Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of...

21
Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA NEERU PAHARIA ANAT KEINAN While research on conspicuous consumption has typically analyzed how peo- ple spend money on products that signal status, this article investigates con- spicuous consumption in relation to time. The authors argue that a busy and overworked lifestyle, rather than a leisurely lifestyle, has become an aspir- ational status symbol. A series of studies shows that the positive inferences of status in response to busyness and lack of leisure time are driven by the perceptions that a busy person possesses desired human capital characteris- tics (e.g., competence and ambition) and is scarce and in demand in the job market. This research uncovers an alternative kind of conspicuous consump- tion that operates by shifting the focus from the preciousness and scarcity of goods to the preciousness and scarcity of individuals. Furthermore, the au- thors examine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and differences among cultures (North America vs. Europe) to demonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of the positive associations derived from signals of busyness. Keywords: conspicuous consumption, time spending, status signaling, work ver- sus leisure, social mobility Conspicuous abstention from labor [...] becomes the con- ventional mark of superior pecuniary achievement. —Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class Other countries they work, they stroll home, they stop by the cafe ´, they take August off—off! Why aren’t you like that? Why aren’t we like that? Because we are crazy, driven, hard-working believers, that’s why! —Cadillac, Super Bowl commercial Movies, magazines, and popular TV shows such as Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous often highlight the abundance of money and leisure time among the wealthy. While this leisurely lifestyle was commonly featured in advertising for aspirational products, in recent years, ads featuring wealthy people relaxing by the pool or on a yacht, playing tennis and polo, or skiing and hunting Silvia Bellezza ([email protected]) is assistant profes- sor of marketing, Columbia Business School, New York, NY 10027. Neeru Paharia ([email protected]) is assistant professor of marketing, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057. Anat Keinan ([email protected]) is Jakurski Family Associate Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163. The authors are grateful for helpful comments and suggestions received from participants in sem- inars and lab groups at Harvard Business School and Harvard Kennedy School; the ACR, SCP, and AMS conferences; Francesca Gino; John T. Gourville; Rebecca W. Hamilton; Michael I. Norton; Michel Tuan Pham; and Debora V. Thompson. The article is based on part of the first author’s dissertation. Supplementary materials may be found in the web appendix accompanying the online version of this article. Darren Dahl served as editor and Jennifer Argo served as associate editor for this article. Advance Access publication December 27, 2016 V C The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] Vol. 44 2017 DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucw076 118 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/1/118/2736404 by Columbia University Libraries user on 10 April 2018

Transcript of Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of...

Page 1: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

Conspicuous Consumption of Time WhenBusyness and Lack of Leisure TimeBecome a Status Symbol

SILVIA BELLEZZANEERU PAHARIAANAT KEINAN

While research on conspicuous consumption has typically analyzed how peo-ple spend money on products that signal status this article investigates con-spicuous consumption in relation to time The authors argue that a busy andoverworked lifestyle rather than a leisurely lifestyle has become an aspir-ational status symbol A series of studies shows that the positive inferencesof status in response to busyness and lack of leisure time are driven by theperceptions that a busy person possesses desired human capital characteris-tics (eg competence and ambition) and is scarce and in demand in the jobmarket This research uncovers an alternative kind of conspicuous consump-tion that operates by shifting the focus from the preciousness and scarcity ofgoods to the preciousness and scarcity of individuals Furthermore the au-thors examine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and differencesamong cultures (North America vs Europe) to demonstrate moderators andboundary conditions of the positive associations derived from signals ofbusyness

Keywords conspicuous consumption time spending status signaling work ver-

sus leisure social mobility

Conspicuous abstention from labor [ ] becomes the con-ventional mark of superior pecuniary achievement

mdashThorstein Veblen

The Theory of the Leisure Class

Other countries they work they stroll home they stop by thecafe they take August offmdashoff Why arenrsquot you like thatWhy arenrsquot we like that

Because we are crazy driven hard-working believersthatrsquos why

mdashCadillac Super Bowl commercial

Movies magazines and popular TV shows such asLifestyles of the Rich and Famous often highlight theabundance of money and leisure time among the wealthyWhile this leisurely lifestyle was commonly featured inadvertising for aspirational products in recent years adsfeaturing wealthy people relaxing by the pool or on ayacht playing tennis and polo or skiing and hunting

Silvia Bellezza (sbellezzagsbcolumbiaedu) is assistant profes-

sor of marketing Columbia Business School New York NY 10027

Neeru Paharia (np412georgetownedu) is assistant professor of

marketing McDonough School of Business Georgetown University

Washington DC 20057 Anat Keinan (akeinanhbsedu) is Jakurski

Family Associate Professor of Business Administration Harvard

Business School Boston MA 02163 The authors are grateful for

helpful comments and suggestions received from participants in sem-

inars and lab groups at Harvard Business School and Harvard

Kennedy School the ACR SCP and AMS conferences Francesca

Gino John T Gourville Rebecca W Hamilton Michael I Norton

Michel Tuan Pham and Debora V Thompson The article is based on

part of the first authorrsquos dissertation Supplementary materials may be

found in the web appendix accompanying the online version of this

article

Darren Dahl served as editor and Jennifer Argo served as associate editor

for this article

Advance Access publication December 27 2016

VC The Author 2016 Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research Inc

All rights reserved For permissions please e-mail journalspermissionsoupcom Vol 44 2017

DOI 101093jcrucw076

118Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

(eg Cadillacrsquos ldquoThe Only Way to Travelrdquo campaign inthe rsquo90s) are being replaced with ads featuring busy indi-viduals who work long hours and have very limited leisuretime For example Cadillacrsquos 2014 Super Bowl commer-cial quoted above features a busy and leisure-deprivedbusinessman and the Wall Street Journalrsquos 2016 campaignfeatures celebrities who complain about their busy liveswith the slogan ldquoPeople who donrsquot have time make time toread the Wall Street Journalrdquo

In the present article we argue that busyness and over-work rather than a leisurely life have become a statussymbol In contemporary American culture complainingabout being busy and working all the time has become anincreasingly widespread phenomenon On Twitter celebri-ties publicly complain about ldquohaving no liferdquo or ldquobeing indesperate need of a vacationrdquo (Alford 2012) A New YorkTimes social commentator suggests that a common re-sponse to the question ldquoHow are yourdquo is ldquoBusyrdquo (Kreider2012) An analysis of holiday letters indicates that refer-ences to ldquocrazy schedulesrdquo have dramatically increasedsince the 1960s (Schulte 2014)

To explain this phenomenon we uncover an alternativekind of conspicuous consumption that operates by shiftingthe focus from the preciousness and scarcity of goods to thepreciousness and scarcity of individuals Our investigationreveals that positive status inferences in response to longhours of work and lack of leisure time are mediated by theperceptions that busy individuals possess desired humancapital characteristics (competence ambition) leading themto be viewed as scarce and in demand A series of studiestests our conceptual model and demonstrates the conditionsunder which a busy and overworked individual is perceivedto have status in the eyes of others As a preliminary investi-gation we first explore Twitter data categorized asldquohumblebragsrdquo consisting of self-deprecating boasts(Alford 2012) and find that a substantial number of thesebrags relate to long hours of work and lack of leisure timeInspired by these findings studies 1A and 1B use Facebookposts and a letter to a friend to communicate either an over-worked lifestyle or a nonbusy lifestyle and demonstrate theproposed mediating process affecting status attributions viaperceived human capital characteristics and scarcity of thebusy individual In studies 2A and 2B we examine the mod-erating effects of social mobility beliefs We find thatAmericans who perceive their society as particularly mobileand believe that work may lead to social affirmation arevery likely to interpret busyness as a positive signal of sta-tus Moreover these studies disentangle the specific dimen-sions of busyness at work leading to inferences of highstatus quantity (the amount of working hours and leisuretime) speed (pace at which work is performed) and mean-ing (level of meaning and enjoyment tied to work) In study3 we examine differences among cultures (ie NorthAmerica vs Europe) to demonstrate the busyness effectamongst Americans and the opposite effect with leisure

signaling higher status amongst Europeans Finally studies4A and 4B consider specific marketing implications of ourwork and show how the public use of timesaving services(eg Peapod an online grocery delivery service) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth headsets) can signal status regardlessof how busy one truly is

CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

Busyness as Long Hours of Work and Lack ofLeisure Time

Research in economics sociology and consumer behav-ior on the consumption of time has focused on the ante-cedents of time allocation decisions (Becker 1965)examining how individuals divide their time between paidwork time (remunerated employment) unpaid work time(household labor) and leisure time (Berry 1979 Gross1987 Jacoby Szybillo and Berning 1976 Schor 1992) Inthis article we examine how these time allocation deci-sions are perceived by others In particular how does sig-naling busyness and lack of leisure time impactperceptions of status in the eyes of others

We define busyness as long hours of remunerated em-ployment and lack of leisure time This definition is con-sistent with dictionary definitions of ldquobusyrdquo whichemphasize ldquoactively workingrdquo and ldquonot at leisurerdquo(Dictionarycom WordReferencecom) Accordingly weoperationalize busyness in our studies by the amount oftime the person allocates to work versus leisure We alsoconsider speed (pace at which work is performed) andmeaning (level of meaning and enjoyment tied to work) astwo other relevant dimensions for the conceptualization ofbusyness We include these additional time consumptiondimensions to capture not only the quantity of time (iehow much time is allocated to work vs leisure) but alsothe quality of that time (is the time spent in an active andmeaningful way) Indeed busyness has also been under-stood as a subjective state determined by the number oftasks individuals have to perform (Gershuny 2005)Moreover people dread idleness and desire busyness insearch of meaning and motivation in their lives (ArielyKamenica and Prelec 2008 Hsee Yang and Wang 2010Keinan and Kivetz 2011 Wilcox et al 2016)

To confirm our conceptualization of busyness we con-ducted a pilot study in the lab (see the web appendix) to de-termine which category of time expenditure is mostassociated with busynessmdashthat is if one is perceived to bebusy do people infer they are busy with paid work house-hold work or with leisure Moreover how does theamount of working hours (ie quantity) relate to the othertwo relevant dimensions (ie speed and meaning) Eachparticipant read a description of three people a person whowas ldquobusier than averagerdquo a person with an ldquoaverage levelof busynessrdquo and a person who was ldquoless busy than

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 119

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

averagerdquo We then asked participants how they thoughtthese people spent their time specifically whether theythought each person spent many hours at work doinghome-related chores and activities or doing hobbies andorleisure activities To explore the other two dimensions ofbusyness (ie speed and meaning) we then asked partici-pants whether they thought the people described in thestudy did things fastmultitasked and had a meaningful job

Participants inferred that the busier person spent signifi-cantly more time at work (M frac14 583) than the average busyperson (M frac14 475) or the less busy person (M frac14 33 allp-values lt 001) Conversely participants perceived thebusier person to spend less time on leisure (M frac14 343) thanthe average busy person (M frac14 424) or the less busy person(M frac14 503 all p-values lt 001) For time spent on choresthere was no significant difference related to level of busy-ness Thus these results confirm that busyness is primarilyassociated with long hours of work and having less timefor leisure Although one could conceivably find that a per-son is busy with leisure activities (has an active social cal-endar) or busy with home-related activities (has manychores to complete) these inferences are not spontaneouswhen one considers a busy individual As a further precau-tion to avoid misinterpretation in all the scenario studieswe make it absolutely clear that the target individual isldquobusyrdquo in terms of long hours of paid work time as per ourdefinition

Participants in our pilot study also inferred that thebusier person did things fast and engaged in more activitiesat once (M frac14 518) than the average busy person (M frac14453) or the less busy person (M frac14 375 all p-values lt001) They also perceived the busier individual to have amore meaningful job (M frac14 478) than the average busyperson (M frac14 445) or the less busy person (M frac14 384 allp-values lt 001) Though the differences between theldquobusierrdquo than average and ldquoless busyrdquo than average condi-tions were significant for all three dimensions (quantityspeed and meaning) the effect size of the quantity dimen-sion (x2 frac14 71) was more than two times and three timesbigger than the effect sizes of the other two dimensions(xspeed

2 frac14 31 and xmeaning2 frac14 24) suggesting that quan-

tity of work is the dimension generating the biggest effectand discriminating the most when people think about dif-ferences in busyness

In sum we identify and test three main dimensions ofbusyness quantity speed and meaning While speed andmeaning may certainly be relevant components of busy-ness consistent with our definition and with these resultswe expect quantity of work to be the main driver of busy-ness leading to perceptions of higher status

Work versus Leisure

Ancient philosophers have often portrayed paid work asthe degeneration and enslavement of the human existence

The free man in ancient Greece and Rome had only con-tempt for work while slaves performed tasks of labor InCicerorsquos words (44 BC1913) ldquoA citizen who gives hislabor for money degrades himself to the rank of slavesrdquoThis insight continued in the thoughts of more modernthinkers In his theory of the leisure class Veblen (18992007) defined leisure as the nonproductive consumption oftime and proposed that ldquoconspicuous abstention from labor[ ] becomes the conventional mark of superior pecuniaryachievementrdquo (30) Consistent with his view economictheory suggests that beyond a certain wage level more in-come will cause workers to supply less labor and work less(the ldquoincome effectrdquo) Accordingly studies of leisure andlabor patterns argue that in the 19th century one could pre-dict how poor somebody was by how long he worked(Economist 2014 Voth 2001) Furthermore the economistJohn Maynard Keynes predicted a 15-hour work week by2030 as society becomes more affluent and more time toenjoy ldquothe hour and the day virtuously and wellrdquo (Schulte2014) Research on happiness similarly shows that the de-sire to earn more income is driven by a belief that it willallow for less work and more leisure time (Kahneman et al2006) Moreover some empirical evidence demonstratesthat greater income leads to supplying less work cab-drivers quit working once they reach their daily income tar-get (Camerer et al 1997) lottery winners work less andconsume more leisure after receiving their prize (ImbensRubin and Sacerdote 2001) and the ultra-rich spend thelionrsquos share of their yearly expenditures on vacations andleisure travels (Frank 2012) Thus based on these prem-ises one may infer that those with time for leisure may beof higher wealth and social status and that those who workmore may be less well regarded

However it is also very plausible that those devotingmore time to work and less time to leisure may be viewedas having more status Beyond an income effect econo-mists also propose an opposing ldquosubstitution effectrdquo wherehigher wages increase the supply of labor because the op-portunity cost of consuming leisure becomes higherConsistent with this view work hours have increasedsteadily among highly educated and highly paid workersand have remained flat for less skilled employees (Kuhnand Lozano 2008) and a common increase in leisure timehas been driven by less educated people working less thanbefore (Aguiar and Hurst 2006)

Busy Individuals as a Scarce Resource

Beyond attributions that may be made grounded on theincome or substitution effects we propose that busynesshas become a status symbol through a mechanism of pos-sessing desired human capital characteristics and beingperceived as in demand and scarce Contrary to the predic-tion that observers attribute higher status and wealth to in-dividuals who conduct idle though enjoyable lives

120 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

(Veblen 18992007) we propose that long hours of workand lack of leisure time have now become a very powerfulstatus symbol The shift of status attribution based on timeexpenditure may be linked to the development ofknowledge-intensive economies characterized by struc-tured employment markets and demand for human capitalIn advanced economies the market for human resources istypically highly specialized both on the supply side withindividuals investing in their human capital (Nakamura2000 Wasik 2013) and on the demand side with a largebody of companies institutions and head hunters compet-ing to hire the best talent Those possessing the human cap-ital characteristics that employers or clients value (egcompetence and ambition) are expected to be in high de-mand and short supply on the job market According to re-search conducted at the Federal Reserve Bank in the ldquoneweconomyrdquo such human capital characteristics are increas-ingly viewed as the scarcest economic resource (Nakamura2000) Although working hard in economic systems thatwere mostly based on less-skilled agriculture and manufac-turing may have been perceived as virtuous it may nothave implied an individual was in high demand In con-trast we propose that in advanced economies long hoursof work and busyness may operate as a signal that one pos-sesses desirable human capital capabilities and is thereforein high demand and scarce in the job market leading toelevated status attributions

Scarcity and Status

In the domain of luxury goods scarcity is a central attri-bute to maintaining product value (Lynn 1991) Luxury re-searchers categorize various types of scarcity thatmarketers can take advantage of including natural scarcity(diamonds) techno-scarcity (new technologies) andlimited-edition scarcity which can all be used to demandhigher market prices (Catry 2003) Research has furtherdocumented a ldquoscarce is goodrdquo heuristic suggesting thatconsumers learn based on their buying experiences thatscarce objects tend to be more valuable than nonscarce ob-jects (Cialdini 1993) The possession of scarce productshas also been associated with feelings of statusResearchers found that consumers desired a scarce limited-edition product when they felt powerless in an attempt toregain feelings of status (Rucker and Galinsky 2008) Justas items that are scarce may be afforded more status andvalue so might a person who is scarce We surmise thatthe overall status benefits that busy people enjoy over non-busy people may stem from the perception that they pos-sess desirable human capital characteristics that make themscarce and in demand on the job market A busy individualis scarce like a rare gemstone and thus perceived to havehigh status

Our main outcome measure is inferences in terms of sta-tus Status represents the respect one possesses in the eyes

of others (Magee and Galinsky 2008) In line with previousresearch on status attribution we consider status in termsof both ldquosocial statusrdquo and ldquofinancial resourcesrdquo (Bourdieu1984 Scott Mende and Bolton 2013 Veblen 18992007)A large stream of research has found that individuals dis-play their status by publicly consuming luxury goods(Berger and Ward 2010 Fuchs et al 2013 Han Nunesand Dreze 2010 Mandel Petrova and Cialdini 2006Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward and Dahl 2014) Inaddition recent research has uncovered the role of moresubtle signals of status such as larger food and drink pack-ages smaller logos and nonconforming behaviors(Bellezza Gino and Keinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010Dubois Rucker and Galinsky 2012 Han et al 2010) Inthis research we propose another novel way to communi-cate status through the conspicuous displays of onersquosbusyness and lack of leisure time

In sum we argue that long hours of work and lack ofleisure time impact the inferences observers make aboutthe target individualrsquos characteristics in particular obser-vers infer that the busy individual possesses desirablehuman capital characteristics such as competence and am-bition In turn these valuable characteristics affect per-ceived scarcity Individuals possessing high human capitalare perceived as a ldquoscarce resourcerdquo ldquoin demandrdquo andsought after in the job market We therefore predict a two-step mediation process whereby long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to positive attributions of humancapital characteristics (competence and ambition) whichimpact perceived scarcity and ultimately affect inferencesof status

H1 Busyness at work and lack of leisure time can lead to

inferences of higher perceived status as compared to less

busyness at work and abundance of leisure time

H2 Positive inferences of status in response to busyness

and lack of leisure will be mediated by perceptions that a

busy person possesses desired human capital characteristics

(competence ambition) and as a consequence is scarce and

in demand

Perceived Social Mobility

We then explore the role of values and culture as an im-portant boundary condition for the positive associationsbased on busyness Specifically we propose that status in-ferences linked to busyness and lack of leisure time will behighly influenced by perceived social mobility which sug-gests that hard work may bring success and social affirm-ation (Alesina and La Ferrara 2005 Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013Corneo and Gruner 2002) Social mobility is fundamentalin American culture and is reflected in the ethos of theAmerican Dream (Adams 1931) which proposes that re-gardless of social class one has the opportunity for social

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 121

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

affirmation based on hard work Indeed one who believesin a socially mobile society may view busyness at work asan effective vehicle for achieving greater status We oper-ationalize beliefs in social mobility in two distinct waysFirst we measure beliefs in social mobility using the per-ceived social mobility scale (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013) meas-uring the degree to which individuals view society asmobile and believe that work leads to social affirmation(eg ldquoHard work brings success in the long runrdquo ldquoPeoplehave a chance to escape povertyrdquo) Accordingly we expectthat status inferences toward a busy individual will behigher for individuals who strongly believe in socialmobility

Secondly we explore varying beliefs in social mobilitycomparing differences among cultures (North America vsEurope) Societies vary on whether the concept of socialstatus can be earned through success and accomplishments(achieved status) or is passed down through family back-ground and inherited wealth (ascribed status Foladare1969) While status perceptions are usually a function ofboth in the United States earned status has a larger influ-ence on overall status perceptions (Linton 1936)Americans believe that they live in a mobile society whereindividual effort can move people up and down the statusladder while Europeans believe that they live in less mo-bile societies where people are ldquostuckrdquo in their native so-cial strata (Alesina Di Tella and MacCulloch 2004Alesina and La Ferrara 2005) Based on these varying be-liefs in social mobility Americans view work as a priorityand idealize busyness and long hours of work whereasEuropeans feel their leisure time is as important as or evenmore important than work time (Richards 1998 1999)For example Brislin and Kim (2003) show that in WesternEurope leisure and vacations are greatly valued and consti-tute the most significant events in many peoplersquos livesAnother study on time use in France versus the UnitedStates (Krueger et al 2008) found that on average theFrench take 21 more vacation days a year than AmericansIn a small pilot test we also confirmed that Americanshave stronger beliefs in social mobility than Italians1

Popular culture also reflects and amplifies these culturalvalues a recent Super Bowl commercial by Cadillac(quoted at the beginning of this article) features a wealthybusinessman who glorifies the busy working Americanlifestyle and lampoons Europeans for enjoying long vac-ations A New York Times article discussing Europersquos loveof leisure features European businessmen and economistswho argue that ldquothe main difference with the US is that wespend more time enjoying liferdquo and ldquoleisure is a normalgood and as you become richer economic theory says that

you consume more of itrdquo (Bennhold 2004) Because North

Americans and Europeans have different beliefs in socialmobility through work (Alesina et al 2004) and relatedlya different emphasis on earned or ascribed status we sur-mise that these cultural differences could lead not only to

attenuation but even a reversal of the busyness effectAccordingly we predict that social mobility both as an in-dividual difference and based on culture (American vsItalian) will moderate the busyness effect

H3 Positive inferences of status in response to busyness

and lack of leisure time will be moderated by observersrsquo

perceived social mobility when perceived social mobility is

high the effect of busyness on status inferences is positive

when perceived social mobility is low the effect of busy-

ness on status inferences is either attenuated or negative

In conclusion we propose that people will regard busy in-dividuals who do not spend time leisurely to be higher in

status than those who work less and conduct a leisurelylifestyle In the context of a mobile society where statuscan be earned busyness may be seen as an effective path

to climb the social ladder Furthermore like a rare gem-stone a busy individual is seen as in high demand andscarce Across studies we manipulate busyness in a varietyof ways including explicit ways to display onersquos lack of

leisure (eg use of social media posts) as well as more im-plicit ways (eg descriptions use of timesaving productsand services) In every study results hold when we controlfor respondentsrsquo gender age occupation status and in-

come In the general discussion we conclude with twofollow-up studies testing additional boundary conditions(agency and economic class) and a discussion of the theor-etical and managerial implications providing tangible pre-

scriptions for how marketers can emphasize busyness andpromote timesaving products for status-signaling purposes

