgrade by Racial Identification (mean-centered)
$180.00
$160.00
Willingness-to-Pay
$140.00
$120.00
AA-Explicit
$100.00
AA-Implicit
C-Explicit
$80.00
C-Implicit
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00
-3
-2
-1
0
Racial Identification
1
2
3
Running head: STATUS, RACE, AND MONEY
31
Figure 5.
Study 3: Willingness-to-pay for Upgrade by Race, Treatment Type, Salience.
Willingness-to-Pay
Panel A. Respondents who feel low PSD (less than median of 4.0 on seven-point scale)
$90.00
$80.00
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$-
$80.63
$72.00
$75.68
$64.26
$49.47
$55.00
$49.84 $49.44
Race-Treatment Type-Salience
Panel B. Respondents who feel high PSD (above median)
$120.00
$109.95
Willingness-to-Pay
$100.00
$74.82
$80.00
$61.30
$60.00
$40.00
$50.48 $46.88
$55.97
$49.26
$40.00
$20.00
$-
Race-Treatment Type-Salience
*Note. AA = African-Americans, C = Caucasians, IT = Inferior Treatment, ST = Superior
Treatment. For Panel A, no pair-wise comparisons are statistically significant, p’s > .25. For
mean differences in Panel B, please see Table 3.