RESEARCH DESIGN AND FINDINGS

Pilot Study Humblebragging on Social Media

To provide empirical evidence of the conspicuous dis-play of busyness and lack of leisure time we first collectfield data and examine the content of more than 1000

tweets posted by celebrities a demographic of status-conscious individuals (Brim 2009) ldquoHumblebraggingrdquo isthe act of showing off about something through an osten-sibly self-deprecating statement For example the cover of

the book Humblebrag The Art of False Modesty (Wittels2012) mentions that the author ldquowould love some free timebut has been too busy writing for Parks and Recreation

Eastbound amp Down and a bunch of other stuffvacationpleaserdquo Before publishing the Humblebrag bookthe author asked people to email him leads on anyhumblebrags available online which he then posted on the

bookrsquos Twitter page (httpstwittercomHumblebrag)

1 Thirty Italians (Qualtrics) reported significantly lower levels of per-ceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013 a frac14 84) than 30Americans (Mechanical Turk) (Mita frac14 398 vs Musa frac14 491 F(1 59)frac14 655 p frac14 013)

122 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We scraped from the web these self-deprecating state-ments the majority of which were by famous people andcoded the most recent 1100 of them with the help of threeresearch assistants The goal of this study was to examinethe frequency of complaints about busyness and lack ofleisure on social media as compared to other types of self-deprecating statements such as humblebragging about thedownsides of fame and attractiveness We found that about12 of the coded tweets related to complaints about hardwork and lack of time (eg Tlaloc Rivas stage directorldquoOpened a show last Friday Begin rehearsals for anothernext Tuesday In-between that meetings in DC I HAVENO LIFErdquo Austin Pettis American football receiverldquoHad a lot going on these past few weeks and even morethese next two this is wayyyy to much to handlerdquoArthur Kade actor and model ldquoI need 2 write a blog withan update on everything I have been so ridic busy wmeetings and calls that I have neglected my fansrdquo JoshSigurdson journalist and songwriter ldquoHi Irsquom 16 and Irsquompublishing 3 books and an album this year Do you haveany advice on how to handle it bestrdquo) The most recurringhumblebrags not related to time were about celebrity status(eg Lindsay Lohan actress and model ldquoOh my god Irsquomso embarrassed paparazzi just blinded me with flashesagain as I was walking into dinner They pushed me and Itrippedrdquo Olivia Wilde actress ldquoWatching my brothergraduate from Andover today So proud it is silly Moreimportant than MTV awards but thank you to all who votedfor merdquo) Other examples and more details on the mostrecurring categories are in the web appendix

In sum this pilot study confirms that conspicuously dis-playing onersquos busyness through social media is a practicepursued to some extent by famous status-conscious peo-ple and has been recognized as a kind of bragging by theHumblebrag community Although these results are obser-vational they offer initial evidence that people use socialmedia to publicly display how much they work and com-plain about lack of leisure time in an attempt to exhibittheir high status In the following studies we focus on sta-tus inferences made by others in response to signals ofbusyness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 1 Humblebragging about Busynessthrough Social Media

In study 1 the objective is to demonstrate an effect ofbusyness on inferences of status and to establish the medi-ating process of human capital and scarcity Over the lastdecade the exponential growth of social networks andblogs has multiplied the chances consumers have to portraya virtual image of themselves in front of others and openedup new ways to display onersquos use of time to large audi-ences Through social media consumers can share theirlives and interests (eg Facebook Snapchat) and theirprofessional opinions and achievements (eg Twitter

LinkedIn) among others things Inspired by these trendsand by the Humblebrag pilot study we consider status in-ferences made about people posting Facebook updates(study 1A) or writing letters (study 1B) regarding theirlevel of busyness at work In addition we test for mediatio-nal evidence of our proposed multiple-step mechanism af-fecting status attributions via perceived human capitalcharacteristics and scarcity of the busy individual

Method (Study 1A) We decided in advance to recruit300 participants (about 150 per condition) We recruited307 respondents for a paid online survey through AmazonMechanical Turk (48 female Mage frac14 37 American 59employed full-time 25 employed part-time 16 un-employed average monthly gross income $2000ndash2999)We randomly assigned participants to one of two condi-tions busy Facebook posts or leisurely Facebook postsParticipants read Facebook status updates of a hypotheticalfriend of theirs To make sure there were no differences ofthe effect of conspicuous busyness across genders we var-ied whether the Facebook updates were posted by a man(Sam Fisher) or by a woman (Sally Fisher) Thus the sam-ple was equally split between participants who read aboutthe female poster and participants who read about the maleposter As expected there were no significant differencesfor gender in the patterns of results thus the data were col-lapsed and analyzed jointly For ease of exposition we re-port the questions and results for the rest of the study interms of the female poster All participants were asked toimagine they were friends on Facebook with Sally Fisherand to read three of Sallyrsquos recent posts The status updatesappeared in chronological order on a simulated Facebookscreen page (see the web appendix for a synoptic represen-tation of the visual stimuli) In the busy-Facebook-postscondition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoOh I have been working non-stop allweekrdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoQuick 10 minute lunchrdquo and(3) Friday 5pm ldquoStill at workrdquo In the leisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoI havenrsquot worked much this week hadlots of free timerdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoEnjoying a long lunchbreakrdquo and (3) Friday 5pm ldquoDone with workrdquo

Subsequently we measured perceived status using threedistinct measures A primary measure of status was de-veloped based on previous status definitions (Bourdieu1984 Scott et al 2013 Veblen 18992007) to include bothsocial status and financial resources (wealth and income)Specifically participants answered the following threequestions (1) On a scale from 1 to 7 how would you rankthe social status of the individual described (1 frac14 Low so-cial status 7 frac14 High social status) (2) Do you think she isfinancially wealthy (1 frac14 Not wealthy 7 frac14 Extremelywealthy) and (3) This person has a high income level (1 frac14Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) Thus the threeitems (social status financial wealth income) were

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 123

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

collapsed into a single measure of overall status (a frac14 82)Throughout all the studies in this article this will be theprimary measure of perceived status In addition weincluded two other measures of status established in the lit-erature to confirm the construct validity of our primarymeasure First we adapted the widely used MacArthurscale of subjective socioeconomic status (Adler et al 2000Anderson et al 2012) to assess the status of a third partyThe measure consists of a drawing of a ladder with 10rungs representing where people stand in society in termsof money status and influence (10 representing people atthe top of society 1 representing people at the bottom ofsociety) Participants were instructed to pick the rungwhere they would place Sally Second following Duboiset al (2012) participants were asked to judge Sally on twodimensions wedded to status (this person has high status isrespected a frac14 68) and three dimensions divorced fromstatus (this person is honest nice attractive) The order ofthe five dimensions was randomized Importantly the threedimensions divorced from status allowed us to detect po-tential demand effect

Participants then assessed Sallyrsquos human capital charac-teristics the first mediator Because the attributes of com-petence and ambition have been strongly associated withhuman capital (Frank and Bernanke 2007) we chose threemeasures that reflected these characteristics to measurehuman capital Specifically participants rated their agree-ment (1 frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) with thefollowing statements presented in randomized order (1)Sally is competent (2) Sally is ambitious and (3) Sallywants to move up in the world We averaged the threeitems (a frac14 88) and used the resulting measure as first me-diator Next participants answered three questions assess-ing whether Sally was perceived to be in demand andscarce on the job market the second mediator More spe-cifically participants were asked (1) To what extent isSally in demand (1 frac14 In very low demand 7 frac14 In veryhigh demand) (2) Do you perceive Sally as a ldquoscarce re-sourcerdquo (1 frac14 Definitely no 7 frac14 Definitely yes) and (3)Do you imagine Sally is sought after in the job market(1 frac14 Not sought after at all 7 frac14 Very much sought after)We averaged the three items (a frac14 91) and used the result-ing measure as the second mediator

Lastly three manipulation checks (a frac14 89) measuredSallyrsquos level of busyness at work and lack of leisure time(1) Sally spends many hours at work (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) (2) Sally spends many hoursdoing hobbies andor leisure activities (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree reverse coded) and (3) Howbusy is Sally (1 frac14 Not busy at all 7 frac14 Extremely busy)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1A) We used twoapproaches to assess the discriminant validity of the keyconstructs (ie perceived busyness level human capitalcharacteristics scarcity and status) First we comparedthe Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each of ourconstructs with the squared correlation between constructspairs (Fornell and Larcker 1981) Table 1 shows that theAVE (diagonal data) exceeds the squared correlations forall measures (below the diagonal data) Second none ofthe confidence intervals at plus or minus two standarderrors around the correlation between the factors (table 1above the diagonal data) included 10 (Anderson andGerbing 1988) Thus these two tests provide evidence forthe discriminant validity of our measures The same ana-lyses performed on the other two status measures yieldsimilar results

Results (Study 1A) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Sally was perceived as working lon-ger hours in the busy (Mfrac14 553 SD frac14 103) than in theleisurely posts condition (Mfrac14 274 SD frac14 95 F(1 305) frac1461256 p lt 001) Consistent with hypothesis 1 all threestatus measures were significantly higher in the busy-Facebook-posts condition Compared to participants in theleisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants in thebusy-Facebook-posts condition perceived Sally as higherin social status (Mfrac14 37 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 34 SD frac14123 F(1 305) frac14 551 p frac14 019)2 they placed her on ahigher rung on the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 534SD frac14 142 vs Mfrac14 479 SD frac14 155 F(1 305) frac14 1028p frac14 001) and they saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 401 SD frac14 104 vs Mfrac14 376 SD frac14 107 F(1 305)frac14 417 p frac14 042) Indeed the three measures of status are

TABLE 1

STUDY 1A MEASUREMENT OF DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Busyness levelindependent variable

Human capitalmediator 1

Scarcitymediator 2

Statusdependent variable

Busyness level independent variable 0819 (0703ndash806) (0521ndash0682) (0150ndash0379)Human capital mediator 1 0573 0817 (0723ndash0824) (0370ndash0572)Scarcity mediator 2 0367 0607 0845 (0468ndash0668)Status dependent variable 0071 0225 0326 0733

NOTEmdashMatrix shows AVE (diagonal) squared correlation (below the diagonal) and confidence intervals (above diagonal)

2 This result replicated (Mbusy frac14 387 vs Mnonbusy frac14 321 F(1 242)frac14 2069 p lt 001) with another sample of 244 participants (study 1Areplication web appendix)

124 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

highly convergent and tap into one construct All the items

across measures are highly correlated and a principal com-

ponent analysis revealed one single factor accounting for

66 of the variance (see the results table in the web

appendix)As expected participants found Sally in the busy-

Facebook-posts condition to possess higher human capital

characteristics (Mfrac14 488 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 324 SD frac14111 F(1 304) frac14 18201 p lt 001) and to be more scarce

and in demand (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 116 vs Mfrac14 268 SD frac14117 F(1 304) frac14 9543 p lt 001) than in the leisurely-

Facebook-posts conditionImportantly there was no difference between conditions

on the nonstatus dimensions (ie perceptions of honesty

niceness and attractiveness Mfrac14 444 SD frac14 75 vs

Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 83 F(1 305) frac14 83 NS) This result con-

tributes to ruling out concerns of demand effects

Mediation Analyses (Study 1A) We estimated

multiple-step mediation using model 6 in PROCESS

(Hayes 2013) Figure and estimated path coefficients and

results on all indirect effects are reported in the web appen-

dix As predicted we found a significant indirect effect

(55 95 CI from 37 to 75) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity To estimate the neces-

sity of a more complex multiple-step mediation model we

also computed the R2 change from a simpler model

including only the first mediator in the regression The ana-

lysis revealed a significant improvement in the amount of

variance explained when both mediators were included

(from R2 frac14 27 to R2 frac14 38 Fchange (1 302) frac14 5191 p lt001) As a further check we also ran an analysis with

the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and human

capital second) The indirect effect was also significant

(16 95 CI from 04 to 3) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than three

times smaller than our hypothesized path model (stand-

ardized indirect effect frac14 25)Finally the hypothesized multiple-step mediation ana-

lysis on the other two measures of status revealed the pre-

dicted pattern of results For the socioeconomic status

ladder the indirect effect through human capital and scar-

city was significant (51 95 CI from 27 to 78)

Likewise for ratings of status and respect the indirect ef-

fect through human capital and scarcity was also signifi-

cant (32 95 CI from 18 to 49)

Method (Study 1B) We decided in advance to recruit

at least 100 respondents (about 50 per condition) for a lab

study at Georgetown We recruited 112 respondents (47

female Mage frac14 20) and randomly assigned them to one of

two conditions busy letter or leisurely letter Participants

read the following letter from an imaginary friend (text in

parentheses refers to the busy-letter condition text in

brackets refers to the leisurely-letter condition)

Hi John

I got your birthday card today it made me laugh Thank you

for remembering my birthday I canrsquot believe we are already

40 time flies (My life is crazy busy as usual You probably

remember how much I like watching my favorite sport

teams Unfortunately I have an extremely busy work sched-

ule which does not allow me to spend a lot of time watching

TV and doing other hobbies) [My life is relaxed as usual

You probably remember how much I like watching my fa-

vorite sport teams Luckily I donrsquot have a busy work sched-

ule which allows me to spend a lot of time watching TV and

doing other hobbies] Pam and my parents got me a large

screen TV for my birthday (So far I havenrsquot had a chance to

watch it) [So far I have been watching ESPN every day]

You would probably be happy to hear I finally quit smoking

wersquoll see how it goes You always told me I should quit

Pam and the kids are sending their love I hope we can all

get together soon

Daniel

Given the high convergence of the three status measures instudy 1A in this and the next studies we will focus on thethree-item status measure consisting of social statuswealth and income Using the same measures as in study1A we asked participants to rate Daniel on perceived sta-tus (a frac14 9) human capital (a frac14 83) scarcity (a frac14 9)and busyness (a frac14 93)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in study 1A confirmed the dis-tinctiveness of our main constructs (see the results table inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 1B) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Daniel was perceived as more busyin the busy-letter (Mfrac14 544 SD frac14 107) than in theleisurely-letter condition (Mfrac14 258 SD frac14 107 F(1 110)frac14 20017 p lt 001) Compared to participants in theleisurely-letter condition participants in the busy-lettercondition perceived Daniel as higher in social status finan-cial wealth and income (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 108 vsMfrac14 352 SD frac14 99 F(1 110) frac14 589 p frac14 017)Analyzing the two mediators confirmed that participantsfound Daniel in the busy-letter condition to have higherhuman capital characteristics (Mfrac14 442 SD frac14 99 vsMfrac14 304 SD frac14 92 F(1 110) frac14 5743 p lt 001) and tobe more scarce and in demand (Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 96 vsMfrac14 283 SD frac14 96 F(1 110) frac14 2815 p lt 001) than inthe leisurely-letter condition

Mediation Analyses (Study 1B) As in study 1A weperformed a multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes2013) As expected we found a significant indirect effect(76 95 CI from 52 to 111) for the mediation paththrough human capital and scarcity See figure 1 for esti-mated path coefficients and results on all indirect effects

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 125

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We also ran the same analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was not significant when the mediators were re-versed (ndash01 95 CI from ndash18 to 15)

Discussion The results of studies 1A and 1B demon-strate that individuals posting Facebook updates or writingletters about their overworked lifestyle are perceived ashigher in status than individuals whose updates revealmore leisurely lifestyles Importantly consistent with hy-pothesis 2 these studies show that long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to higher inferences in terms ofhuman capital characteristics of the busy individual whichin turn enhance the extent to which this individual is per-ceived as scarce and in demand ultimately leading to posi-tive status attributions Finally these results demonstratethe discriminant validity of our critical constructs (ie per-ceived busyness level human capital scarcity and status)

To gain further insight into the specific dimensions ofbusyness driving the positive status attributions the fol-lowing set of studies examines the speed at which work isperformed (study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to theworking activity (study 2B) Moreover these studies

consider the moderating role of perceived social mobility

within American respondents

Study 2 The Dimensions of Busyness and theModerating Role of Perceived Social Mobility

The objective of this study is to dissect the dimensions

of busyness at work that may potentially lead to positive

inferences of status in the eyes of others Across two paral-

lel experimental designs we test and compare (between-

subjects) 10 different lifestyles reflecting three dimensions

of time consumption quantity (the amount of working

hours and leisure time) speed (pace at which work is per-

formed) and meaning (level of enjoyment and meaning

tied to work) Because both speed and meaning varied with

manipulations of busyness in the pilot test in study 2 our

aim is to isolate the effects of quantity (hours of work vs

leisure) while accounting for these additional dimensions

of busyness Specifically we will look at quantity and

speed in study 2A and we will examine quantity and

meaning in study 2B In the case of speed the quantity di-

mension of the busyness effect might be attenuated if

FIGURE 1

STUDY 1B RESULTS MEDIATION VIA HUMAN CAPITAL AND SCARCITY ON PERCEIVED STATUS

Busy at Work vs Leisurely

Lifestyle

b1 = 138

Status Inferences

Human Capital

In Demand and Scarce

b5 = -01

b2 = 71

b3 = 78

b6 = -01

b4 = -26

NOTEmdashMultiple-step mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples (model 6 in PROCESS Hayes 2013) Coefficients significantly different from zero are indicated

by asterisks (p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001)

The total indirect effect was significant (74 95 CI from 41 to 109)

The indirect effect through human capital and scarcity (the effect hypothesized in hypothesis 2) was significant (76 95 CI from 52 to 111)

The indirect effect through human capital was not significant (ndash02 95 CI from ndash34 to 3)

The indirect effect through scarcity was not significant (ndash01 95 CI from ndash24 to 26)

126 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 2: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

(eg Cadillacrsquos ldquoThe Only Way to Travelrdquo campaign inthe rsquo90s) are being replaced with ads featuring busy indi-viduals who work long hours and have very limited leisuretime For example Cadillacrsquos 2014 Super Bowl commer-cial quoted above features a busy and leisure-deprivedbusinessman and the Wall Street Journalrsquos 2016 campaignfeatures celebrities who complain about their busy liveswith the slogan ldquoPeople who donrsquot have time make time toread the Wall Street Journalrdquo

In the present article we argue that busyness and over-work rather than a leisurely life have become a statussymbol In contemporary American culture complainingabout being busy and working all the time has become anincreasingly widespread phenomenon On Twitter celebri-ties publicly complain about ldquohaving no liferdquo or ldquobeing indesperate need of a vacationrdquo (Alford 2012) A New YorkTimes social commentator suggests that a common re-sponse to the question ldquoHow are yourdquo is ldquoBusyrdquo (Kreider2012) An analysis of holiday letters indicates that refer-ences to ldquocrazy schedulesrdquo have dramatically increasedsince the 1960s (Schulte 2014)

To explain this phenomenon we uncover an alternativekind of conspicuous consumption that operates by shiftingthe focus from the preciousness and scarcity of goods to thepreciousness and scarcity of individuals Our investigationreveals that positive status inferences in response to longhours of work and lack of leisure time are mediated by theperceptions that busy individuals possess desired humancapital characteristics (competence ambition) leading themto be viewed as scarce and in demand A series of studiestests our conceptual model and demonstrates the conditionsunder which a busy and overworked individual is perceivedto have status in the eyes of others As a preliminary investi-gation we first explore Twitter data categorized asldquohumblebragsrdquo consisting of self-deprecating boasts(Alford 2012) and find that a substantial number of thesebrags relate to long hours of work and lack of leisure timeInspired by these findings studies 1A and 1B use Facebookposts and a letter to a friend to communicate either an over-worked lifestyle or a nonbusy lifestyle and demonstrate theproposed mediating process affecting status attributions viaperceived human capital characteristics and scarcity of thebusy individual In studies 2A and 2B we examine the mod-erating effects of social mobility beliefs We find thatAmericans who perceive their society as particularly mobileand believe that work may lead to social affirmation arevery likely to interpret busyness as a positive signal of sta-tus Moreover these studies disentangle the specific dimen-sions of busyness at work leading to inferences of highstatus quantity (the amount of working hours and leisuretime) speed (pace at which work is performed) and mean-ing (level of meaning and enjoyment tied to work) In study3 we examine differences among cultures (ie NorthAmerica vs Europe) to demonstrate the busyness effectamongst Americans and the opposite effect with leisure

signaling higher status amongst Europeans Finally studies4A and 4B consider specific marketing implications of ourwork and show how the public use of timesaving services(eg Peapod an online grocery delivery service) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth headsets) can signal status regardlessof how busy one truly is

CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

Busyness as Long Hours of Work and Lack ofLeisure Time

Research in economics sociology and consumer behav-ior on the consumption of time has focused on the ante-cedents of time allocation decisions (Becker 1965)examining how individuals divide their time between paidwork time (remunerated employment) unpaid work time(household labor) and leisure time (Berry 1979 Gross1987 Jacoby Szybillo and Berning 1976 Schor 1992) Inthis article we examine how these time allocation deci-sions are perceived by others In particular how does sig-naling busyness and lack of leisure time impactperceptions of status in the eyes of others

We define busyness as long hours of remunerated em-ployment and lack of leisure time This definition is con-sistent with dictionary definitions of ldquobusyrdquo whichemphasize ldquoactively workingrdquo and ldquonot at leisurerdquo(Dictionarycom WordReferencecom) Accordingly weoperationalize busyness in our studies by the amount oftime the person allocates to work versus leisure We alsoconsider speed (pace at which work is performed) andmeaning (level of meaning and enjoyment tied to work) astwo other relevant dimensions for the conceptualization ofbusyness We include these additional time consumptiondimensions to capture not only the quantity of time (iehow much time is allocated to work vs leisure) but alsothe quality of that time (is the time spent in an active andmeaningful way) Indeed busyness has also been under-stood as a subjective state determined by the number oftasks individuals have to perform (Gershuny 2005)Moreover people dread idleness and desire busyness insearch of meaning and motivation in their lives (ArielyKamenica and Prelec 2008 Hsee Yang and Wang 2010Keinan and Kivetz 2011 Wilcox et al 2016)

To confirm our conceptualization of busyness we con-ducted a pilot study in the lab (see the web appendix) to de-termine which category of time expenditure is mostassociated with busynessmdashthat is if one is perceived to bebusy do people infer they are busy with paid work house-hold work or with leisure Moreover how does theamount of working hours (ie quantity) relate to the othertwo relevant dimensions (ie speed and meaning) Eachparticipant read a description of three people a person whowas ldquobusier than averagerdquo a person with an ldquoaverage levelof busynessrdquo and a person who was ldquoless busy than

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 119

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

averagerdquo We then asked participants how they thoughtthese people spent their time specifically whether theythought each person spent many hours at work doinghome-related chores and activities or doing hobbies andorleisure activities To explore the other two dimensions ofbusyness (ie speed and meaning) we then asked partici-pants whether they thought the people described in thestudy did things fastmultitasked and had a meaningful job

Participants inferred that the busier person spent signifi-cantly more time at work (M frac14 583) than the average busyperson (M frac14 475) or the less busy person (M frac14 33 allp-values lt 001) Conversely participants perceived thebusier person to spend less time on leisure (M frac14 343) thanthe average busy person (M frac14 424) or the less busy person(M frac14 503 all p-values lt 001) For time spent on choresthere was no significant difference related to level of busy-ness Thus these results confirm that busyness is primarilyassociated with long hours of work and having less timefor leisure Although one could conceivably find that a per-son is busy with leisure activities (has an active social cal-endar) or busy with home-related activities (has manychores to complete) these inferences are not spontaneouswhen one considers a busy individual As a further precau-tion to avoid misinterpretation in all the scenario studieswe make it absolutely clear that the target individual isldquobusyrdquo in terms of long hours of paid work time as per ourdefinition

Participants in our pilot study also inferred that thebusier person did things fast and engaged in more activitiesat once (M frac14 518) than the average busy person (M frac14453) or the less busy person (M frac14 375 all p-values lt001) They also perceived the busier individual to have amore meaningful job (M frac14 478) than the average busyperson (M frac14 445) or the less busy person (M frac14 384 allp-values lt 001) Though the differences between theldquobusierrdquo than average and ldquoless busyrdquo than average condi-tions were significant for all three dimensions (quantityspeed and meaning) the effect size of the quantity dimen-sion (x2 frac14 71) was more than two times and three timesbigger than the effect sizes of the other two dimensions(xspeed

2 frac14 31 and xmeaning2 frac14 24) suggesting that quan-

tity of work is the dimension generating the biggest effectand discriminating the most when people think about dif-ferences in busyness

In sum we identify and test three main dimensions ofbusyness quantity speed and meaning While speed andmeaning may certainly be relevant components of busy-ness consistent with our definition and with these resultswe expect quantity of work to be the main driver of busy-ness leading to perceptions of higher status

Work versus Leisure

Ancient philosophers have often portrayed paid work asthe degeneration and enslavement of the human existence

The free man in ancient Greece and Rome had only con-tempt for work while slaves performed tasks of labor InCicerorsquos words (44 BC1913) ldquoA citizen who gives hislabor for money degrades himself to the rank of slavesrdquoThis insight continued in the thoughts of more modernthinkers In his theory of the leisure class Veblen (18992007) defined leisure as the nonproductive consumption oftime and proposed that ldquoconspicuous abstention from labor[ ] becomes the conventional mark of superior pecuniaryachievementrdquo (30) Consistent with his view economictheory suggests that beyond a certain wage level more in-come will cause workers to supply less labor and work less(the ldquoincome effectrdquo) Accordingly studies of leisure andlabor patterns argue that in the 19th century one could pre-dict how poor somebody was by how long he worked(Economist 2014 Voth 2001) Furthermore the economistJohn Maynard Keynes predicted a 15-hour work week by2030 as society becomes more affluent and more time toenjoy ldquothe hour and the day virtuously and wellrdquo (Schulte2014) Research on happiness similarly shows that the de-sire to earn more income is driven by a belief that it willallow for less work and more leisure time (Kahneman et al2006) Moreover some empirical evidence demonstratesthat greater income leads to supplying less work cab-drivers quit working once they reach their daily income tar-get (Camerer et al 1997) lottery winners work less andconsume more leisure after receiving their prize (ImbensRubin and Sacerdote 2001) and the ultra-rich spend thelionrsquos share of their yearly expenditures on vacations andleisure travels (Frank 2012) Thus based on these prem-ises one may infer that those with time for leisure may beof higher wealth and social status and that those who workmore may be less well regarded

However it is also very plausible that those devotingmore time to work and less time to leisure may be viewedas having more status Beyond an income effect econo-mists also propose an opposing ldquosubstitution effectrdquo wherehigher wages increase the supply of labor because the op-portunity cost of consuming leisure becomes higherConsistent with this view work hours have increasedsteadily among highly educated and highly paid workersand have remained flat for less skilled employees (Kuhnand Lozano 2008) and a common increase in leisure timehas been driven by less educated people working less thanbefore (Aguiar and Hurst 2006)

Busy Individuals as a Scarce Resource

Beyond attributions that may be made grounded on theincome or substitution effects we propose that busynesshas become a status symbol through a mechanism of pos-sessing desired human capital characteristics and beingperceived as in demand and scarce Contrary to the predic-tion that observers attribute higher status and wealth to in-dividuals who conduct idle though enjoyable lives

120 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

(Veblen 18992007) we propose that long hours of workand lack of leisure time have now become a very powerfulstatus symbol The shift of status attribution based on timeexpenditure may be linked to the development ofknowledge-intensive economies characterized by struc-tured employment markets and demand for human capitalIn advanced economies the market for human resources istypically highly specialized both on the supply side withindividuals investing in their human capital (Nakamura2000 Wasik 2013) and on the demand side with a largebody of companies institutions and head hunters compet-ing to hire the best talent Those possessing the human cap-ital characteristics that employers or clients value (egcompetence and ambition) are expected to be in high de-mand and short supply on the job market According to re-search conducted at the Federal Reserve Bank in the ldquoneweconomyrdquo such human capital characteristics are increas-ingly viewed as the scarcest economic resource (Nakamura2000) Although working hard in economic systems thatwere mostly based on less-skilled agriculture and manufac-turing may have been perceived as virtuous it may nothave implied an individual was in high demand In con-trast we propose that in advanced economies long hoursof work and busyness may operate as a signal that one pos-sesses desirable human capital capabilities and is thereforein high demand and scarce in the job market leading toelevated status attributions

Scarcity and Status

In the domain of luxury goods scarcity is a central attri-bute to maintaining product value (Lynn 1991) Luxury re-searchers categorize various types of scarcity thatmarketers can take advantage of including natural scarcity(diamonds) techno-scarcity (new technologies) andlimited-edition scarcity which can all be used to demandhigher market prices (Catry 2003) Research has furtherdocumented a ldquoscarce is goodrdquo heuristic suggesting thatconsumers learn based on their buying experiences thatscarce objects tend to be more valuable than nonscarce ob-jects (Cialdini 1993) The possession of scarce productshas also been associated with feelings of statusResearchers found that consumers desired a scarce limited-edition product when they felt powerless in an attempt toregain feelings of status (Rucker and Galinsky 2008) Justas items that are scarce may be afforded more status andvalue so might a person who is scarce We surmise thatthe overall status benefits that busy people enjoy over non-busy people may stem from the perception that they pos-sess desirable human capital characteristics that make themscarce and in demand on the job market A busy individualis scarce like a rare gemstone and thus perceived to havehigh status

Our main outcome measure is inferences in terms of sta-tus Status represents the respect one possesses in the eyes

of others (Magee and Galinsky 2008) In line with previousresearch on status attribution we consider status in termsof both ldquosocial statusrdquo and ldquofinancial resourcesrdquo (Bourdieu1984 Scott Mende and Bolton 2013 Veblen 18992007)A large stream of research has found that individuals dis-play their status by publicly consuming luxury goods(Berger and Ward 2010 Fuchs et al 2013 Han Nunesand Dreze 2010 Mandel Petrova and Cialdini 2006Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward and Dahl 2014) Inaddition recent research has uncovered the role of moresubtle signals of status such as larger food and drink pack-ages smaller logos and nonconforming behaviors(Bellezza Gino and Keinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010Dubois Rucker and Galinsky 2012 Han et al 2010) Inthis research we propose another novel way to communi-cate status through the conspicuous displays of onersquosbusyness and lack of leisure time

In sum we argue that long hours of work and lack ofleisure time impact the inferences observers make aboutthe target individualrsquos characteristics in particular obser-vers infer that the busy individual possesses desirablehuman capital characteristics such as competence and am-bition In turn these valuable characteristics affect per-ceived scarcity Individuals possessing high human capitalare perceived as a ldquoscarce resourcerdquo ldquoin demandrdquo andsought after in the job market We therefore predict a two-step mediation process whereby long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to positive attributions of humancapital characteristics (competence and ambition) whichimpact perceived scarcity and ultimately affect inferencesof status

H1 Busyness at work and lack of leisure time can lead to

inferences of higher perceived status as compared to less

busyness at work and abundance of leisure time

H2 Positive inferences of status in response to busyness

and lack of leisure will be mediated by perceptions that a

busy person possesses desired human capital characteristics

(competence ambition) and as a consequence is scarce and

in demand

Perceived Social Mobility

We then explore the role of values and culture as an im-portant boundary condition for the positive associationsbased on busyness Specifically we propose that status in-ferences linked to busyness and lack of leisure time will behighly influenced by perceived social mobility which sug-gests that hard work may bring success and social affirm-ation (Alesina and La Ferrara 2005 Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013Corneo and Gruner 2002) Social mobility is fundamentalin American culture and is reflected in the ethos of theAmerican Dream (Adams 1931) which proposes that re-gardless of social class one has the opportunity for social

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 121

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

affirmation based on hard work Indeed one who believesin a socially mobile society may view busyness at work asan effective vehicle for achieving greater status We oper-ationalize beliefs in social mobility in two distinct waysFirst we measure beliefs in social mobility using the per-ceived social mobility scale (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013) meas-uring the degree to which individuals view society asmobile and believe that work leads to social affirmation(eg ldquoHard work brings success in the long runrdquo ldquoPeoplehave a chance to escape povertyrdquo) Accordingly we expectthat status inferences toward a busy individual will behigher for individuals who strongly believe in socialmobility

Secondly we explore varying beliefs in social mobilitycomparing differences among cultures (North America vsEurope) Societies vary on whether the concept of socialstatus can be earned through success and accomplishments(achieved status) or is passed down through family back-ground and inherited wealth (ascribed status Foladare1969) While status perceptions are usually a function ofboth in the United States earned status has a larger influ-ence on overall status perceptions (Linton 1936)Americans believe that they live in a mobile society whereindividual effort can move people up and down the statusladder while Europeans believe that they live in less mo-bile societies where people are ldquostuckrdquo in their native so-cial strata (Alesina Di Tella and MacCulloch 2004Alesina and La Ferrara 2005) Based on these varying be-liefs in social mobility Americans view work as a priorityand idealize busyness and long hours of work whereasEuropeans feel their leisure time is as important as or evenmore important than work time (Richards 1998 1999)For example Brislin and Kim (2003) show that in WesternEurope leisure and vacations are greatly valued and consti-tute the most significant events in many peoplersquos livesAnother study on time use in France versus the UnitedStates (Krueger et al 2008) found that on average theFrench take 21 more vacation days a year than AmericansIn a small pilot test we also confirmed that Americanshave stronger beliefs in social mobility than Italians1

Popular culture also reflects and amplifies these culturalvalues a recent Super Bowl commercial by Cadillac(quoted at the beginning of this article) features a wealthybusinessman who glorifies the busy working Americanlifestyle and lampoons Europeans for enjoying long vac-ations A New York Times article discussing Europersquos loveof leisure features European businessmen and economistswho argue that ldquothe main difference with the US is that wespend more time enjoying liferdquo and ldquoleisure is a normalgood and as you become richer economic theory says that

you consume more of itrdquo (Bennhold 2004) Because North

Americans and Europeans have different beliefs in socialmobility through work (Alesina et al 2004) and relatedlya different emphasis on earned or ascribed status we sur-mise that these cultural differences could lead not only to

attenuation but even a reversal of the busyness effectAccordingly we predict that social mobility both as an in-dividual difference and based on culture (American vsItalian) will moderate the busyness effect

H3 Positive inferences of status in response to busyness

and lack of leisure time will be moderated by observersrsquo

perceived social mobility when perceived social mobility is

high the effect of busyness on status inferences is positive

when perceived social mobility is low the effect of busy-

ness on status inferences is either attenuated or negative

In conclusion we propose that people will regard busy in-dividuals who do not spend time leisurely to be higher in

status than those who work less and conduct a leisurelylifestyle In the context of a mobile society where statuscan be earned busyness may be seen as an effective path

to climb the social ladder Furthermore like a rare gem-stone a busy individual is seen as in high demand andscarce Across studies we manipulate busyness in a varietyof ways including explicit ways to display onersquos lack of

leisure (eg use of social media posts) as well as more im-plicit ways (eg descriptions use of timesaving productsand services) In every study results hold when we controlfor respondentsrsquo gender age occupation status and in-

come In the general discussion we conclude with twofollow-up studies testing additional boundary conditions(agency and economic class) and a discussion of the theor-etical and managerial implications providing tangible pre-

scriptions for how marketers can emphasize busyness andpromote timesaving products for status-signaling purposes

RESEARCH DESIGN AND FINDINGS

Pilot Study Humblebragging on Social Media

To provide empirical evidence of the conspicuous dis-play of busyness and lack of leisure time we first collectfield data and examine the content of more than 1000

tweets posted by celebrities a demographic of status-conscious individuals (Brim 2009) ldquoHumblebraggingrdquo isthe act of showing off about something through an osten-sibly self-deprecating statement For example the cover of

the book Humblebrag The Art of False Modesty (Wittels2012) mentions that the author ldquowould love some free timebut has been too busy writing for Parks and Recreation

Eastbound amp Down and a bunch of other stuffvacationpleaserdquo Before publishing the Humblebrag bookthe author asked people to email him leads on anyhumblebrags available online which he then posted on the

bookrsquos Twitter page (httpstwittercomHumblebrag)

1 Thirty Italians (Qualtrics) reported significantly lower levels of per-ceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013 a frac14 84) than 30Americans (Mechanical Turk) (Mita frac14 398 vs Musa frac14 491 F(1 59)frac14 655 p frac14 013)

122 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We scraped from the web these self-deprecating state-ments the majority of which were by famous people andcoded the most recent 1100 of them with the help of threeresearch assistants The goal of this study was to examinethe frequency of complaints about busyness and lack ofleisure on social media as compared to other types of self-deprecating statements such as humblebragging about thedownsides of fame and attractiveness We found that about12 of the coded tweets related to complaints about hardwork and lack of time (eg Tlaloc Rivas stage directorldquoOpened a show last Friday Begin rehearsals for anothernext Tuesday In-between that meetings in DC I HAVENO LIFErdquo Austin Pettis American football receiverldquoHad a lot going on these past few weeks and even morethese next two this is wayyyy to much to handlerdquoArthur Kade actor and model ldquoI need 2 write a blog withan update on everything I have been so ridic busy wmeetings and calls that I have neglected my fansrdquo JoshSigurdson journalist and songwriter ldquoHi Irsquom 16 and Irsquompublishing 3 books and an album this year Do you haveany advice on how to handle it bestrdquo) The most recurringhumblebrags not related to time were about celebrity status(eg Lindsay Lohan actress and model ldquoOh my god Irsquomso embarrassed paparazzi just blinded me with flashesagain as I was walking into dinner They pushed me and Itrippedrdquo Olivia Wilde actress ldquoWatching my brothergraduate from Andover today So proud it is silly Moreimportant than MTV awards but thank you to all who votedfor merdquo) Other examples and more details on the mostrecurring categories are in the web appendix

In sum this pilot study confirms that conspicuously dis-playing onersquos busyness through social media is a practicepursued to some extent by famous status-conscious peo-ple and has been recognized as a kind of bragging by theHumblebrag community Although these results are obser-vational they offer initial evidence that people use socialmedia to publicly display how much they work and com-plain about lack of leisure time in an attempt to exhibittheir high status In the following studies we focus on sta-tus inferences made by others in response to signals ofbusyness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 1 Humblebragging about Busynessthrough Social Media

In study 1 the objective is to demonstrate an effect ofbusyness on inferences of status and to establish the medi-ating process of human capital and scarcity Over the lastdecade the exponential growth of social networks andblogs has multiplied the chances consumers have to portraya virtual image of themselves in front of others and openedup new ways to display onersquos use of time to large audi-ences Through social media consumers can share theirlives and interests (eg Facebook Snapchat) and theirprofessional opinions and achievements (eg Twitter

LinkedIn) among others things Inspired by these trendsand by the Humblebrag pilot study we consider status in-ferences made about people posting Facebook updates(study 1A) or writing letters (study 1B) regarding theirlevel of busyness at work In addition we test for mediatio-nal evidence of our proposed multiple-step mechanism af-fecting status attributions via perceived human capitalcharacteristics and scarcity of the busy individual

Method (Study 1A) We decided in advance to recruit300 participants (about 150 per condition) We recruited307 respondents for a paid online survey through AmazonMechanical Turk (48 female Mage frac14 37 American 59employed full-time 25 employed part-time 16 un-employed average monthly gross income $2000ndash2999)We randomly assigned participants to one of two condi-tions busy Facebook posts or leisurely Facebook postsParticipants read Facebook status updates of a hypotheticalfriend of theirs To make sure there were no differences ofthe effect of conspicuous busyness across genders we var-ied whether the Facebook updates were posted by a man(Sam Fisher) or by a woman (Sally Fisher) Thus the sam-ple was equally split between participants who read aboutthe female poster and participants who read about the maleposter As expected there were no significant differencesfor gender in the patterns of results thus the data were col-lapsed and analyzed jointly For ease of exposition we re-port the questions and results for the rest of the study interms of the female poster All participants were asked toimagine they were friends on Facebook with Sally Fisherand to read three of Sallyrsquos recent posts The status updatesappeared in chronological order on a simulated Facebookscreen page (see the web appendix for a synoptic represen-tation of the visual stimuli) In the busy-Facebook-postscondition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoOh I have been working non-stop allweekrdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoQuick 10 minute lunchrdquo and(3) Friday 5pm ldquoStill at workrdquo In the leisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoI havenrsquot worked much this week hadlots of free timerdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoEnjoying a long lunchbreakrdquo and (3) Friday 5pm ldquoDone with workrdquo

Subsequently we measured perceived status using threedistinct measures A primary measure of status was de-veloped based on previous status definitions (Bourdieu1984 Scott et al 2013 Veblen 18992007) to include bothsocial status and financial resources (wealth and income)Specifically participants answered the following threequestions (1) On a scale from 1 to 7 how would you rankthe social status of the individual described (1 frac14 Low so-cial status 7 frac14 High social status) (2) Do you think she isfinancially wealthy (1 frac14 Not wealthy 7 frac14 Extremelywealthy) and (3) This person has a high income level (1 frac14Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) Thus the threeitems (social status financial wealth income) were

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 123

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

collapsed into a single measure of overall status (a frac14 82)Throughout all the studies in this article this will be theprimary measure of perceived status In addition weincluded two other measures of status established in the lit-erature to confirm the construct validity of our primarymeasure First we adapted the widely used MacArthurscale of subjective socioeconomic status (Adler et al 2000Anderson et al 2012) to assess the status of a third partyThe measure consists of a drawing of a ladder with 10rungs representing where people stand in society in termsof money status and influence (10 representing people atthe top of society 1 representing people at the bottom ofsociety) Participants were instructed to pick the rungwhere they would place Sally Second following Duboiset al (2012) participants were asked to judge Sally on twodimensions wedded to status (this person has high status isrespected a frac14 68) and three dimensions divorced fromstatus (this person is honest nice attractive) The order ofthe five dimensions was randomized Importantly the threedimensions divorced from status allowed us to detect po-tential demand effect

Participants then assessed Sallyrsquos human capital charac-teristics the first mediator Because the attributes of com-petence and ambition have been strongly associated withhuman capital (Frank and Bernanke 2007) we chose threemeasures that reflected these characteristics to measurehuman capital Specifically participants rated their agree-ment (1 frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) with thefollowing statements presented in randomized order (1)Sally is competent (2) Sally is ambitious and (3) Sallywants to move up in the world We averaged the threeitems (a frac14 88) and used the resulting measure as first me-diator Next participants answered three questions assess-ing whether Sally was perceived to be in demand andscarce on the job market the second mediator More spe-cifically participants were asked (1) To what extent isSally in demand (1 frac14 In very low demand 7 frac14 In veryhigh demand) (2) Do you perceive Sally as a ldquoscarce re-sourcerdquo (1 frac14 Definitely no 7 frac14 Definitely yes) and (3)Do you imagine Sally is sought after in the job market(1 frac14 Not sought after at all 7 frac14 Very much sought after)We averaged the three items (a frac14 91) and used the result-ing measure as the second mediator

Lastly three manipulation checks (a frac14 89) measuredSallyrsquos level of busyness at work and lack of leisure time(1) Sally spends many hours at work (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) (2) Sally spends many hoursdoing hobbies andor leisure activities (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree reverse coded) and (3) Howbusy is Sally (1 frac14 Not busy at all 7 frac14 Extremely busy)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1A) We used twoapproaches to assess the discriminant validity of the keyconstructs (ie perceived busyness level human capitalcharacteristics scarcity and status) First we comparedthe Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each of ourconstructs with the squared correlation between constructspairs (Fornell and Larcker 1981) Table 1 shows that theAVE (diagonal data) exceeds the squared correlations forall measures (below the diagonal data) Second none ofthe confidence intervals at plus or minus two standarderrors around the correlation between the factors (table 1above the diagonal data) included 10 (Anderson andGerbing 1988) Thus these two tests provide evidence forthe discriminant validity of our measures The same ana-lyses performed on the other two status measures yieldsimilar results

Results (Study 1A) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Sally was perceived as working lon-ger hours in the busy (Mfrac14 553 SD frac14 103) than in theleisurely posts condition (Mfrac14 274 SD frac14 95 F(1 305) frac1461256 p lt 001) Consistent with hypothesis 1 all threestatus measures were significantly higher in the busy-Facebook-posts condition Compared to participants in theleisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants in thebusy-Facebook-posts condition perceived Sally as higherin social status (Mfrac14 37 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 34 SD frac14123 F(1 305) frac14 551 p frac14 019)2 they placed her on ahigher rung on the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 534SD frac14 142 vs Mfrac14 479 SD frac14 155 F(1 305) frac14 1028p frac14 001) and they saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 401 SD frac14 104 vs Mfrac14 376 SD frac14 107 F(1 305)frac14 417 p frac14 042) Indeed the three measures of status are

TABLE 1

STUDY 1A MEASUREMENT OF DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Busyness levelindependent variable

Human capitalmediator 1

Scarcitymediator 2

Statusdependent variable

Busyness level independent variable 0819 (0703ndash806) (0521ndash0682) (0150ndash0379)Human capital mediator 1 0573 0817 (0723ndash0824) (0370ndash0572)Scarcity mediator 2 0367 0607 0845 (0468ndash0668)Status dependent variable 0071 0225 0326 0733

NOTEmdashMatrix shows AVE (diagonal) squared correlation (below the diagonal) and confidence intervals (above diagonal)

2 This result replicated (Mbusy frac14 387 vs Mnonbusy frac14 321 F(1 242)frac14 2069 p lt 001) with another sample of 244 participants (study 1Areplication web appendix)

124 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

highly convergent and tap into one construct All the items

across measures are highly correlated and a principal com-

ponent analysis revealed one single factor accounting for

66 of the variance (see the results table in the web

appendix)As expected participants found Sally in the busy-

Facebook-posts condition to possess higher human capital

characteristics (Mfrac14 488 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 324 SD frac14111 F(1 304) frac14 18201 p lt 001) and to be more scarce

and in demand (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 116 vs Mfrac14 268 SD frac14117 F(1 304) frac14 9543 p lt 001) than in the leisurely-

Facebook-posts conditionImportantly there was no difference between conditions

on the nonstatus dimensions (ie perceptions of honesty

niceness and attractiveness Mfrac14 444 SD frac14 75 vs

Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 83 F(1 305) frac14 83 NS) This result con-

tributes to ruling out concerns of demand effects

Mediation Analyses (Study 1A) We estimated

multiple-step mediation using model 6 in PROCESS

(Hayes 2013) Figure and estimated path coefficients and

results on all indirect effects are reported in the web appen-

dix As predicted we found a significant indirect effect

(55 95 CI from 37 to 75) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity To estimate the neces-

sity of a more complex multiple-step mediation model we

also computed the R2 change from a simpler model

including only the first mediator in the regression The ana-

lysis revealed a significant improvement in the amount of

variance explained when both mediators were included

(from R2 frac14 27 to R2 frac14 38 Fchange (1 302) frac14 5191 p lt001) As a further check we also ran an analysis with

the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and human

capital second) The indirect effect was also significant

(16 95 CI from 04 to 3) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than three

times smaller than our hypothesized path model (stand-

ardized indirect effect frac14 25)Finally the hypothesized multiple-step mediation ana-

lysis on the other two measures of status revealed the pre-

dicted pattern of results For the socioeconomic status

ladder the indirect effect through human capital and scar-

city was significant (51 95 CI from 27 to 78)

Likewise for ratings of status and respect the indirect ef-

fect through human capital and scarcity was also signifi-

cant (32 95 CI from 18 to 49)

Method (Study 1B) We decided in advance to recruit

at least 100 respondents (about 50 per condition) for a lab

study at Georgetown We recruited 112 respondents (47

female Mage frac14 20) and randomly assigned them to one of

two conditions busy letter or leisurely letter Participants

read the following letter from an imaginary friend (text in

parentheses refers to the busy-letter condition text in

brackets refers to the leisurely-letter condition)

Hi John

I got your birthday card today it made me laugh Thank you

for remembering my birthday I canrsquot believe we are already

40 time flies (My life is crazy busy as usual You probably

remember how much I like watching my favorite sport

teams Unfortunately I have an extremely busy work sched-

ule which does not allow me to spend a lot of time watching

TV and doing other hobbies) [My life is relaxed as usual

You probably remember how much I like watching my fa-

vorite sport teams Luckily I donrsquot have a busy work sched-

ule which allows me to spend a lot of time watching TV and

doing other hobbies] Pam and my parents got me a large

screen TV for my birthday (So far I havenrsquot had a chance to

watch it) [So far I have been watching ESPN every day]

You would probably be happy to hear I finally quit smoking

wersquoll see how it goes You always told me I should quit

Pam and the kids are sending their love I hope we can all

get together soon

Daniel

Given the high convergence of the three status measures instudy 1A in this and the next studies we will focus on thethree-item status measure consisting of social statuswealth and income Using the same measures as in study1A we asked participants to rate Daniel on perceived sta-tus (a frac14 9) human capital (a frac14 83) scarcity (a frac14 9)and busyness (a frac14 93)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in study 1A confirmed the dis-tinctiveness of our main constructs (see the results table inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 1B) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Daniel was perceived as more busyin the busy-letter (Mfrac14 544 SD frac14 107) than in theleisurely-letter condition (Mfrac14 258 SD frac14 107 F(1 110)frac14 20017 p lt 001) Compared to participants in theleisurely-letter condition participants in the busy-lettercondition perceived Daniel as higher in social status finan-cial wealth and income (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 108 vsMfrac14 352 SD frac14 99 F(1 110) frac14 589 p frac14 017)Analyzing the two mediators confirmed that participantsfound Daniel in the busy-letter condition to have higherhuman capital characteristics (Mfrac14 442 SD frac14 99 vsMfrac14 304 SD frac14 92 F(1 110) frac14 5743 p lt 001) and tobe more scarce and in demand (Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 96 vsMfrac14 283 SD frac14 96 F(1 110) frac14 2815 p lt 001) than inthe leisurely-letter condition

Mediation Analyses (Study 1B) As in study 1A weperformed a multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes2013) As expected we found a significant indirect effect(76 95 CI from 52 to 111) for the mediation paththrough human capital and scarcity See figure 1 for esti-mated path coefficients and results on all indirect effects

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 125

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We also ran the same analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was not significant when the mediators were re-versed (ndash01 95 CI from ndash18 to 15)

Discussion The results of studies 1A and 1B demon-strate that individuals posting Facebook updates or writingletters about their overworked lifestyle are perceived ashigher in status than individuals whose updates revealmore leisurely lifestyles Importantly consistent with hy-pothesis 2 these studies show that long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to higher inferences in terms ofhuman capital characteristics of the busy individual whichin turn enhance the extent to which this individual is per-ceived as scarce and in demand ultimately leading to posi-tive status attributions Finally these results demonstratethe discriminant validity of our critical constructs (ie per-ceived busyness level human capital scarcity and status)

To gain further insight into the specific dimensions ofbusyness driving the positive status attributions the fol-lowing set of studies examines the speed at which work isperformed (study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to theworking activity (study 2B) Moreover these studies

consider the moderating role of perceived social mobility

within American respondents

Study 2 The Dimensions of Busyness and theModerating Role of Perceived Social Mobility

The objective of this study is to dissect the dimensions

of busyness at work that may potentially lead to positive

inferences of status in the eyes of others Across two paral-

lel experimental designs we test and compare (between-

subjects) 10 different lifestyles reflecting three dimensions

of time consumption quantity (the amount of working

hours and leisure time) speed (pace at which work is per-

formed) and meaning (level of enjoyment and meaning

tied to work) Because both speed and meaning varied with

manipulations of busyness in the pilot test in study 2 our

aim is to isolate the effects of quantity (hours of work vs

leisure) while accounting for these additional dimensions

of busyness Specifically we will look at quantity and

speed in study 2A and we will examine quantity and

meaning in study 2B In the case of speed the quantity di-

mension of the busyness effect might be attenuated if

FIGURE 1

STUDY 1B RESULTS MEDIATION VIA HUMAN CAPITAL AND SCARCITY ON PERCEIVED STATUS

Busy at Work vs Leisurely

Lifestyle

b1 = 138

Status Inferences

Human Capital

In Demand and Scarce

b5 = -01

b2 = 71

b3 = 78

b6 = -01

b4 = -26

NOTEmdashMultiple-step mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples (model 6 in PROCESS Hayes 2013) Coefficients significantly different from zero are indicated

by asterisks (p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001)

The total indirect effect was significant (74 95 CI from 41 to 109)

The indirect effect through human capital and scarcity (the effect hypothesized in hypothesis 2) was significant (76 95 CI from 52 to 111)

The indirect effect through human capital was not significant (ndash02 95 CI from ndash34 to 3)

The indirect effect through scarcity was not significant (ndash01 95 CI from ndash24 to 26)

126 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 3: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

averagerdquo We then asked participants how they thoughtthese people spent their time specifically whether theythought each person spent many hours at work doinghome-related chores and activities or doing hobbies andorleisure activities To explore the other two dimensions ofbusyness (ie speed and meaning) we then asked partici-pants whether they thought the people described in thestudy did things fastmultitasked and had a meaningful job

Participants inferred that the busier person spent signifi-cantly more time at work (M frac14 583) than the average busyperson (M frac14 475) or the less busy person (M frac14 33 allp-values lt 001) Conversely participants perceived thebusier person to spend less time on leisure (M frac14 343) thanthe average busy person (M frac14 424) or the less busy person(M frac14 503 all p-values lt 001) For time spent on choresthere was no significant difference related to level of busy-ness Thus these results confirm that busyness is primarilyassociated with long hours of work and having less timefor leisure Although one could conceivably find that a per-son is busy with leisure activities (has an active social cal-endar) or busy with home-related activities (has manychores to complete) these inferences are not spontaneouswhen one considers a busy individual As a further precau-tion to avoid misinterpretation in all the scenario studieswe make it absolutely clear that the target individual isldquobusyrdquo in terms of long hours of paid work time as per ourdefinition

Participants in our pilot study also inferred that thebusier person did things fast and engaged in more activitiesat once (M frac14 518) than the average busy person (M frac14453) or the less busy person (M frac14 375 all p-values lt001) They also perceived the busier individual to have amore meaningful job (M frac14 478) than the average busyperson (M frac14 445) or the less busy person (M frac14 384 allp-values lt 001) Though the differences between theldquobusierrdquo than average and ldquoless busyrdquo than average condi-tions were significant for all three dimensions (quantityspeed and meaning) the effect size of the quantity dimen-sion (x2 frac14 71) was more than two times and three timesbigger than the effect sizes of the other two dimensions(xspeed

2 frac14 31 and xmeaning2 frac14 24) suggesting that quan-

tity of work is the dimension generating the biggest effectand discriminating the most when people think about dif-ferences in busyness

In sum we identify and test three main dimensions ofbusyness quantity speed and meaning While speed andmeaning may certainly be relevant components of busy-ness consistent with our definition and with these resultswe expect quantity of work to be the main driver of busy-ness leading to perceptions of higher status

Work versus Leisure

Ancient philosophers have often portrayed paid work asthe degeneration and enslavement of the human existence

The free man in ancient Greece and Rome had only con-tempt for work while slaves performed tasks of labor InCicerorsquos words (44 BC1913) ldquoA citizen who gives hislabor for money degrades himself to the rank of slavesrdquoThis insight continued in the thoughts of more modernthinkers In his theory of the leisure class Veblen (18992007) defined leisure as the nonproductive consumption oftime and proposed that ldquoconspicuous abstention from labor[ ] becomes the conventional mark of superior pecuniaryachievementrdquo (30) Consistent with his view economictheory suggests that beyond a certain wage level more in-come will cause workers to supply less labor and work less(the ldquoincome effectrdquo) Accordingly studies of leisure andlabor patterns argue that in the 19th century one could pre-dict how poor somebody was by how long he worked(Economist 2014 Voth 2001) Furthermore the economistJohn Maynard Keynes predicted a 15-hour work week by2030 as society becomes more affluent and more time toenjoy ldquothe hour and the day virtuously and wellrdquo (Schulte2014) Research on happiness similarly shows that the de-sire to earn more income is driven by a belief that it willallow for less work and more leisure time (Kahneman et al2006) Moreover some empirical evidence demonstratesthat greater income leads to supplying less work cab-drivers quit working once they reach their daily income tar-get (Camerer et al 1997) lottery winners work less andconsume more leisure after receiving their prize (ImbensRubin and Sacerdote 2001) and the ultra-rich spend thelionrsquos share of their yearly expenditures on vacations andleisure travels (Frank 2012) Thus based on these prem-ises one may infer that those with time for leisure may beof higher wealth and social status and that those who workmore may be less well regarded

However it is also very plausible that those devotingmore time to work and less time to leisure may be viewedas having more status Beyond an income effect econo-mists also propose an opposing ldquosubstitution effectrdquo wherehigher wages increase the supply of labor because the op-portunity cost of consuming leisure becomes higherConsistent with this view work hours have increasedsteadily among highly educated and highly paid workersand have remained flat for less skilled employees (Kuhnand Lozano 2008) and a common increase in leisure timehas been driven by less educated people working less thanbefore (Aguiar and Hurst 2006)

Busy Individuals as a Scarce Resource

Beyond attributions that may be made grounded on theincome or substitution effects we propose that busynesshas become a status symbol through a mechanism of pos-sessing desired human capital characteristics and beingperceived as in demand and scarce Contrary to the predic-tion that observers attribute higher status and wealth to in-dividuals who conduct idle though enjoyable lives

120 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

(Veblen 18992007) we propose that long hours of workand lack of leisure time have now become a very powerfulstatus symbol The shift of status attribution based on timeexpenditure may be linked to the development ofknowledge-intensive economies characterized by struc-tured employment markets and demand for human capitalIn advanced economies the market for human resources istypically highly specialized both on the supply side withindividuals investing in their human capital (Nakamura2000 Wasik 2013) and on the demand side with a largebody of companies institutions and head hunters compet-ing to hire the best talent Those possessing the human cap-ital characteristics that employers or clients value (egcompetence and ambition) are expected to be in high de-mand and short supply on the job market According to re-search conducted at the Federal Reserve Bank in the ldquoneweconomyrdquo such human capital characteristics are increas-ingly viewed as the scarcest economic resource (Nakamura2000) Although working hard in economic systems thatwere mostly based on less-skilled agriculture and manufac-turing may have been perceived as virtuous it may nothave implied an individual was in high demand In con-trast we propose that in advanced economies long hoursof work and busyness may operate as a signal that one pos-sesses desirable human capital capabilities and is thereforein high demand and scarce in the job market leading toelevated status attributions

Scarcity and Status

In the domain of luxury goods scarcity is a central attri-bute to maintaining product value (Lynn 1991) Luxury re-searchers categorize various types of scarcity thatmarketers can take advantage of including natural scarcity(diamonds) techno-scarcity (new technologies) andlimited-edition scarcity which can all be used to demandhigher market prices (Catry 2003) Research has furtherdocumented a ldquoscarce is goodrdquo heuristic suggesting thatconsumers learn based on their buying experiences thatscarce objects tend to be more valuable than nonscarce ob-jects (Cialdini 1993) The possession of scarce productshas also been associated with feelings of statusResearchers found that consumers desired a scarce limited-edition product when they felt powerless in an attempt toregain feelings of status (Rucker and Galinsky 2008) Justas items that are scarce may be afforded more status andvalue so might a person who is scarce We surmise thatthe overall status benefits that busy people enjoy over non-busy people may stem from the perception that they pos-sess desirable human capital characteristics that make themscarce and in demand on the job market A busy individualis scarce like a rare gemstone and thus perceived to havehigh status

Our main outcome measure is inferences in terms of sta-tus Status represents the respect one possesses in the eyes

of others (Magee and Galinsky 2008) In line with previousresearch on status attribution we consider status in termsof both ldquosocial statusrdquo and ldquofinancial resourcesrdquo (Bourdieu1984 Scott Mende and Bolton 2013 Veblen 18992007)A large stream of research has found that individuals dis-play their status by publicly consuming luxury goods(Berger and Ward 2010 Fuchs et al 2013 Han Nunesand Dreze 2010 Mandel Petrova and Cialdini 2006Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward and Dahl 2014) Inaddition recent research has uncovered the role of moresubtle signals of status such as larger food and drink pack-ages smaller logos and nonconforming behaviors(Bellezza Gino and Keinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010Dubois Rucker and Galinsky 2012 Han et al 2010) Inthis research we propose another novel way to communi-cate status through the conspicuous displays of onersquosbusyness and lack of leisure time

In sum we argue that long hours of work and lack ofleisure time impact the inferences observers make aboutthe target individualrsquos characteristics in particular obser-vers infer that the busy individual possesses desirablehuman capital characteristics such as competence and am-bition In turn these valuable characteristics affect per-ceived scarcity Individuals possessing high human capitalare perceived as a ldquoscarce resourcerdquo ldquoin demandrdquo andsought after in the job market We therefore predict a two-step mediation process whereby long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to positive attributions of humancapital characteristics (competence and ambition) whichimpact perceived scarcity and ultimately affect inferencesof status

H1 Busyness at work and lack of leisure time can lead to

inferences of higher perceived status as compared to less

busyness at work and abundance of leisure time

H2 Positive inferences of status in response to busyness

and lack of leisure will be mediated by perceptions that a

busy person possesses desired human capital characteristics

(competence ambition) and as a consequence is scarce and

in demand

Perceived Social Mobility

We then explore the role of values and culture as an im-portant boundary condition for the positive associationsbased on busyness Specifically we propose that status in-ferences linked to busyness and lack of leisure time will behighly influenced by perceived social mobility which sug-gests that hard work may bring success and social affirm-ation (Alesina and La Ferrara 2005 Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013Corneo and Gruner 2002) Social mobility is fundamentalin American culture and is reflected in the ethos of theAmerican Dream (Adams 1931) which proposes that re-gardless of social class one has the opportunity for social

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 121

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

affirmation based on hard work Indeed one who believesin a socially mobile society may view busyness at work asan effective vehicle for achieving greater status We oper-ationalize beliefs in social mobility in two distinct waysFirst we measure beliefs in social mobility using the per-ceived social mobility scale (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013) meas-uring the degree to which individuals view society asmobile and believe that work leads to social affirmation(eg ldquoHard work brings success in the long runrdquo ldquoPeoplehave a chance to escape povertyrdquo) Accordingly we expectthat status inferences toward a busy individual will behigher for individuals who strongly believe in socialmobility

Secondly we explore varying beliefs in social mobilitycomparing differences among cultures (North America vsEurope) Societies vary on whether the concept of socialstatus can be earned through success and accomplishments(achieved status) or is passed down through family back-ground and inherited wealth (ascribed status Foladare1969) While status perceptions are usually a function ofboth in the United States earned status has a larger influ-ence on overall status perceptions (Linton 1936)Americans believe that they live in a mobile society whereindividual effort can move people up and down the statusladder while Europeans believe that they live in less mo-bile societies where people are ldquostuckrdquo in their native so-cial strata (Alesina Di Tella and MacCulloch 2004Alesina and La Ferrara 2005) Based on these varying be-liefs in social mobility Americans view work as a priorityand idealize busyness and long hours of work whereasEuropeans feel their leisure time is as important as or evenmore important than work time (Richards 1998 1999)For example Brislin and Kim (2003) show that in WesternEurope leisure and vacations are greatly valued and consti-tute the most significant events in many peoplersquos livesAnother study on time use in France versus the UnitedStates (Krueger et al 2008) found that on average theFrench take 21 more vacation days a year than AmericansIn a small pilot test we also confirmed that Americanshave stronger beliefs in social mobility than Italians1

Popular culture also reflects and amplifies these culturalvalues a recent Super Bowl commercial by Cadillac(quoted at the beginning of this article) features a wealthybusinessman who glorifies the busy working Americanlifestyle and lampoons Europeans for enjoying long vac-ations A New York Times article discussing Europersquos loveof leisure features European businessmen and economistswho argue that ldquothe main difference with the US is that wespend more time enjoying liferdquo and ldquoleisure is a normalgood and as you become richer economic theory says that

you consume more of itrdquo (Bennhold 2004) Because North

Americans and Europeans have different beliefs in socialmobility through work (Alesina et al 2004) and relatedlya different emphasis on earned or ascribed status we sur-mise that these cultural differences could lead not only to

attenuation but even a reversal of the busyness effectAccordingly we predict that social mobility both as an in-dividual difference and based on culture (American vsItalian) will moderate the busyness effect

H3 Positive inferences of status in response to busyness

and lack of leisure time will be moderated by observersrsquo

perceived social mobility when perceived social mobility is

high the effect of busyness on status inferences is positive

when perceived social mobility is low the effect of busy-

ness on status inferences is either attenuated or negative

In conclusion we propose that people will regard busy in-dividuals who do not spend time leisurely to be higher in

status than those who work less and conduct a leisurelylifestyle In the context of a mobile society where statuscan be earned busyness may be seen as an effective path

to climb the social ladder Furthermore like a rare gem-stone a busy individual is seen as in high demand andscarce Across studies we manipulate busyness in a varietyof ways including explicit ways to display onersquos lack of

leisure (eg use of social media posts) as well as more im-plicit ways (eg descriptions use of timesaving productsand services) In every study results hold when we controlfor respondentsrsquo gender age occupation status and in-

come In the general discussion we conclude with twofollow-up studies testing additional boundary conditions(agency and economic class) and a discussion of the theor-etical and managerial implications providing tangible pre-

scriptions for how marketers can emphasize busyness andpromote timesaving products for status-signaling purposes

RESEARCH DESIGN AND FINDINGS

Pilot Study Humblebragging on Social Media

To provide empirical evidence of the conspicuous dis-play of busyness and lack of leisure time we first collectfield data and examine the content of more than 1000

tweets posted by celebrities a demographic of status-conscious individuals (Brim 2009) ldquoHumblebraggingrdquo isthe act of showing off about something through an osten-sibly self-deprecating statement For example the cover of

the book Humblebrag The Art of False Modesty (Wittels2012) mentions that the author ldquowould love some free timebut has been too busy writing for Parks and Recreation

Eastbound amp Down and a bunch of other stuffvacationpleaserdquo Before publishing the Humblebrag bookthe author asked people to email him leads on anyhumblebrags available online which he then posted on the

bookrsquos Twitter page (httpstwittercomHumblebrag)

1 Thirty Italians (Qualtrics) reported significantly lower levels of per-ceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013 a frac14 84) than 30Americans (Mechanical Turk) (Mita frac14 398 vs Musa frac14 491 F(1 59)frac14 655 p frac14 013)

122 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We scraped from the web these self-deprecating state-ments the majority of which were by famous people andcoded the most recent 1100 of them with the help of threeresearch assistants The goal of this study was to examinethe frequency of complaints about busyness and lack ofleisure on social media as compared to other types of self-deprecating statements such as humblebragging about thedownsides of fame and attractiveness We found that about12 of the coded tweets related to complaints about hardwork and lack of time (eg Tlaloc Rivas stage directorldquoOpened a show last Friday Begin rehearsals for anothernext Tuesday In-between that meetings in DC I HAVENO LIFErdquo Austin Pettis American football receiverldquoHad a lot going on these past few weeks and even morethese next two this is wayyyy to much to handlerdquoArthur Kade actor and model ldquoI need 2 write a blog withan update on everything I have been so ridic busy wmeetings and calls that I have neglected my fansrdquo JoshSigurdson journalist and songwriter ldquoHi Irsquom 16 and Irsquompublishing 3 books and an album this year Do you haveany advice on how to handle it bestrdquo) The most recurringhumblebrags not related to time were about celebrity status(eg Lindsay Lohan actress and model ldquoOh my god Irsquomso embarrassed paparazzi just blinded me with flashesagain as I was walking into dinner They pushed me and Itrippedrdquo Olivia Wilde actress ldquoWatching my brothergraduate from Andover today So proud it is silly Moreimportant than MTV awards but thank you to all who votedfor merdquo) Other examples and more details on the mostrecurring categories are in the web appendix

In sum this pilot study confirms that conspicuously dis-playing onersquos busyness through social media is a practicepursued to some extent by famous status-conscious peo-ple and has been recognized as a kind of bragging by theHumblebrag community Although these results are obser-vational they offer initial evidence that people use socialmedia to publicly display how much they work and com-plain about lack of leisure time in an attempt to exhibittheir high status In the following studies we focus on sta-tus inferences made by others in response to signals ofbusyness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 1 Humblebragging about Busynessthrough Social Media

In study 1 the objective is to demonstrate an effect ofbusyness on inferences of status and to establish the medi-ating process of human capital and scarcity Over the lastdecade the exponential growth of social networks andblogs has multiplied the chances consumers have to portraya virtual image of themselves in front of others and openedup new ways to display onersquos use of time to large audi-ences Through social media consumers can share theirlives and interests (eg Facebook Snapchat) and theirprofessional opinions and achievements (eg Twitter

LinkedIn) among others things Inspired by these trendsand by the Humblebrag pilot study we consider status in-ferences made about people posting Facebook updates(study 1A) or writing letters (study 1B) regarding theirlevel of busyness at work In addition we test for mediatio-nal evidence of our proposed multiple-step mechanism af-fecting status attributions via perceived human capitalcharacteristics and scarcity of the busy individual

Method (Study 1A) We decided in advance to recruit300 participants (about 150 per condition) We recruited307 respondents for a paid online survey through AmazonMechanical Turk (48 female Mage frac14 37 American 59employed full-time 25 employed part-time 16 un-employed average monthly gross income $2000ndash2999)We randomly assigned participants to one of two condi-tions busy Facebook posts or leisurely Facebook postsParticipants read Facebook status updates of a hypotheticalfriend of theirs To make sure there were no differences ofthe effect of conspicuous busyness across genders we var-ied whether the Facebook updates were posted by a man(Sam Fisher) or by a woman (Sally Fisher) Thus the sam-ple was equally split between participants who read aboutthe female poster and participants who read about the maleposter As expected there were no significant differencesfor gender in the patterns of results thus the data were col-lapsed and analyzed jointly For ease of exposition we re-port the questions and results for the rest of the study interms of the female poster All participants were asked toimagine they were friends on Facebook with Sally Fisherand to read three of Sallyrsquos recent posts The status updatesappeared in chronological order on a simulated Facebookscreen page (see the web appendix for a synoptic represen-tation of the visual stimuli) In the busy-Facebook-postscondition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoOh I have been working non-stop allweekrdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoQuick 10 minute lunchrdquo and(3) Friday 5pm ldquoStill at workrdquo In the leisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoI havenrsquot worked much this week hadlots of free timerdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoEnjoying a long lunchbreakrdquo and (3) Friday 5pm ldquoDone with workrdquo

Subsequently we measured perceived status using threedistinct measures A primary measure of status was de-veloped based on previous status definitions (Bourdieu1984 Scott et al 2013 Veblen 18992007) to include bothsocial status and financial resources (wealth and income)Specifically participants answered the following threequestions (1) On a scale from 1 to 7 how would you rankthe social status of the individual described (1 frac14 Low so-cial status 7 frac14 High social status) (2) Do you think she isfinancially wealthy (1 frac14 Not wealthy 7 frac14 Extremelywealthy) and (3) This person has a high income level (1 frac14Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) Thus the threeitems (social status financial wealth income) were

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 123

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

collapsed into a single measure of overall status (a frac14 82)Throughout all the studies in this article this will be theprimary measure of perceived status In addition weincluded two other measures of status established in the lit-erature to confirm the construct validity of our primarymeasure First we adapted the widely used MacArthurscale of subjective socioeconomic status (Adler et al 2000Anderson et al 2012) to assess the status of a third partyThe measure consists of a drawing of a ladder with 10rungs representing where people stand in society in termsof money status and influence (10 representing people atthe top of society 1 representing people at the bottom ofsociety) Participants were instructed to pick the rungwhere they would place Sally Second following Duboiset al (2012) participants were asked to judge Sally on twodimensions wedded to status (this person has high status isrespected a frac14 68) and three dimensions divorced fromstatus (this person is honest nice attractive) The order ofthe five dimensions was randomized Importantly the threedimensions divorced from status allowed us to detect po-tential demand effect

Participants then assessed Sallyrsquos human capital charac-teristics the first mediator Because the attributes of com-petence and ambition have been strongly associated withhuman capital (Frank and Bernanke 2007) we chose threemeasures that reflected these characteristics to measurehuman capital Specifically participants rated their agree-ment (1 frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) with thefollowing statements presented in randomized order (1)Sally is competent (2) Sally is ambitious and (3) Sallywants to move up in the world We averaged the threeitems (a frac14 88) and used the resulting measure as first me-diator Next participants answered three questions assess-ing whether Sally was perceived to be in demand andscarce on the job market the second mediator More spe-cifically participants were asked (1) To what extent isSally in demand (1 frac14 In very low demand 7 frac14 In veryhigh demand) (2) Do you perceive Sally as a ldquoscarce re-sourcerdquo (1 frac14 Definitely no 7 frac14 Definitely yes) and (3)Do you imagine Sally is sought after in the job market(1 frac14 Not sought after at all 7 frac14 Very much sought after)We averaged the three items (a frac14 91) and used the result-ing measure as the second mediator

Lastly three manipulation checks (a frac14 89) measuredSallyrsquos level of busyness at work and lack of leisure time(1) Sally spends many hours at work (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) (2) Sally spends many hoursdoing hobbies andor leisure activities (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree reverse coded) and (3) Howbusy is Sally (1 frac14 Not busy at all 7 frac14 Extremely busy)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1A) We used twoapproaches to assess the discriminant validity of the keyconstructs (ie perceived busyness level human capitalcharacteristics scarcity and status) First we comparedthe Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each of ourconstructs with the squared correlation between constructspairs (Fornell and Larcker 1981) Table 1 shows that theAVE (diagonal data) exceeds the squared correlations forall measures (below the diagonal data) Second none ofthe confidence intervals at plus or minus two standarderrors around the correlation between the factors (table 1above the diagonal data) included 10 (Anderson andGerbing 1988) Thus these two tests provide evidence forthe discriminant validity of our measures The same ana-lyses performed on the other two status measures yieldsimilar results

Results (Study 1A) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Sally was perceived as working lon-ger hours in the busy (Mfrac14 553 SD frac14 103) than in theleisurely posts condition (Mfrac14 274 SD frac14 95 F(1 305) frac1461256 p lt 001) Consistent with hypothesis 1 all threestatus measures were significantly higher in the busy-Facebook-posts condition Compared to participants in theleisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants in thebusy-Facebook-posts condition perceived Sally as higherin social status (Mfrac14 37 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 34 SD frac14123 F(1 305) frac14 551 p frac14 019)2 they placed her on ahigher rung on the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 534SD frac14 142 vs Mfrac14 479 SD frac14 155 F(1 305) frac14 1028p frac14 001) and they saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 401 SD frac14 104 vs Mfrac14 376 SD frac14 107 F(1 305)frac14 417 p frac14 042) Indeed the three measures of status are

TABLE 1

STUDY 1A MEASUREMENT OF DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Busyness levelindependent variable

Human capitalmediator 1

Scarcitymediator 2

Statusdependent variable

Busyness level independent variable 0819 (0703ndash806) (0521ndash0682) (0150ndash0379)Human capital mediator 1 0573 0817 (0723ndash0824) (0370ndash0572)Scarcity mediator 2 0367 0607 0845 (0468ndash0668)Status dependent variable 0071 0225 0326 0733

NOTEmdashMatrix shows AVE (diagonal) squared correlation (below the diagonal) and confidence intervals (above diagonal)

2 This result replicated (Mbusy frac14 387 vs Mnonbusy frac14 321 F(1 242)frac14 2069 p lt 001) with another sample of 244 participants (study 1Areplication web appendix)

124 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

highly convergent and tap into one construct All the items

across measures are highly correlated and a principal com-

ponent analysis revealed one single factor accounting for

66 of the variance (see the results table in the web

appendix)As expected participants found Sally in the busy-

Facebook-posts condition to possess higher human capital

characteristics (Mfrac14 488 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 324 SD frac14111 F(1 304) frac14 18201 p lt 001) and to be more scarce

and in demand (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 116 vs Mfrac14 268 SD frac14117 F(1 304) frac14 9543 p lt 001) than in the leisurely-

Facebook-posts conditionImportantly there was no difference between conditions

on the nonstatus dimensions (ie perceptions of honesty

niceness and attractiveness Mfrac14 444 SD frac14 75 vs

Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 83 F(1 305) frac14 83 NS) This result con-

tributes to ruling out concerns of demand effects

Mediation Analyses (Study 1A) We estimated

multiple-step mediation using model 6 in PROCESS

(Hayes 2013) Figure and estimated path coefficients and

results on all indirect effects are reported in the web appen-

dix As predicted we found a significant indirect effect

(55 95 CI from 37 to 75) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity To estimate the neces-

sity of a more complex multiple-step mediation model we

also computed the R2 change from a simpler model

including only the first mediator in the regression The ana-

lysis revealed a significant improvement in the amount of

variance explained when both mediators were included

(from R2 frac14 27 to R2 frac14 38 Fchange (1 302) frac14 5191 p lt001) As a further check we also ran an analysis with

the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and human

capital second) The indirect effect was also significant

(16 95 CI from 04 to 3) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than three

times smaller than our hypothesized path model (stand-

ardized indirect effect frac14 25)Finally the hypothesized multiple-step mediation ana-

lysis on the other two measures of status revealed the pre-

dicted pattern of results For the socioeconomic status

ladder the indirect effect through human capital and scar-

city was significant (51 95 CI from 27 to 78)

Likewise for ratings of status and respect the indirect ef-

fect through human capital and scarcity was also signifi-

cant (32 95 CI from 18 to 49)

Method (Study 1B) We decided in advance to recruit

at least 100 respondents (about 50 per condition) for a lab

study at Georgetown We recruited 112 respondents (47

female Mage frac14 20) and randomly assigned them to one of

two conditions busy letter or leisurely letter Participants

read the following letter from an imaginary friend (text in

parentheses refers to the busy-letter condition text in

brackets refers to the leisurely-letter condition)

Hi John

I got your birthday card today it made me laugh Thank you

for remembering my birthday I canrsquot believe we are already

40 time flies (My life is crazy busy as usual You probably

remember how much I like watching my favorite sport

teams Unfortunately I have an extremely busy work sched-

ule which does not allow me to spend a lot of time watching

TV and doing other hobbies) [My life is relaxed as usual

You probably remember how much I like watching my fa-

vorite sport teams Luckily I donrsquot have a busy work sched-

ule which allows me to spend a lot of time watching TV and

doing other hobbies] Pam and my parents got me a large

screen TV for my birthday (So far I havenrsquot had a chance to

watch it) [So far I have been watching ESPN every day]

You would probably be happy to hear I finally quit smoking

wersquoll see how it goes You always told me I should quit

Pam and the kids are sending their love I hope we can all

get together soon

Daniel

Given the high convergence of the three status measures instudy 1A in this and the next studies we will focus on thethree-item status measure consisting of social statuswealth and income Using the same measures as in study1A we asked participants to rate Daniel on perceived sta-tus (a frac14 9) human capital (a frac14 83) scarcity (a frac14 9)and busyness (a frac14 93)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in study 1A confirmed the dis-tinctiveness of our main constructs (see the results table inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 1B) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Daniel was perceived as more busyin the busy-letter (Mfrac14 544 SD frac14 107) than in theleisurely-letter condition (Mfrac14 258 SD frac14 107 F(1 110)frac14 20017 p lt 001) Compared to participants in theleisurely-letter condition participants in the busy-lettercondition perceived Daniel as higher in social status finan-cial wealth and income (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 108 vsMfrac14 352 SD frac14 99 F(1 110) frac14 589 p frac14 017)Analyzing the two mediators confirmed that participantsfound Daniel in the busy-letter condition to have higherhuman capital characteristics (Mfrac14 442 SD frac14 99 vsMfrac14 304 SD frac14 92 F(1 110) frac14 5743 p lt 001) and tobe more scarce and in demand (Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 96 vsMfrac14 283 SD frac14 96 F(1 110) frac14 2815 p lt 001) than inthe leisurely-letter condition

Mediation Analyses (Study 1B) As in study 1A weperformed a multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes2013) As expected we found a significant indirect effect(76 95 CI from 52 to 111) for the mediation paththrough human capital and scarcity See figure 1 for esti-mated path coefficients and results on all indirect effects

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 125

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We also ran the same analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was not significant when the mediators were re-versed (ndash01 95 CI from ndash18 to 15)

Discussion The results of studies 1A and 1B demon-strate that individuals posting Facebook updates or writingletters about their overworked lifestyle are perceived ashigher in status than individuals whose updates revealmore leisurely lifestyles Importantly consistent with hy-pothesis 2 these studies show that long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to higher inferences in terms ofhuman capital characteristics of the busy individual whichin turn enhance the extent to which this individual is per-ceived as scarce and in demand ultimately leading to posi-tive status attributions Finally these results demonstratethe discriminant validity of our critical constructs (ie per-ceived busyness level human capital scarcity and status)

To gain further insight into the specific dimensions ofbusyness driving the positive status attributions the fol-lowing set of studies examines the speed at which work isperformed (study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to theworking activity (study 2B) Moreover these studies

consider the moderating role of perceived social mobility

within American respondents

Study 2 The Dimensions of Busyness and theModerating Role of Perceived Social Mobility

The objective of this study is to dissect the dimensions

of busyness at work that may potentially lead to positive

inferences of status in the eyes of others Across two paral-

lel experimental designs we test and compare (between-

subjects) 10 different lifestyles reflecting three dimensions

of time consumption quantity (the amount of working

hours and leisure time) speed (pace at which work is per-

formed) and meaning (level of enjoyment and meaning

tied to work) Because both speed and meaning varied with

manipulations of busyness in the pilot test in study 2 our

aim is to isolate the effects of quantity (hours of work vs

leisure) while accounting for these additional dimensions

of busyness Specifically we will look at quantity and

speed in study 2A and we will examine quantity and

meaning in study 2B In the case of speed the quantity di-

mension of the busyness effect might be attenuated if

FIGURE 1

STUDY 1B RESULTS MEDIATION VIA HUMAN CAPITAL AND SCARCITY ON PERCEIVED STATUS

Busy at Work vs Leisurely

Lifestyle

b1 = 138

Status Inferences

Human Capital

In Demand and Scarce

b5 = -01

b2 = 71

b3 = 78

b6 = -01

b4 = -26

NOTEmdashMultiple-step mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples (model 6 in PROCESS Hayes 2013) Coefficients significantly different from zero are indicated

by asterisks (p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001)

The total indirect effect was significant (74 95 CI from 41 to 109)

The indirect effect through human capital and scarcity (the effect hypothesized in hypothesis 2) was significant (76 95 CI from 52 to 111)

The indirect effect through human capital was not significant (ndash02 95 CI from ndash34 to 3)

The indirect effect through scarcity was not significant (ndash01 95 CI from ndash24 to 26)

126 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 4: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

(Veblen 18992007) we propose that long hours of workand lack of leisure time have now become a very powerfulstatus symbol The shift of status attribution based on timeexpenditure may be linked to the development ofknowledge-intensive economies characterized by struc-tured employment markets and demand for human capitalIn advanced economies the market for human resources istypically highly specialized both on the supply side withindividuals investing in their human capital (Nakamura2000 Wasik 2013) and on the demand side with a largebody of companies institutions and head hunters compet-ing to hire the best talent Those possessing the human cap-ital characteristics that employers or clients value (egcompetence and ambition) are expected to be in high de-mand and short supply on the job market According to re-search conducted at the Federal Reserve Bank in the ldquoneweconomyrdquo such human capital characteristics are increas-ingly viewed as the scarcest economic resource (Nakamura2000) Although working hard in economic systems thatwere mostly based on less-skilled agriculture and manufac-turing may have been perceived as virtuous it may nothave implied an individual was in high demand In con-trast we propose that in advanced economies long hoursof work and busyness may operate as a signal that one pos-sesses desirable human capital capabilities and is thereforein high demand and scarce in the job market leading toelevated status attributions

Scarcity and Status

In the domain of luxury goods scarcity is a central attri-bute to maintaining product value (Lynn 1991) Luxury re-searchers categorize various types of scarcity thatmarketers can take advantage of including natural scarcity(diamonds) techno-scarcity (new technologies) andlimited-edition scarcity which can all be used to demandhigher market prices (Catry 2003) Research has furtherdocumented a ldquoscarce is goodrdquo heuristic suggesting thatconsumers learn based on their buying experiences thatscarce objects tend to be more valuable than nonscarce ob-jects (Cialdini 1993) The possession of scarce productshas also been associated with feelings of statusResearchers found that consumers desired a scarce limited-edition product when they felt powerless in an attempt toregain feelings of status (Rucker and Galinsky 2008) Justas items that are scarce may be afforded more status andvalue so might a person who is scarce We surmise thatthe overall status benefits that busy people enjoy over non-busy people may stem from the perception that they pos-sess desirable human capital characteristics that make themscarce and in demand on the job market A busy individualis scarce like a rare gemstone and thus perceived to havehigh status

Our main outcome measure is inferences in terms of sta-tus Status represents the respect one possesses in the eyes

of others (Magee and Galinsky 2008) In line with previousresearch on status attribution we consider status in termsof both ldquosocial statusrdquo and ldquofinancial resourcesrdquo (Bourdieu1984 Scott Mende and Bolton 2013 Veblen 18992007)A large stream of research has found that individuals dis-play their status by publicly consuming luxury goods(Berger and Ward 2010 Fuchs et al 2013 Han Nunesand Dreze 2010 Mandel Petrova and Cialdini 2006Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward and Dahl 2014) Inaddition recent research has uncovered the role of moresubtle signals of status such as larger food and drink pack-ages smaller logos and nonconforming behaviors(Bellezza Gino and Keinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010Dubois Rucker and Galinsky 2012 Han et al 2010) Inthis research we propose another novel way to communi-cate status through the conspicuous displays of onersquosbusyness and lack of leisure time

In sum we argue that long hours of work and lack ofleisure time impact the inferences observers make aboutthe target individualrsquos characteristics in particular obser-vers infer that the busy individual possesses desirablehuman capital characteristics such as competence and am-bition In turn these valuable characteristics affect per-ceived scarcity Individuals possessing high human capitalare perceived as a ldquoscarce resourcerdquo ldquoin demandrdquo andsought after in the job market We therefore predict a two-step mediation process whereby long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to positive attributions of humancapital characteristics (competence and ambition) whichimpact perceived scarcity and ultimately affect inferencesof status

H1 Busyness at work and lack of leisure time can lead to

inferences of higher perceived status as compared to less

busyness at work and abundance of leisure time

H2 Positive inferences of status in response to busyness

and lack of leisure will be mediated by perceptions that a

busy person possesses desired human capital characteristics

(competence ambition) and as a consequence is scarce and

in demand

Perceived Social Mobility

We then explore the role of values and culture as an im-portant boundary condition for the positive associationsbased on busyness Specifically we propose that status in-ferences linked to busyness and lack of leisure time will behighly influenced by perceived social mobility which sug-gests that hard work may bring success and social affirm-ation (Alesina and La Ferrara 2005 Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013Corneo and Gruner 2002) Social mobility is fundamentalin American culture and is reflected in the ethos of theAmerican Dream (Adams 1931) which proposes that re-gardless of social class one has the opportunity for social

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 121

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

affirmation based on hard work Indeed one who believesin a socially mobile society may view busyness at work asan effective vehicle for achieving greater status We oper-ationalize beliefs in social mobility in two distinct waysFirst we measure beliefs in social mobility using the per-ceived social mobility scale (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013) meas-uring the degree to which individuals view society asmobile and believe that work leads to social affirmation(eg ldquoHard work brings success in the long runrdquo ldquoPeoplehave a chance to escape povertyrdquo) Accordingly we expectthat status inferences toward a busy individual will behigher for individuals who strongly believe in socialmobility

Secondly we explore varying beliefs in social mobilitycomparing differences among cultures (North America vsEurope) Societies vary on whether the concept of socialstatus can be earned through success and accomplishments(achieved status) or is passed down through family back-ground and inherited wealth (ascribed status Foladare1969) While status perceptions are usually a function ofboth in the United States earned status has a larger influ-ence on overall status perceptions (Linton 1936)Americans believe that they live in a mobile society whereindividual effort can move people up and down the statusladder while Europeans believe that they live in less mo-bile societies where people are ldquostuckrdquo in their native so-cial strata (Alesina Di Tella and MacCulloch 2004Alesina and La Ferrara 2005) Based on these varying be-liefs in social mobility Americans view work as a priorityand idealize busyness and long hours of work whereasEuropeans feel their leisure time is as important as or evenmore important than work time (Richards 1998 1999)For example Brislin and Kim (2003) show that in WesternEurope leisure and vacations are greatly valued and consti-tute the most significant events in many peoplersquos livesAnother study on time use in France versus the UnitedStates (Krueger et al 2008) found that on average theFrench take 21 more vacation days a year than AmericansIn a small pilot test we also confirmed that Americanshave stronger beliefs in social mobility than Italians1

Popular culture also reflects and amplifies these culturalvalues a recent Super Bowl commercial by Cadillac(quoted at the beginning of this article) features a wealthybusinessman who glorifies the busy working Americanlifestyle and lampoons Europeans for enjoying long vac-ations A New York Times article discussing Europersquos loveof leisure features European businessmen and economistswho argue that ldquothe main difference with the US is that wespend more time enjoying liferdquo and ldquoleisure is a normalgood and as you become richer economic theory says that

you consume more of itrdquo (Bennhold 2004) Because North

Americans and Europeans have different beliefs in socialmobility through work (Alesina et al 2004) and relatedlya different emphasis on earned or ascribed status we sur-mise that these cultural differences could lead not only to

attenuation but even a reversal of the busyness effectAccordingly we predict that social mobility both as an in-dividual difference and based on culture (American vsItalian) will moderate the busyness effect

H3 Positive inferences of status in response to busyness

and lack of leisure time will be moderated by observersrsquo

perceived social mobility when perceived social mobility is

high the effect of busyness on status inferences is positive

when perceived social mobility is low the effect of busy-

ness on status inferences is either attenuated or negative

In conclusion we propose that people will regard busy in-dividuals who do not spend time leisurely to be higher in

status than those who work less and conduct a leisurelylifestyle In the context of a mobile society where statuscan be earned busyness may be seen as an effective path

to climb the social ladder Furthermore like a rare gem-stone a busy individual is seen as in high demand andscarce Across studies we manipulate busyness in a varietyof ways including explicit ways to display onersquos lack of

leisure (eg use of social media posts) as well as more im-plicit ways (eg descriptions use of timesaving productsand services) In every study results hold when we controlfor respondentsrsquo gender age occupation status and in-

come In the general discussion we conclude with twofollow-up studies testing additional boundary conditions(agency and economic class) and a discussion of the theor-etical and managerial implications providing tangible pre-

scriptions for how marketers can emphasize busyness andpromote timesaving products for status-signaling purposes

RESEARCH DESIGN AND FINDINGS

Pilot Study Humblebragging on Social Media

To provide empirical evidence of the conspicuous dis-play of busyness and lack of leisure time we first collectfield data and examine the content of more than 1000

tweets posted by celebrities a demographic of status-conscious individuals (Brim 2009) ldquoHumblebraggingrdquo isthe act of showing off about something through an osten-sibly self-deprecating statement For example the cover of

the book Humblebrag The Art of False Modesty (Wittels2012) mentions that the author ldquowould love some free timebut has been too busy writing for Parks and Recreation

Eastbound amp Down and a bunch of other stuffvacationpleaserdquo Before publishing the Humblebrag bookthe author asked people to email him leads on anyhumblebrags available online which he then posted on the

bookrsquos Twitter page (httpstwittercomHumblebrag)

1 Thirty Italians (Qualtrics) reported significantly lower levels of per-ceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013 a frac14 84) than 30Americans (Mechanical Turk) (Mita frac14 398 vs Musa frac14 491 F(1 59)frac14 655 p frac14 013)

122 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We scraped from the web these self-deprecating state-ments the majority of which were by famous people andcoded the most recent 1100 of them with the help of threeresearch assistants The goal of this study was to examinethe frequency of complaints about busyness and lack ofleisure on social media as compared to other types of self-deprecating statements such as humblebragging about thedownsides of fame and attractiveness We found that about12 of the coded tweets related to complaints about hardwork and lack of time (eg Tlaloc Rivas stage directorldquoOpened a show last Friday Begin rehearsals for anothernext Tuesday In-between that meetings in DC I HAVENO LIFErdquo Austin Pettis American football receiverldquoHad a lot going on these past few weeks and even morethese next two this is wayyyy to much to handlerdquoArthur Kade actor and model ldquoI need 2 write a blog withan update on everything I have been so ridic busy wmeetings and calls that I have neglected my fansrdquo JoshSigurdson journalist and songwriter ldquoHi Irsquom 16 and Irsquompublishing 3 books and an album this year Do you haveany advice on how to handle it bestrdquo) The most recurringhumblebrags not related to time were about celebrity status(eg Lindsay Lohan actress and model ldquoOh my god Irsquomso embarrassed paparazzi just blinded me with flashesagain as I was walking into dinner They pushed me and Itrippedrdquo Olivia Wilde actress ldquoWatching my brothergraduate from Andover today So proud it is silly Moreimportant than MTV awards but thank you to all who votedfor merdquo) Other examples and more details on the mostrecurring categories are in the web appendix

In sum this pilot study confirms that conspicuously dis-playing onersquos busyness through social media is a practicepursued to some extent by famous status-conscious peo-ple and has been recognized as a kind of bragging by theHumblebrag community Although these results are obser-vational they offer initial evidence that people use socialmedia to publicly display how much they work and com-plain about lack of leisure time in an attempt to exhibittheir high status In the following studies we focus on sta-tus inferences made by others in response to signals ofbusyness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 1 Humblebragging about Busynessthrough Social Media

In study 1 the objective is to demonstrate an effect ofbusyness on inferences of status and to establish the medi-ating process of human capital and scarcity Over the lastdecade the exponential growth of social networks andblogs has multiplied the chances consumers have to portraya virtual image of themselves in front of others and openedup new ways to display onersquos use of time to large audi-ences Through social media consumers can share theirlives and interests (eg Facebook Snapchat) and theirprofessional opinions and achievements (eg Twitter

LinkedIn) among others things Inspired by these trendsand by the Humblebrag pilot study we consider status in-ferences made about people posting Facebook updates(study 1A) or writing letters (study 1B) regarding theirlevel of busyness at work In addition we test for mediatio-nal evidence of our proposed multiple-step mechanism af-fecting status attributions via perceived human capitalcharacteristics and scarcity of the busy individual

Method (Study 1A) We decided in advance to recruit300 participants (about 150 per condition) We recruited307 respondents for a paid online survey through AmazonMechanical Turk (48 female Mage frac14 37 American 59employed full-time 25 employed part-time 16 un-employed average monthly gross income $2000ndash2999)We randomly assigned participants to one of two condi-tions busy Facebook posts or leisurely Facebook postsParticipants read Facebook status updates of a hypotheticalfriend of theirs To make sure there were no differences ofthe effect of conspicuous busyness across genders we var-ied whether the Facebook updates were posted by a man(Sam Fisher) or by a woman (Sally Fisher) Thus the sam-ple was equally split between participants who read aboutthe female poster and participants who read about the maleposter As expected there were no significant differencesfor gender in the patterns of results thus the data were col-lapsed and analyzed jointly For ease of exposition we re-port the questions and results for the rest of the study interms of the female poster All participants were asked toimagine they were friends on Facebook with Sally Fisherand to read three of Sallyrsquos recent posts The status updatesappeared in chronological order on a simulated Facebookscreen page (see the web appendix for a synoptic represen-tation of the visual stimuli) In the busy-Facebook-postscondition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoOh I have been working non-stop allweekrdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoQuick 10 minute lunchrdquo and(3) Friday 5pm ldquoStill at workrdquo In the leisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoI havenrsquot worked much this week hadlots of free timerdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoEnjoying a long lunchbreakrdquo and (3) Friday 5pm ldquoDone with workrdquo

Subsequently we measured perceived status using threedistinct measures A primary measure of status was de-veloped based on previous status definitions (Bourdieu1984 Scott et al 2013 Veblen 18992007) to include bothsocial status and financial resources (wealth and income)Specifically participants answered the following threequestions (1) On a scale from 1 to 7 how would you rankthe social status of the individual described (1 frac14 Low so-cial status 7 frac14 High social status) (2) Do you think she isfinancially wealthy (1 frac14 Not wealthy 7 frac14 Extremelywealthy) and (3) This person has a high income level (1 frac14Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) Thus the threeitems (social status financial wealth income) were

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 123

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

collapsed into a single measure of overall status (a frac14 82)Throughout all the studies in this article this will be theprimary measure of perceived status In addition weincluded two other measures of status established in the lit-erature to confirm the construct validity of our primarymeasure First we adapted the widely used MacArthurscale of subjective socioeconomic status (Adler et al 2000Anderson et al 2012) to assess the status of a third partyThe measure consists of a drawing of a ladder with 10rungs representing where people stand in society in termsof money status and influence (10 representing people atthe top of society 1 representing people at the bottom ofsociety) Participants were instructed to pick the rungwhere they would place Sally Second following Duboiset al (2012) participants were asked to judge Sally on twodimensions wedded to status (this person has high status isrespected a frac14 68) and three dimensions divorced fromstatus (this person is honest nice attractive) The order ofthe five dimensions was randomized Importantly the threedimensions divorced from status allowed us to detect po-tential demand effect

Participants then assessed Sallyrsquos human capital charac-teristics the first mediator Because the attributes of com-petence and ambition have been strongly associated withhuman capital (Frank and Bernanke 2007) we chose threemeasures that reflected these characteristics to measurehuman capital Specifically participants rated their agree-ment (1 frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) with thefollowing statements presented in randomized order (1)Sally is competent (2) Sally is ambitious and (3) Sallywants to move up in the world We averaged the threeitems (a frac14 88) and used the resulting measure as first me-diator Next participants answered three questions assess-ing whether Sally was perceived to be in demand andscarce on the job market the second mediator More spe-cifically participants were asked (1) To what extent isSally in demand (1 frac14 In very low demand 7 frac14 In veryhigh demand) (2) Do you perceive Sally as a ldquoscarce re-sourcerdquo (1 frac14 Definitely no 7 frac14 Definitely yes) and (3)Do you imagine Sally is sought after in the job market(1 frac14 Not sought after at all 7 frac14 Very much sought after)We averaged the three items (a frac14 91) and used the result-ing measure as the second mediator

Lastly three manipulation checks (a frac14 89) measuredSallyrsquos level of busyness at work and lack of leisure time(1) Sally spends many hours at work (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) (2) Sally spends many hoursdoing hobbies andor leisure activities (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree reverse coded) and (3) Howbusy is Sally (1 frac14 Not busy at all 7 frac14 Extremely busy)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1A) We used twoapproaches to assess the discriminant validity of the keyconstructs (ie perceived busyness level human capitalcharacteristics scarcity and status) First we comparedthe Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each of ourconstructs with the squared correlation between constructspairs (Fornell and Larcker 1981) Table 1 shows that theAVE (diagonal data) exceeds the squared correlations forall measures (below the diagonal data) Second none ofthe confidence intervals at plus or minus two standarderrors around the correlation between the factors (table 1above the diagonal data) included 10 (Anderson andGerbing 1988) Thus these two tests provide evidence forthe discriminant validity of our measures The same ana-lyses performed on the other two status measures yieldsimilar results

Results (Study 1A) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Sally was perceived as working lon-ger hours in the busy (Mfrac14 553 SD frac14 103) than in theleisurely posts condition (Mfrac14 274 SD frac14 95 F(1 305) frac1461256 p lt 001) Consistent with hypothesis 1 all threestatus measures were significantly higher in the busy-Facebook-posts condition Compared to participants in theleisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants in thebusy-Facebook-posts condition perceived Sally as higherin social status (Mfrac14 37 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 34 SD frac14123 F(1 305) frac14 551 p frac14 019)2 they placed her on ahigher rung on the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 534SD frac14 142 vs Mfrac14 479 SD frac14 155 F(1 305) frac14 1028p frac14 001) and they saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 401 SD frac14 104 vs Mfrac14 376 SD frac14 107 F(1 305)frac14 417 p frac14 042) Indeed the three measures of status are

TABLE 1

STUDY 1A MEASUREMENT OF DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Busyness levelindependent variable

Human capitalmediator 1

Scarcitymediator 2

Statusdependent variable

Busyness level independent variable 0819 (0703ndash806) (0521ndash0682) (0150ndash0379)Human capital mediator 1 0573 0817 (0723ndash0824) (0370ndash0572)Scarcity mediator 2 0367 0607 0845 (0468ndash0668)Status dependent variable 0071 0225 0326 0733

NOTEmdashMatrix shows AVE (diagonal) squared correlation (below the diagonal) and confidence intervals (above diagonal)

2 This result replicated (Mbusy frac14 387 vs Mnonbusy frac14 321 F(1 242)frac14 2069 p lt 001) with another sample of 244 participants (study 1Areplication web appendix)

124 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

highly convergent and tap into one construct All the items

across measures are highly correlated and a principal com-

ponent analysis revealed one single factor accounting for

66 of the variance (see the results table in the web

appendix)As expected participants found Sally in the busy-

Facebook-posts condition to possess higher human capital

characteristics (Mfrac14 488 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 324 SD frac14111 F(1 304) frac14 18201 p lt 001) and to be more scarce

and in demand (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 116 vs Mfrac14 268 SD frac14117 F(1 304) frac14 9543 p lt 001) than in the leisurely-

Facebook-posts conditionImportantly there was no difference between conditions

on the nonstatus dimensions (ie perceptions of honesty

niceness and attractiveness Mfrac14 444 SD frac14 75 vs

Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 83 F(1 305) frac14 83 NS) This result con-

tributes to ruling out concerns of demand effects

Mediation Analyses (Study 1A) We estimated

multiple-step mediation using model 6 in PROCESS

(Hayes 2013) Figure and estimated path coefficients and

results on all indirect effects are reported in the web appen-

dix As predicted we found a significant indirect effect

(55 95 CI from 37 to 75) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity To estimate the neces-

sity of a more complex multiple-step mediation model we

also computed the R2 change from a simpler model

including only the first mediator in the regression The ana-

lysis revealed a significant improvement in the amount of

variance explained when both mediators were included

(from R2 frac14 27 to R2 frac14 38 Fchange (1 302) frac14 5191 p lt001) As a further check we also ran an analysis with

the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and human

capital second) The indirect effect was also significant

(16 95 CI from 04 to 3) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than three

times smaller than our hypothesized path model (stand-

ardized indirect effect frac14 25)Finally the hypothesized multiple-step mediation ana-

lysis on the other two measures of status revealed the pre-

dicted pattern of results For the socioeconomic status

ladder the indirect effect through human capital and scar-

city was significant (51 95 CI from 27 to 78)

Likewise for ratings of status and respect the indirect ef-

fect through human capital and scarcity was also signifi-

cant (32 95 CI from 18 to 49)

Method (Study 1B) We decided in advance to recruit

at least 100 respondents (about 50 per condition) for a lab

study at Georgetown We recruited 112 respondents (47

female Mage frac14 20) and randomly assigned them to one of

two conditions busy letter or leisurely letter Participants

read the following letter from an imaginary friend (text in

parentheses refers to the busy-letter condition text in

brackets refers to the leisurely-letter condition)

Hi John

I got your birthday card today it made me laugh Thank you

for remembering my birthday I canrsquot believe we are already

40 time flies (My life is crazy busy as usual You probably

remember how much I like watching my favorite sport

teams Unfortunately I have an extremely busy work sched-

ule which does not allow me to spend a lot of time watching

TV and doing other hobbies) [My life is relaxed as usual

You probably remember how much I like watching my fa-

vorite sport teams Luckily I donrsquot have a busy work sched-

ule which allows me to spend a lot of time watching TV and

doing other hobbies] Pam and my parents got me a large

screen TV for my birthday (So far I havenrsquot had a chance to

watch it) [So far I have been watching ESPN every day]

You would probably be happy to hear I finally quit smoking

wersquoll see how it goes You always told me I should quit

Pam and the kids are sending their love I hope we can all

get together soon

Daniel

Given the high convergence of the three status measures instudy 1A in this and the next studies we will focus on thethree-item status measure consisting of social statuswealth and income Using the same measures as in study1A we asked participants to rate Daniel on perceived sta-tus (a frac14 9) human capital (a frac14 83) scarcity (a frac14 9)and busyness (a frac14 93)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in study 1A confirmed the dis-tinctiveness of our main constructs (see the results table inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 1B) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Daniel was perceived as more busyin the busy-letter (Mfrac14 544 SD frac14 107) than in theleisurely-letter condition (Mfrac14 258 SD frac14 107 F(1 110)frac14 20017 p lt 001) Compared to participants in theleisurely-letter condition participants in the busy-lettercondition perceived Daniel as higher in social status finan-cial wealth and income (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 108 vsMfrac14 352 SD frac14 99 F(1 110) frac14 589 p frac14 017)Analyzing the two mediators confirmed that participantsfound Daniel in the busy-letter condition to have higherhuman capital characteristics (Mfrac14 442 SD frac14 99 vsMfrac14 304 SD frac14 92 F(1 110) frac14 5743 p lt 001) and tobe more scarce and in demand (Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 96 vsMfrac14 283 SD frac14 96 F(1 110) frac14 2815 p lt 001) than inthe leisurely-letter condition

Mediation Analyses (Study 1B) As in study 1A weperformed a multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes2013) As expected we found a significant indirect effect(76 95 CI from 52 to 111) for the mediation paththrough human capital and scarcity See figure 1 for esti-mated path coefficients and results on all indirect effects

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 125

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We also ran the same analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was not significant when the mediators were re-versed (ndash01 95 CI from ndash18 to 15)

Discussion The results of studies 1A and 1B demon-strate that individuals posting Facebook updates or writingletters about their overworked lifestyle are perceived ashigher in status than individuals whose updates revealmore leisurely lifestyles Importantly consistent with hy-pothesis 2 these studies show that long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to higher inferences in terms ofhuman capital characteristics of the busy individual whichin turn enhance the extent to which this individual is per-ceived as scarce and in demand ultimately leading to posi-tive status attributions Finally these results demonstratethe discriminant validity of our critical constructs (ie per-ceived busyness level human capital scarcity and status)

To gain further insight into the specific dimensions ofbusyness driving the positive status attributions the fol-lowing set of studies examines the speed at which work isperformed (study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to theworking activity (study 2B) Moreover these studies

consider the moderating role of perceived social mobility

within American respondents

Study 2 The Dimensions of Busyness and theModerating Role of Perceived Social Mobility

The objective of this study is to dissect the dimensions

of busyness at work that may potentially lead to positive

inferences of status in the eyes of others Across two paral-

lel experimental designs we test and compare (between-

subjects) 10 different lifestyles reflecting three dimensions

of time consumption quantity (the amount of working

hours and leisure time) speed (pace at which work is per-

formed) and meaning (level of enjoyment and meaning

tied to work) Because both speed and meaning varied with

manipulations of busyness in the pilot test in study 2 our

aim is to isolate the effects of quantity (hours of work vs

leisure) while accounting for these additional dimensions

of busyness Specifically we will look at quantity and

speed in study 2A and we will examine quantity and

meaning in study 2B In the case of speed the quantity di-

mension of the busyness effect might be attenuated if

FIGURE 1

STUDY 1B RESULTS MEDIATION VIA HUMAN CAPITAL AND SCARCITY ON PERCEIVED STATUS

Busy at Work vs Leisurely

Lifestyle

b1 = 138

Status Inferences

Human Capital

In Demand and Scarce

b5 = -01

b2 = 71

b3 = 78

b6 = -01

b4 = -26

NOTEmdashMultiple-step mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples (model 6 in PROCESS Hayes 2013) Coefficients significantly different from zero are indicated

by asterisks (p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001)

The total indirect effect was significant (74 95 CI from 41 to 109)

The indirect effect through human capital and scarcity (the effect hypothesized in hypothesis 2) was significant (76 95 CI from 52 to 111)

The indirect effect through human capital was not significant (ndash02 95 CI from ndash34 to 3)

The indirect effect through scarcity was not significant (ndash01 95 CI from ndash24 to 26)

126 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 5: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

affirmation based on hard work Indeed one who believesin a socially mobile society may view busyness at work asan effective vehicle for achieving greater status We oper-ationalize beliefs in social mobility in two distinct waysFirst we measure beliefs in social mobility using the per-ceived social mobility scale (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013) meas-uring the degree to which individuals view society asmobile and believe that work leads to social affirmation(eg ldquoHard work brings success in the long runrdquo ldquoPeoplehave a chance to escape povertyrdquo) Accordingly we expectthat status inferences toward a busy individual will behigher for individuals who strongly believe in socialmobility

Secondly we explore varying beliefs in social mobilitycomparing differences among cultures (North America vsEurope) Societies vary on whether the concept of socialstatus can be earned through success and accomplishments(achieved status) or is passed down through family back-ground and inherited wealth (ascribed status Foladare1969) While status perceptions are usually a function ofboth in the United States earned status has a larger influ-ence on overall status perceptions (Linton 1936)Americans believe that they live in a mobile society whereindividual effort can move people up and down the statusladder while Europeans believe that they live in less mo-bile societies where people are ldquostuckrdquo in their native so-cial strata (Alesina Di Tella and MacCulloch 2004Alesina and La Ferrara 2005) Based on these varying be-liefs in social mobility Americans view work as a priorityand idealize busyness and long hours of work whereasEuropeans feel their leisure time is as important as or evenmore important than work time (Richards 1998 1999)For example Brislin and Kim (2003) show that in WesternEurope leisure and vacations are greatly valued and consti-tute the most significant events in many peoplersquos livesAnother study on time use in France versus the UnitedStates (Krueger et al 2008) found that on average theFrench take 21 more vacation days a year than AmericansIn a small pilot test we also confirmed that Americanshave stronger beliefs in social mobility than Italians1

Popular culture also reflects and amplifies these culturalvalues a recent Super Bowl commercial by Cadillac(quoted at the beginning of this article) features a wealthybusinessman who glorifies the busy working Americanlifestyle and lampoons Europeans for enjoying long vac-ations A New York Times article discussing Europersquos loveof leisure features European businessmen and economistswho argue that ldquothe main difference with the US is that wespend more time enjoying liferdquo and ldquoleisure is a normalgood and as you become richer economic theory says that

you consume more of itrdquo (Bennhold 2004) Because North

Americans and Europeans have different beliefs in socialmobility through work (Alesina et al 2004) and relatedlya different emphasis on earned or ascribed status we sur-mise that these cultural differences could lead not only to

attenuation but even a reversal of the busyness effectAccordingly we predict that social mobility both as an in-dividual difference and based on culture (American vsItalian) will moderate the busyness effect

H3 Positive inferences of status in response to busyness

and lack of leisure time will be moderated by observersrsquo

perceived social mobility when perceived social mobility is

high the effect of busyness on status inferences is positive

when perceived social mobility is low the effect of busy-

ness on status inferences is either attenuated or negative

In conclusion we propose that people will regard busy in-dividuals who do not spend time leisurely to be higher in

status than those who work less and conduct a leisurelylifestyle In the context of a mobile society where statuscan be earned busyness may be seen as an effective path

to climb the social ladder Furthermore like a rare gem-stone a busy individual is seen as in high demand andscarce Across studies we manipulate busyness in a varietyof ways including explicit ways to display onersquos lack of

leisure (eg use of social media posts) as well as more im-plicit ways (eg descriptions use of timesaving productsand services) In every study results hold when we controlfor respondentsrsquo gender age occupation status and in-

come In the general discussion we conclude with twofollow-up studies testing additional boundary conditions(agency and economic class) and a discussion of the theor-etical and managerial implications providing tangible pre-

scriptions for how marketers can emphasize busyness andpromote timesaving products for status-signaling purposes

RESEARCH DESIGN AND FINDINGS

Pilot Study Humblebragging on Social Media

To provide empirical evidence of the conspicuous dis-play of busyness and lack of leisure time we first collectfield data and examine the content of more than 1000

tweets posted by celebrities a demographic of status-conscious individuals (Brim 2009) ldquoHumblebraggingrdquo isthe act of showing off about something through an osten-sibly self-deprecating statement For example the cover of

the book Humblebrag The Art of False Modesty (Wittels2012) mentions that the author ldquowould love some free timebut has been too busy writing for Parks and Recreation

Eastbound amp Down and a bunch of other stuffvacationpleaserdquo Before publishing the Humblebrag bookthe author asked people to email him leads on anyhumblebrags available online which he then posted on the

bookrsquos Twitter page (httpstwittercomHumblebrag)

1 Thirty Italians (Qualtrics) reported significantly lower levels of per-ceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al 2013 a frac14 84) than 30Americans (Mechanical Turk) (Mita frac14 398 vs Musa frac14 491 F(1 59)frac14 655 p frac14 013)

122 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We scraped from the web these self-deprecating state-ments the majority of which were by famous people andcoded the most recent 1100 of them with the help of threeresearch assistants The goal of this study was to examinethe frequency of complaints about busyness and lack ofleisure on social media as compared to other types of self-deprecating statements such as humblebragging about thedownsides of fame and attractiveness We found that about12 of the coded tweets related to complaints about hardwork and lack of time (eg Tlaloc Rivas stage directorldquoOpened a show last Friday Begin rehearsals for anothernext Tuesday In-between that meetings in DC I HAVENO LIFErdquo Austin Pettis American football receiverldquoHad a lot going on these past few weeks and even morethese next two this is wayyyy to much to handlerdquoArthur Kade actor and model ldquoI need 2 write a blog withan update on everything I have been so ridic busy wmeetings and calls that I have neglected my fansrdquo JoshSigurdson journalist and songwriter ldquoHi Irsquom 16 and Irsquompublishing 3 books and an album this year Do you haveany advice on how to handle it bestrdquo) The most recurringhumblebrags not related to time were about celebrity status(eg Lindsay Lohan actress and model ldquoOh my god Irsquomso embarrassed paparazzi just blinded me with flashesagain as I was walking into dinner They pushed me and Itrippedrdquo Olivia Wilde actress ldquoWatching my brothergraduate from Andover today So proud it is silly Moreimportant than MTV awards but thank you to all who votedfor merdquo) Other examples and more details on the mostrecurring categories are in the web appendix

In sum this pilot study confirms that conspicuously dis-playing onersquos busyness through social media is a practicepursued to some extent by famous status-conscious peo-ple and has been recognized as a kind of bragging by theHumblebrag community Although these results are obser-vational they offer initial evidence that people use socialmedia to publicly display how much they work and com-plain about lack of leisure time in an attempt to exhibittheir high status In the following studies we focus on sta-tus inferences made by others in response to signals ofbusyness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 1 Humblebragging about Busynessthrough Social Media

In study 1 the objective is to demonstrate an effect ofbusyness on inferences of status and to establish the medi-ating process of human capital and scarcity Over the lastdecade the exponential growth of social networks andblogs has multiplied the chances consumers have to portraya virtual image of themselves in front of others and openedup new ways to display onersquos use of time to large audi-ences Through social media consumers can share theirlives and interests (eg Facebook Snapchat) and theirprofessional opinions and achievements (eg Twitter

LinkedIn) among others things Inspired by these trendsand by the Humblebrag pilot study we consider status in-ferences made about people posting Facebook updates(study 1A) or writing letters (study 1B) regarding theirlevel of busyness at work In addition we test for mediatio-nal evidence of our proposed multiple-step mechanism af-fecting status attributions via perceived human capitalcharacteristics and scarcity of the busy individual

Method (Study 1A) We decided in advance to recruit300 participants (about 150 per condition) We recruited307 respondents for a paid online survey through AmazonMechanical Turk (48 female Mage frac14 37 American 59employed full-time 25 employed part-time 16 un-employed average monthly gross income $2000ndash2999)We randomly assigned participants to one of two condi-tions busy Facebook posts or leisurely Facebook postsParticipants read Facebook status updates of a hypotheticalfriend of theirs To make sure there were no differences ofthe effect of conspicuous busyness across genders we var-ied whether the Facebook updates were posted by a man(Sam Fisher) or by a woman (Sally Fisher) Thus the sam-ple was equally split between participants who read aboutthe female poster and participants who read about the maleposter As expected there were no significant differencesfor gender in the patterns of results thus the data were col-lapsed and analyzed jointly For ease of exposition we re-port the questions and results for the rest of the study interms of the female poster All participants were asked toimagine they were friends on Facebook with Sally Fisherand to read three of Sallyrsquos recent posts The status updatesappeared in chronological order on a simulated Facebookscreen page (see the web appendix for a synoptic represen-tation of the visual stimuli) In the busy-Facebook-postscondition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoOh I have been working non-stop allweekrdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoQuick 10 minute lunchrdquo and(3) Friday 5pm ldquoStill at workrdquo In the leisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoI havenrsquot worked much this week hadlots of free timerdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoEnjoying a long lunchbreakrdquo and (3) Friday 5pm ldquoDone with workrdquo

Subsequently we measured perceived status using threedistinct measures A primary measure of status was de-veloped based on previous status definitions (Bourdieu1984 Scott et al 2013 Veblen 18992007) to include bothsocial status and financial resources (wealth and income)Specifically participants answered the following threequestions (1) On a scale from 1 to 7 how would you rankthe social status of the individual described (1 frac14 Low so-cial status 7 frac14 High social status) (2) Do you think she isfinancially wealthy (1 frac14 Not wealthy 7 frac14 Extremelywealthy) and (3) This person has a high income level (1 frac14Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) Thus the threeitems (social status financial wealth income) were

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 123

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

collapsed into a single measure of overall status (a frac14 82)Throughout all the studies in this article this will be theprimary measure of perceived status In addition weincluded two other measures of status established in the lit-erature to confirm the construct validity of our primarymeasure First we adapted the widely used MacArthurscale of subjective socioeconomic status (Adler et al 2000Anderson et al 2012) to assess the status of a third partyThe measure consists of a drawing of a ladder with 10rungs representing where people stand in society in termsof money status and influence (10 representing people atthe top of society 1 representing people at the bottom ofsociety) Participants were instructed to pick the rungwhere they would place Sally Second following Duboiset al (2012) participants were asked to judge Sally on twodimensions wedded to status (this person has high status isrespected a frac14 68) and three dimensions divorced fromstatus (this person is honest nice attractive) The order ofthe five dimensions was randomized Importantly the threedimensions divorced from status allowed us to detect po-tential demand effect

Participants then assessed Sallyrsquos human capital charac-teristics the first mediator Because the attributes of com-petence and ambition have been strongly associated withhuman capital (Frank and Bernanke 2007) we chose threemeasures that reflected these characteristics to measurehuman capital Specifically participants rated their agree-ment (1 frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) with thefollowing statements presented in randomized order (1)Sally is competent (2) Sally is ambitious and (3) Sallywants to move up in the world We averaged the threeitems (a frac14 88) and used the resulting measure as first me-diator Next participants answered three questions assess-ing whether Sally was perceived to be in demand andscarce on the job market the second mediator More spe-cifically participants were asked (1) To what extent isSally in demand (1 frac14 In very low demand 7 frac14 In veryhigh demand) (2) Do you perceive Sally as a ldquoscarce re-sourcerdquo (1 frac14 Definitely no 7 frac14 Definitely yes) and (3)Do you imagine Sally is sought after in the job market(1 frac14 Not sought after at all 7 frac14 Very much sought after)We averaged the three items (a frac14 91) and used the result-ing measure as the second mediator

Lastly three manipulation checks (a frac14 89) measuredSallyrsquos level of busyness at work and lack of leisure time(1) Sally spends many hours at work (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) (2) Sally spends many hoursdoing hobbies andor leisure activities (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree reverse coded) and (3) Howbusy is Sally (1 frac14 Not busy at all 7 frac14 Extremely busy)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1A) We used twoapproaches to assess the discriminant validity of the keyconstructs (ie perceived busyness level human capitalcharacteristics scarcity and status) First we comparedthe Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each of ourconstructs with the squared correlation between constructspairs (Fornell and Larcker 1981) Table 1 shows that theAVE (diagonal data) exceeds the squared correlations forall measures (below the diagonal data) Second none ofthe confidence intervals at plus or minus two standarderrors around the correlation between the factors (table 1above the diagonal data) included 10 (Anderson andGerbing 1988) Thus these two tests provide evidence forthe discriminant validity of our measures The same ana-lyses performed on the other two status measures yieldsimilar results

Results (Study 1A) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Sally was perceived as working lon-ger hours in the busy (Mfrac14 553 SD frac14 103) than in theleisurely posts condition (Mfrac14 274 SD frac14 95 F(1 305) frac1461256 p lt 001) Consistent with hypothesis 1 all threestatus measures were significantly higher in the busy-Facebook-posts condition Compared to participants in theleisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants in thebusy-Facebook-posts condition perceived Sally as higherin social status (Mfrac14 37 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 34 SD frac14123 F(1 305) frac14 551 p frac14 019)2 they placed her on ahigher rung on the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 534SD frac14 142 vs Mfrac14 479 SD frac14 155 F(1 305) frac14 1028p frac14 001) and they saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 401 SD frac14 104 vs Mfrac14 376 SD frac14 107 F(1 305)frac14 417 p frac14 042) Indeed the three measures of status are

TABLE 1

STUDY 1A MEASUREMENT OF DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Busyness levelindependent variable

Human capitalmediator 1

Scarcitymediator 2

Statusdependent variable

Busyness level independent variable 0819 (0703ndash806) (0521ndash0682) (0150ndash0379)Human capital mediator 1 0573 0817 (0723ndash0824) (0370ndash0572)Scarcity mediator 2 0367 0607 0845 (0468ndash0668)Status dependent variable 0071 0225 0326 0733

NOTEmdashMatrix shows AVE (diagonal) squared correlation (below the diagonal) and confidence intervals (above diagonal)

2 This result replicated (Mbusy frac14 387 vs Mnonbusy frac14 321 F(1 242)frac14 2069 p lt 001) with another sample of 244 participants (study 1Areplication web appendix)

124 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

highly convergent and tap into one construct All the items

across measures are highly correlated and a principal com-

ponent analysis revealed one single factor accounting for

66 of the variance (see the results table in the web

appendix)As expected participants found Sally in the busy-

Facebook-posts condition to possess higher human capital

characteristics (Mfrac14 488 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 324 SD frac14111 F(1 304) frac14 18201 p lt 001) and to be more scarce

and in demand (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 116 vs Mfrac14 268 SD frac14117 F(1 304) frac14 9543 p lt 001) than in the leisurely-

Facebook-posts conditionImportantly there was no difference between conditions

on the nonstatus dimensions (ie perceptions of honesty

niceness and attractiveness Mfrac14 444 SD frac14 75 vs

Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 83 F(1 305) frac14 83 NS) This result con-

tributes to ruling out concerns of demand effects

Mediation Analyses (Study 1A) We estimated

multiple-step mediation using model 6 in PROCESS

(Hayes 2013) Figure and estimated path coefficients and

results on all indirect effects are reported in the web appen-

dix As predicted we found a significant indirect effect

(55 95 CI from 37 to 75) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity To estimate the neces-

sity of a more complex multiple-step mediation model we

also computed the R2 change from a simpler model

including only the first mediator in the regression The ana-

lysis revealed a significant improvement in the amount of

variance explained when both mediators were included

(from R2 frac14 27 to R2 frac14 38 Fchange (1 302) frac14 5191 p lt001) As a further check we also ran an analysis with

the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and human

capital second) The indirect effect was also significant

(16 95 CI from 04 to 3) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than three

times smaller than our hypothesized path model (stand-

ardized indirect effect frac14 25)Finally the hypothesized multiple-step mediation ana-

lysis on the other two measures of status revealed the pre-

dicted pattern of results For the socioeconomic status

ladder the indirect effect through human capital and scar-

city was significant (51 95 CI from 27 to 78)

Likewise for ratings of status and respect the indirect ef-

fect through human capital and scarcity was also signifi-

cant (32 95 CI from 18 to 49)

Method (Study 1B) We decided in advance to recruit

at least 100 respondents (about 50 per condition) for a lab

study at Georgetown We recruited 112 respondents (47

female Mage frac14 20) and randomly assigned them to one of

two conditions busy letter or leisurely letter Participants

read the following letter from an imaginary friend (text in

parentheses refers to the busy-letter condition text in

brackets refers to the leisurely-letter condition)

Hi John

I got your birthday card today it made me laugh Thank you

for remembering my birthday I canrsquot believe we are already

40 time flies (My life is crazy busy as usual You probably

remember how much I like watching my favorite sport

teams Unfortunately I have an extremely busy work sched-

ule which does not allow me to spend a lot of time watching

TV and doing other hobbies) [My life is relaxed as usual

You probably remember how much I like watching my fa-

vorite sport teams Luckily I donrsquot have a busy work sched-

ule which allows me to spend a lot of time watching TV and

doing other hobbies] Pam and my parents got me a large

screen TV for my birthday (So far I havenrsquot had a chance to

watch it) [So far I have been watching ESPN every day]

You would probably be happy to hear I finally quit smoking

wersquoll see how it goes You always told me I should quit

Pam and the kids are sending their love I hope we can all

get together soon

Daniel

Given the high convergence of the three status measures instudy 1A in this and the next studies we will focus on thethree-item status measure consisting of social statuswealth and income Using the same measures as in study1A we asked participants to rate Daniel on perceived sta-tus (a frac14 9) human capital (a frac14 83) scarcity (a frac14 9)and busyness (a frac14 93)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in study 1A confirmed the dis-tinctiveness of our main constructs (see the results table inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 1B) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Daniel was perceived as more busyin the busy-letter (Mfrac14 544 SD frac14 107) than in theleisurely-letter condition (Mfrac14 258 SD frac14 107 F(1 110)frac14 20017 p lt 001) Compared to participants in theleisurely-letter condition participants in the busy-lettercondition perceived Daniel as higher in social status finan-cial wealth and income (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 108 vsMfrac14 352 SD frac14 99 F(1 110) frac14 589 p frac14 017)Analyzing the two mediators confirmed that participantsfound Daniel in the busy-letter condition to have higherhuman capital characteristics (Mfrac14 442 SD frac14 99 vsMfrac14 304 SD frac14 92 F(1 110) frac14 5743 p lt 001) and tobe more scarce and in demand (Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 96 vsMfrac14 283 SD frac14 96 F(1 110) frac14 2815 p lt 001) than inthe leisurely-letter condition

Mediation Analyses (Study 1B) As in study 1A weperformed a multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes2013) As expected we found a significant indirect effect(76 95 CI from 52 to 111) for the mediation paththrough human capital and scarcity See figure 1 for esti-mated path coefficients and results on all indirect effects

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 125

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We also ran the same analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was not significant when the mediators were re-versed (ndash01 95 CI from ndash18 to 15)

Discussion The results of studies 1A and 1B demon-strate that individuals posting Facebook updates or writingletters about their overworked lifestyle are perceived ashigher in status than individuals whose updates revealmore leisurely lifestyles Importantly consistent with hy-pothesis 2 these studies show that long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to higher inferences in terms ofhuman capital characteristics of the busy individual whichin turn enhance the extent to which this individual is per-ceived as scarce and in demand ultimately leading to posi-tive status attributions Finally these results demonstratethe discriminant validity of our critical constructs (ie per-ceived busyness level human capital scarcity and status)

To gain further insight into the specific dimensions ofbusyness driving the positive status attributions the fol-lowing set of studies examines the speed at which work isperformed (study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to theworking activity (study 2B) Moreover these studies

consider the moderating role of perceived social mobility

within American respondents

Study 2 The Dimensions of Busyness and theModerating Role of Perceived Social Mobility

The objective of this study is to dissect the dimensions

of busyness at work that may potentially lead to positive

inferences of status in the eyes of others Across two paral-

lel experimental designs we test and compare (between-

subjects) 10 different lifestyles reflecting three dimensions

of time consumption quantity (the amount of working

hours and leisure time) speed (pace at which work is per-

formed) and meaning (level of enjoyment and meaning

tied to work) Because both speed and meaning varied with

manipulations of busyness in the pilot test in study 2 our

aim is to isolate the effects of quantity (hours of work vs

leisure) while accounting for these additional dimensions

of busyness Specifically we will look at quantity and

speed in study 2A and we will examine quantity and

meaning in study 2B In the case of speed the quantity di-

mension of the busyness effect might be attenuated if

FIGURE 1

STUDY 1B RESULTS MEDIATION VIA HUMAN CAPITAL AND SCARCITY ON PERCEIVED STATUS

Busy at Work vs Leisurely

Lifestyle

b1 = 138

Status Inferences

Human Capital

In Demand and Scarce

b5 = -01

b2 = 71

b3 = 78

b6 = -01

b4 = -26

NOTEmdashMultiple-step mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples (model 6 in PROCESS Hayes 2013) Coefficients significantly different from zero are indicated

by asterisks (p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001)

The total indirect effect was significant (74 95 CI from 41 to 109)

The indirect effect through human capital and scarcity (the effect hypothesized in hypothesis 2) was significant (76 95 CI from 52 to 111)

The indirect effect through human capital was not significant (ndash02 95 CI from ndash34 to 3)

The indirect effect through scarcity was not significant (ndash01 95 CI from ndash24 to 26)

126 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 6: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

We scraped from the web these self-deprecating state-ments the majority of which were by famous people andcoded the most recent 1100 of them with the help of threeresearch assistants The goal of this study was to examinethe frequency of complaints about busyness and lack ofleisure on social media as compared to other types of self-deprecating statements such as humblebragging about thedownsides of fame and attractiveness We found that about12 of the coded tweets related to complaints about hardwork and lack of time (eg Tlaloc Rivas stage directorldquoOpened a show last Friday Begin rehearsals for anothernext Tuesday In-between that meetings in DC I HAVENO LIFErdquo Austin Pettis American football receiverldquoHad a lot going on these past few weeks and even morethese next two this is wayyyy to much to handlerdquoArthur Kade actor and model ldquoI need 2 write a blog withan update on everything I have been so ridic busy wmeetings and calls that I have neglected my fansrdquo JoshSigurdson journalist and songwriter ldquoHi Irsquom 16 and Irsquompublishing 3 books and an album this year Do you haveany advice on how to handle it bestrdquo) The most recurringhumblebrags not related to time were about celebrity status(eg Lindsay Lohan actress and model ldquoOh my god Irsquomso embarrassed paparazzi just blinded me with flashesagain as I was walking into dinner They pushed me and Itrippedrdquo Olivia Wilde actress ldquoWatching my brothergraduate from Andover today So proud it is silly Moreimportant than MTV awards but thank you to all who votedfor merdquo) Other examples and more details on the mostrecurring categories are in the web appendix

In sum this pilot study confirms that conspicuously dis-playing onersquos busyness through social media is a practicepursued to some extent by famous status-conscious peo-ple and has been recognized as a kind of bragging by theHumblebrag community Although these results are obser-vational they offer initial evidence that people use socialmedia to publicly display how much they work and com-plain about lack of leisure time in an attempt to exhibittheir high status In the following studies we focus on sta-tus inferences made by others in response to signals ofbusyness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 1 Humblebragging about Busynessthrough Social Media

In study 1 the objective is to demonstrate an effect ofbusyness on inferences of status and to establish the medi-ating process of human capital and scarcity Over the lastdecade the exponential growth of social networks andblogs has multiplied the chances consumers have to portraya virtual image of themselves in front of others and openedup new ways to display onersquos use of time to large audi-ences Through social media consumers can share theirlives and interests (eg Facebook Snapchat) and theirprofessional opinions and achievements (eg Twitter

LinkedIn) among others things Inspired by these trendsand by the Humblebrag pilot study we consider status in-ferences made about people posting Facebook updates(study 1A) or writing letters (study 1B) regarding theirlevel of busyness at work In addition we test for mediatio-nal evidence of our proposed multiple-step mechanism af-fecting status attributions via perceived human capitalcharacteristics and scarcity of the busy individual

Method (Study 1A) We decided in advance to recruit300 participants (about 150 per condition) We recruited307 respondents for a paid online survey through AmazonMechanical Turk (48 female Mage frac14 37 American 59employed full-time 25 employed part-time 16 un-employed average monthly gross income $2000ndash2999)We randomly assigned participants to one of two condi-tions busy Facebook posts or leisurely Facebook postsParticipants read Facebook status updates of a hypotheticalfriend of theirs To make sure there were no differences ofthe effect of conspicuous busyness across genders we var-ied whether the Facebook updates were posted by a man(Sam Fisher) or by a woman (Sally Fisher) Thus the sam-ple was equally split between participants who read aboutthe female poster and participants who read about the maleposter As expected there were no significant differencesfor gender in the patterns of results thus the data were col-lapsed and analyzed jointly For ease of exposition we re-port the questions and results for the rest of the study interms of the female poster All participants were asked toimagine they were friends on Facebook with Sally Fisherand to read three of Sallyrsquos recent posts The status updatesappeared in chronological order on a simulated Facebookscreen page (see the web appendix for a synoptic represen-tation of the visual stimuli) In the busy-Facebook-postscondition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoOh I have been working non-stop allweekrdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoQuick 10 minute lunchrdquo and(3) Friday 5pm ldquoStill at workrdquo In the leisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants read the following posts(1) Thursday 2pm ldquoI havenrsquot worked much this week hadlots of free timerdquo (2) Friday noon ldquoEnjoying a long lunchbreakrdquo and (3) Friday 5pm ldquoDone with workrdquo

Subsequently we measured perceived status using threedistinct measures A primary measure of status was de-veloped based on previous status definitions (Bourdieu1984 Scott et al 2013 Veblen 18992007) to include bothsocial status and financial resources (wealth and income)Specifically participants answered the following threequestions (1) On a scale from 1 to 7 how would you rankthe social status of the individual described (1 frac14 Low so-cial status 7 frac14 High social status) (2) Do you think she isfinancially wealthy (1 frac14 Not wealthy 7 frac14 Extremelywealthy) and (3) This person has a high income level (1 frac14Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) Thus the threeitems (social status financial wealth income) were

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 123

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

collapsed into a single measure of overall status (a frac14 82)Throughout all the studies in this article this will be theprimary measure of perceived status In addition weincluded two other measures of status established in the lit-erature to confirm the construct validity of our primarymeasure First we adapted the widely used MacArthurscale of subjective socioeconomic status (Adler et al 2000Anderson et al 2012) to assess the status of a third partyThe measure consists of a drawing of a ladder with 10rungs representing where people stand in society in termsof money status and influence (10 representing people atthe top of society 1 representing people at the bottom ofsociety) Participants were instructed to pick the rungwhere they would place Sally Second following Duboiset al (2012) participants were asked to judge Sally on twodimensions wedded to status (this person has high status isrespected a frac14 68) and three dimensions divorced fromstatus (this person is honest nice attractive) The order ofthe five dimensions was randomized Importantly the threedimensions divorced from status allowed us to detect po-tential demand effect

Participants then assessed Sallyrsquos human capital charac-teristics the first mediator Because the attributes of com-petence and ambition have been strongly associated withhuman capital (Frank and Bernanke 2007) we chose threemeasures that reflected these characteristics to measurehuman capital Specifically participants rated their agree-ment (1 frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) with thefollowing statements presented in randomized order (1)Sally is competent (2) Sally is ambitious and (3) Sallywants to move up in the world We averaged the threeitems (a frac14 88) and used the resulting measure as first me-diator Next participants answered three questions assess-ing whether Sally was perceived to be in demand andscarce on the job market the second mediator More spe-cifically participants were asked (1) To what extent isSally in demand (1 frac14 In very low demand 7 frac14 In veryhigh demand) (2) Do you perceive Sally as a ldquoscarce re-sourcerdquo (1 frac14 Definitely no 7 frac14 Definitely yes) and (3)Do you imagine Sally is sought after in the job market(1 frac14 Not sought after at all 7 frac14 Very much sought after)We averaged the three items (a frac14 91) and used the result-ing measure as the second mediator

Lastly three manipulation checks (a frac14 89) measuredSallyrsquos level of busyness at work and lack of leisure time(1) Sally spends many hours at work (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) (2) Sally spends many hoursdoing hobbies andor leisure activities (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree reverse coded) and (3) Howbusy is Sally (1 frac14 Not busy at all 7 frac14 Extremely busy)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1A) We used twoapproaches to assess the discriminant validity of the keyconstructs (ie perceived busyness level human capitalcharacteristics scarcity and status) First we comparedthe Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each of ourconstructs with the squared correlation between constructspairs (Fornell and Larcker 1981) Table 1 shows that theAVE (diagonal data) exceeds the squared correlations forall measures (below the diagonal data) Second none ofthe confidence intervals at plus or minus two standarderrors around the correlation between the factors (table 1above the diagonal data) included 10 (Anderson andGerbing 1988) Thus these two tests provide evidence forthe discriminant validity of our measures The same ana-lyses performed on the other two status measures yieldsimilar results

Results (Study 1A) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Sally was perceived as working lon-ger hours in the busy (Mfrac14 553 SD frac14 103) than in theleisurely posts condition (Mfrac14 274 SD frac14 95 F(1 305) frac1461256 p lt 001) Consistent with hypothesis 1 all threestatus measures were significantly higher in the busy-Facebook-posts condition Compared to participants in theleisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants in thebusy-Facebook-posts condition perceived Sally as higherin social status (Mfrac14 37 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 34 SD frac14123 F(1 305) frac14 551 p frac14 019)2 they placed her on ahigher rung on the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 534SD frac14 142 vs Mfrac14 479 SD frac14 155 F(1 305) frac14 1028p frac14 001) and they saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 401 SD frac14 104 vs Mfrac14 376 SD frac14 107 F(1 305)frac14 417 p frac14 042) Indeed the three measures of status are

TABLE 1

STUDY 1A MEASUREMENT OF DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Busyness levelindependent variable

Human capitalmediator 1

Scarcitymediator 2

Statusdependent variable

Busyness level independent variable 0819 (0703ndash806) (0521ndash0682) (0150ndash0379)Human capital mediator 1 0573 0817 (0723ndash0824) (0370ndash0572)Scarcity mediator 2 0367 0607 0845 (0468ndash0668)Status dependent variable 0071 0225 0326 0733

NOTEmdashMatrix shows AVE (diagonal) squared correlation (below the diagonal) and confidence intervals (above diagonal)

2 This result replicated (Mbusy frac14 387 vs Mnonbusy frac14 321 F(1 242)frac14 2069 p lt 001) with another sample of 244 participants (study 1Areplication web appendix)

124 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

highly convergent and tap into one construct All the items

across measures are highly correlated and a principal com-

ponent analysis revealed one single factor accounting for

66 of the variance (see the results table in the web

appendix)As expected participants found Sally in the busy-

Facebook-posts condition to possess higher human capital

characteristics (Mfrac14 488 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 324 SD frac14111 F(1 304) frac14 18201 p lt 001) and to be more scarce

and in demand (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 116 vs Mfrac14 268 SD frac14117 F(1 304) frac14 9543 p lt 001) than in the leisurely-

Facebook-posts conditionImportantly there was no difference between conditions

on the nonstatus dimensions (ie perceptions of honesty

niceness and attractiveness Mfrac14 444 SD frac14 75 vs

Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 83 F(1 305) frac14 83 NS) This result con-

tributes to ruling out concerns of demand effects

Mediation Analyses (Study 1A) We estimated

multiple-step mediation using model 6 in PROCESS

(Hayes 2013) Figure and estimated path coefficients and

results on all indirect effects are reported in the web appen-

dix As predicted we found a significant indirect effect

(55 95 CI from 37 to 75) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity To estimate the neces-

sity of a more complex multiple-step mediation model we

also computed the R2 change from a simpler model

including only the first mediator in the regression The ana-

lysis revealed a significant improvement in the amount of

variance explained when both mediators were included

(from R2 frac14 27 to R2 frac14 38 Fchange (1 302) frac14 5191 p lt001) As a further check we also ran an analysis with

the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and human

capital second) The indirect effect was also significant

(16 95 CI from 04 to 3) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than three

times smaller than our hypothesized path model (stand-

ardized indirect effect frac14 25)Finally the hypothesized multiple-step mediation ana-

lysis on the other two measures of status revealed the pre-

dicted pattern of results For the socioeconomic status

ladder the indirect effect through human capital and scar-

city was significant (51 95 CI from 27 to 78)

Likewise for ratings of status and respect the indirect ef-

fect through human capital and scarcity was also signifi-

cant (32 95 CI from 18 to 49)

Method (Study 1B) We decided in advance to recruit

at least 100 respondents (about 50 per condition) for a lab

study at Georgetown We recruited 112 respondents (47

female Mage frac14 20) and randomly assigned them to one of

two conditions busy letter or leisurely letter Participants

read the following letter from an imaginary friend (text in

parentheses refers to the busy-letter condition text in

brackets refers to the leisurely-letter condition)

Hi John

I got your birthday card today it made me laugh Thank you

for remembering my birthday I canrsquot believe we are already

40 time flies (My life is crazy busy as usual You probably

remember how much I like watching my favorite sport

teams Unfortunately I have an extremely busy work sched-

ule which does not allow me to spend a lot of time watching

TV and doing other hobbies) [My life is relaxed as usual

You probably remember how much I like watching my fa-

vorite sport teams Luckily I donrsquot have a busy work sched-

ule which allows me to spend a lot of time watching TV and

doing other hobbies] Pam and my parents got me a large

screen TV for my birthday (So far I havenrsquot had a chance to

watch it) [So far I have been watching ESPN every day]

You would probably be happy to hear I finally quit smoking

wersquoll see how it goes You always told me I should quit

Pam and the kids are sending their love I hope we can all

get together soon

Daniel

Given the high convergence of the three status measures instudy 1A in this and the next studies we will focus on thethree-item status measure consisting of social statuswealth and income Using the same measures as in study1A we asked participants to rate Daniel on perceived sta-tus (a frac14 9) human capital (a frac14 83) scarcity (a frac14 9)and busyness (a frac14 93)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in study 1A confirmed the dis-tinctiveness of our main constructs (see the results table inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 1B) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Daniel was perceived as more busyin the busy-letter (Mfrac14 544 SD frac14 107) than in theleisurely-letter condition (Mfrac14 258 SD frac14 107 F(1 110)frac14 20017 p lt 001) Compared to participants in theleisurely-letter condition participants in the busy-lettercondition perceived Daniel as higher in social status finan-cial wealth and income (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 108 vsMfrac14 352 SD frac14 99 F(1 110) frac14 589 p frac14 017)Analyzing the two mediators confirmed that participantsfound Daniel in the busy-letter condition to have higherhuman capital characteristics (Mfrac14 442 SD frac14 99 vsMfrac14 304 SD frac14 92 F(1 110) frac14 5743 p lt 001) and tobe more scarce and in demand (Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 96 vsMfrac14 283 SD frac14 96 F(1 110) frac14 2815 p lt 001) than inthe leisurely-letter condition

Mediation Analyses (Study 1B) As in study 1A weperformed a multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes2013) As expected we found a significant indirect effect(76 95 CI from 52 to 111) for the mediation paththrough human capital and scarcity See figure 1 for esti-mated path coefficients and results on all indirect effects

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 125

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We also ran the same analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was not significant when the mediators were re-versed (ndash01 95 CI from ndash18 to 15)

Discussion The results of studies 1A and 1B demon-strate that individuals posting Facebook updates or writingletters about their overworked lifestyle are perceived ashigher in status than individuals whose updates revealmore leisurely lifestyles Importantly consistent with hy-pothesis 2 these studies show that long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to higher inferences in terms ofhuman capital characteristics of the busy individual whichin turn enhance the extent to which this individual is per-ceived as scarce and in demand ultimately leading to posi-tive status attributions Finally these results demonstratethe discriminant validity of our critical constructs (ie per-ceived busyness level human capital scarcity and status)

To gain further insight into the specific dimensions ofbusyness driving the positive status attributions the fol-lowing set of studies examines the speed at which work isperformed (study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to theworking activity (study 2B) Moreover these studies

consider the moderating role of perceived social mobility

within American respondents

Study 2 The Dimensions of Busyness and theModerating Role of Perceived Social Mobility

The objective of this study is to dissect the dimensions

of busyness at work that may potentially lead to positive

inferences of status in the eyes of others Across two paral-

lel experimental designs we test and compare (between-

subjects) 10 different lifestyles reflecting three dimensions

of time consumption quantity (the amount of working

hours and leisure time) speed (pace at which work is per-

formed) and meaning (level of enjoyment and meaning

tied to work) Because both speed and meaning varied with

manipulations of busyness in the pilot test in study 2 our

aim is to isolate the effects of quantity (hours of work vs

leisure) while accounting for these additional dimensions

of busyness Specifically we will look at quantity and

speed in study 2A and we will examine quantity and

meaning in study 2B In the case of speed the quantity di-

mension of the busyness effect might be attenuated if

FIGURE 1

STUDY 1B RESULTS MEDIATION VIA HUMAN CAPITAL AND SCARCITY ON PERCEIVED STATUS

Busy at Work vs Leisurely

Lifestyle

b1 = 138

Status Inferences

Human Capital

In Demand and Scarce

b5 = -01

b2 = 71

b3 = 78

b6 = -01

b4 = -26

NOTEmdashMultiple-step mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples (model 6 in PROCESS Hayes 2013) Coefficients significantly different from zero are indicated

by asterisks (p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001)

The total indirect effect was significant (74 95 CI from 41 to 109)

The indirect effect through human capital and scarcity (the effect hypothesized in hypothesis 2) was significant (76 95 CI from 52 to 111)

The indirect effect through human capital was not significant (ndash02 95 CI from ndash34 to 3)

The indirect effect through scarcity was not significant (ndash01 95 CI from ndash24 to 26)

126 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 7: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

collapsed into a single measure of overall status (a frac14 82)Throughout all the studies in this article this will be theprimary measure of perceived status In addition weincluded two other measures of status established in the lit-erature to confirm the construct validity of our primarymeasure First we adapted the widely used MacArthurscale of subjective socioeconomic status (Adler et al 2000Anderson et al 2012) to assess the status of a third partyThe measure consists of a drawing of a ladder with 10rungs representing where people stand in society in termsof money status and influence (10 representing people atthe top of society 1 representing people at the bottom ofsociety) Participants were instructed to pick the rungwhere they would place Sally Second following Duboiset al (2012) participants were asked to judge Sally on twodimensions wedded to status (this person has high status isrespected a frac14 68) and three dimensions divorced fromstatus (this person is honest nice attractive) The order ofthe five dimensions was randomized Importantly the threedimensions divorced from status allowed us to detect po-tential demand effect

Participants then assessed Sallyrsquos human capital charac-teristics the first mediator Because the attributes of com-petence and ambition have been strongly associated withhuman capital (Frank and Bernanke 2007) we chose threemeasures that reflected these characteristics to measurehuman capital Specifically participants rated their agree-ment (1 frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) with thefollowing statements presented in randomized order (1)Sally is competent (2) Sally is ambitious and (3) Sallywants to move up in the world We averaged the threeitems (a frac14 88) and used the resulting measure as first me-diator Next participants answered three questions assess-ing whether Sally was perceived to be in demand andscarce on the job market the second mediator More spe-cifically participants were asked (1) To what extent isSally in demand (1 frac14 In very low demand 7 frac14 In veryhigh demand) (2) Do you perceive Sally as a ldquoscarce re-sourcerdquo (1 frac14 Definitely no 7 frac14 Definitely yes) and (3)Do you imagine Sally is sought after in the job market(1 frac14 Not sought after at all 7 frac14 Very much sought after)We averaged the three items (a frac14 91) and used the result-ing measure as the second mediator

Lastly three manipulation checks (a frac14 89) measuredSallyrsquos level of busyness at work and lack of leisure time(1) Sally spends many hours at work (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree) (2) Sally spends many hoursdoing hobbies andor leisure activities (1 frac14 Strongly dis-agree 7 frac14 Strongly agree reverse coded) and (3) Howbusy is Sally (1 frac14 Not busy at all 7 frac14 Extremely busy)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1A) We used twoapproaches to assess the discriminant validity of the keyconstructs (ie perceived busyness level human capitalcharacteristics scarcity and status) First we comparedthe Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each of ourconstructs with the squared correlation between constructspairs (Fornell and Larcker 1981) Table 1 shows that theAVE (diagonal data) exceeds the squared correlations forall measures (below the diagonal data) Second none ofthe confidence intervals at plus or minus two standarderrors around the correlation between the factors (table 1above the diagonal data) included 10 (Anderson andGerbing 1988) Thus these two tests provide evidence forthe discriminant validity of our measures The same ana-lyses performed on the other two status measures yieldsimilar results

Results (Study 1A) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Sally was perceived as working lon-ger hours in the busy (Mfrac14 553 SD frac14 103) than in theleisurely posts condition (Mfrac14 274 SD frac14 95 F(1 305) frac1461256 p lt 001) Consistent with hypothesis 1 all threestatus measures were significantly higher in the busy-Facebook-posts condition Compared to participants in theleisurely-Facebook-posts condition participants in thebusy-Facebook-posts condition perceived Sally as higherin social status (Mfrac14 37 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 34 SD frac14123 F(1 305) frac14 551 p frac14 019)2 they placed her on ahigher rung on the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 534SD frac14 142 vs Mfrac14 479 SD frac14 155 F(1 305) frac14 1028p frac14 001) and they saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 401 SD frac14 104 vs Mfrac14 376 SD frac14 107 F(1 305)frac14 417 p frac14 042) Indeed the three measures of status are

TABLE 1

STUDY 1A MEASUREMENT OF DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY

Busyness levelindependent variable

Human capitalmediator 1

Scarcitymediator 2

Statusdependent variable

Busyness level independent variable 0819 (0703ndash806) (0521ndash0682) (0150ndash0379)Human capital mediator 1 0573 0817 (0723ndash0824) (0370ndash0572)Scarcity mediator 2 0367 0607 0845 (0468ndash0668)Status dependent variable 0071 0225 0326 0733

NOTEmdashMatrix shows AVE (diagonal) squared correlation (below the diagonal) and confidence intervals (above diagonal)

2 This result replicated (Mbusy frac14 387 vs Mnonbusy frac14 321 F(1 242)frac14 2069 p lt 001) with another sample of 244 participants (study 1Areplication web appendix)

124 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

highly convergent and tap into one construct All the items

across measures are highly correlated and a principal com-

ponent analysis revealed one single factor accounting for

66 of the variance (see the results table in the web

appendix)As expected participants found Sally in the busy-

Facebook-posts condition to possess higher human capital

characteristics (Mfrac14 488 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 324 SD frac14111 F(1 304) frac14 18201 p lt 001) and to be more scarce

and in demand (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 116 vs Mfrac14 268 SD frac14117 F(1 304) frac14 9543 p lt 001) than in the leisurely-

Facebook-posts conditionImportantly there was no difference between conditions

on the nonstatus dimensions (ie perceptions of honesty

niceness and attractiveness Mfrac14 444 SD frac14 75 vs

Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 83 F(1 305) frac14 83 NS) This result con-

tributes to ruling out concerns of demand effects

Mediation Analyses (Study 1A) We estimated

multiple-step mediation using model 6 in PROCESS

(Hayes 2013) Figure and estimated path coefficients and

results on all indirect effects are reported in the web appen-

dix As predicted we found a significant indirect effect

(55 95 CI from 37 to 75) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity To estimate the neces-

sity of a more complex multiple-step mediation model we

also computed the R2 change from a simpler model

including only the first mediator in the regression The ana-

lysis revealed a significant improvement in the amount of

variance explained when both mediators were included

(from R2 frac14 27 to R2 frac14 38 Fchange (1 302) frac14 5191 p lt001) As a further check we also ran an analysis with

the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and human

capital second) The indirect effect was also significant

(16 95 CI from 04 to 3) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than three

times smaller than our hypothesized path model (stand-

ardized indirect effect frac14 25)Finally the hypothesized multiple-step mediation ana-

lysis on the other two measures of status revealed the pre-

dicted pattern of results For the socioeconomic status

ladder the indirect effect through human capital and scar-

city was significant (51 95 CI from 27 to 78)

Likewise for ratings of status and respect the indirect ef-

fect through human capital and scarcity was also signifi-

cant (32 95 CI from 18 to 49)

Method (Study 1B) We decided in advance to recruit

at least 100 respondents (about 50 per condition) for a lab

study at Georgetown We recruited 112 respondents (47

female Mage frac14 20) and randomly assigned them to one of

two conditions busy letter or leisurely letter Participants

read the following letter from an imaginary friend (text in

parentheses refers to the busy-letter condition text in

brackets refers to the leisurely-letter condition)

Hi John

I got your birthday card today it made me laugh Thank you

for remembering my birthday I canrsquot believe we are already

40 time flies (My life is crazy busy as usual You probably

remember how much I like watching my favorite sport

teams Unfortunately I have an extremely busy work sched-

ule which does not allow me to spend a lot of time watching

TV and doing other hobbies) [My life is relaxed as usual

You probably remember how much I like watching my fa-

vorite sport teams Luckily I donrsquot have a busy work sched-

ule which allows me to spend a lot of time watching TV and

doing other hobbies] Pam and my parents got me a large

screen TV for my birthday (So far I havenrsquot had a chance to

watch it) [So far I have been watching ESPN every day]

You would probably be happy to hear I finally quit smoking

wersquoll see how it goes You always told me I should quit

Pam and the kids are sending their love I hope we can all

get together soon

Daniel

Given the high convergence of the three status measures instudy 1A in this and the next studies we will focus on thethree-item status measure consisting of social statuswealth and income Using the same measures as in study1A we asked participants to rate Daniel on perceived sta-tus (a frac14 9) human capital (a frac14 83) scarcity (a frac14 9)and busyness (a frac14 93)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in study 1A confirmed the dis-tinctiveness of our main constructs (see the results table inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 1B) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Daniel was perceived as more busyin the busy-letter (Mfrac14 544 SD frac14 107) than in theleisurely-letter condition (Mfrac14 258 SD frac14 107 F(1 110)frac14 20017 p lt 001) Compared to participants in theleisurely-letter condition participants in the busy-lettercondition perceived Daniel as higher in social status finan-cial wealth and income (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 108 vsMfrac14 352 SD frac14 99 F(1 110) frac14 589 p frac14 017)Analyzing the two mediators confirmed that participantsfound Daniel in the busy-letter condition to have higherhuman capital characteristics (Mfrac14 442 SD frac14 99 vsMfrac14 304 SD frac14 92 F(1 110) frac14 5743 p lt 001) and tobe more scarce and in demand (Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 96 vsMfrac14 283 SD frac14 96 F(1 110) frac14 2815 p lt 001) than inthe leisurely-letter condition

Mediation Analyses (Study 1B) As in study 1A weperformed a multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes2013) As expected we found a significant indirect effect(76 95 CI from 52 to 111) for the mediation paththrough human capital and scarcity See figure 1 for esti-mated path coefficients and results on all indirect effects

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 125

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We also ran the same analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was not significant when the mediators were re-versed (ndash01 95 CI from ndash18 to 15)

Discussion The results of studies 1A and 1B demon-strate that individuals posting Facebook updates or writingletters about their overworked lifestyle are perceived ashigher in status than individuals whose updates revealmore leisurely lifestyles Importantly consistent with hy-pothesis 2 these studies show that long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to higher inferences in terms ofhuman capital characteristics of the busy individual whichin turn enhance the extent to which this individual is per-ceived as scarce and in demand ultimately leading to posi-tive status attributions Finally these results demonstratethe discriminant validity of our critical constructs (ie per-ceived busyness level human capital scarcity and status)

To gain further insight into the specific dimensions ofbusyness driving the positive status attributions the fol-lowing set of studies examines the speed at which work isperformed (study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to theworking activity (study 2B) Moreover these studies

consider the moderating role of perceived social mobility

within American respondents

Study 2 The Dimensions of Busyness and theModerating Role of Perceived Social Mobility

The objective of this study is to dissect the dimensions

of busyness at work that may potentially lead to positive

inferences of status in the eyes of others Across two paral-

lel experimental designs we test and compare (between-

subjects) 10 different lifestyles reflecting three dimensions

of time consumption quantity (the amount of working

hours and leisure time) speed (pace at which work is per-

formed) and meaning (level of enjoyment and meaning

tied to work) Because both speed and meaning varied with

manipulations of busyness in the pilot test in study 2 our

aim is to isolate the effects of quantity (hours of work vs

leisure) while accounting for these additional dimensions

of busyness Specifically we will look at quantity and

speed in study 2A and we will examine quantity and

meaning in study 2B In the case of speed the quantity di-

mension of the busyness effect might be attenuated if

FIGURE 1

STUDY 1B RESULTS MEDIATION VIA HUMAN CAPITAL AND SCARCITY ON PERCEIVED STATUS

Busy at Work vs Leisurely

Lifestyle

b1 = 138

Status Inferences

Human Capital

In Demand and Scarce

b5 = -01

b2 = 71

b3 = 78

b6 = -01

b4 = -26

NOTEmdashMultiple-step mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples (model 6 in PROCESS Hayes 2013) Coefficients significantly different from zero are indicated

by asterisks (p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001)

The total indirect effect was significant (74 95 CI from 41 to 109)

The indirect effect through human capital and scarcity (the effect hypothesized in hypothesis 2) was significant (76 95 CI from 52 to 111)

The indirect effect through human capital was not significant (ndash02 95 CI from ndash34 to 3)

The indirect effect through scarcity was not significant (ndash01 95 CI from ndash24 to 26)

126 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 8: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

highly convergent and tap into one construct All the items

across measures are highly correlated and a principal com-

ponent analysis revealed one single factor accounting for

66 of the variance (see the results table in the web

appendix)As expected participants found Sally in the busy-

Facebook-posts condition to possess higher human capital

characteristics (Mfrac14 488 SD frac14 102 vs Mfrac14 324 SD frac14111 F(1 304) frac14 18201 p lt 001) and to be more scarce

and in demand (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 116 vs Mfrac14 268 SD frac14117 F(1 304) frac14 9543 p lt 001) than in the leisurely-

Facebook-posts conditionImportantly there was no difference between conditions

on the nonstatus dimensions (ie perceptions of honesty

niceness and attractiveness Mfrac14 444 SD frac14 75 vs

Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 83 F(1 305) frac14 83 NS) This result con-

tributes to ruling out concerns of demand effects

Mediation Analyses (Study 1A) We estimated

multiple-step mediation using model 6 in PROCESS

(Hayes 2013) Figure and estimated path coefficients and

results on all indirect effects are reported in the web appen-

dix As predicted we found a significant indirect effect

(55 95 CI from 37 to 75) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity To estimate the neces-

sity of a more complex multiple-step mediation model we

also computed the R2 change from a simpler model

including only the first mediator in the regression The ana-

lysis revealed a significant improvement in the amount of

variance explained when both mediators were included

(from R2 frac14 27 to R2 frac14 38 Fchange (1 302) frac14 5191 p lt001) As a further check we also ran an analysis with

the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and human

capital second) The indirect effect was also significant

(16 95 CI from 04 to 3) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than three

times smaller than our hypothesized path model (stand-

ardized indirect effect frac14 25)Finally the hypothesized multiple-step mediation ana-

lysis on the other two measures of status revealed the pre-

dicted pattern of results For the socioeconomic status

ladder the indirect effect through human capital and scar-

city was significant (51 95 CI from 27 to 78)

Likewise for ratings of status and respect the indirect ef-

fect through human capital and scarcity was also signifi-

cant (32 95 CI from 18 to 49)

Method (Study 1B) We decided in advance to recruit

at least 100 respondents (about 50 per condition) for a lab

study at Georgetown We recruited 112 respondents (47

female Mage frac14 20) and randomly assigned them to one of

two conditions busy letter or leisurely letter Participants

read the following letter from an imaginary friend (text in

parentheses refers to the busy-letter condition text in

brackets refers to the leisurely-letter condition)

Hi John

I got your birthday card today it made me laugh Thank you

for remembering my birthday I canrsquot believe we are already

40 time flies (My life is crazy busy as usual You probably

remember how much I like watching my favorite sport

teams Unfortunately I have an extremely busy work sched-

ule which does not allow me to spend a lot of time watching

TV and doing other hobbies) [My life is relaxed as usual

You probably remember how much I like watching my fa-

vorite sport teams Luckily I donrsquot have a busy work sched-

ule which allows me to spend a lot of time watching TV and

doing other hobbies] Pam and my parents got me a large

screen TV for my birthday (So far I havenrsquot had a chance to

watch it) [So far I have been watching ESPN every day]

You would probably be happy to hear I finally quit smoking

wersquoll see how it goes You always told me I should quit

Pam and the kids are sending their love I hope we can all

get together soon

Daniel

Given the high convergence of the three status measures instudy 1A in this and the next studies we will focus on thethree-item status measure consisting of social statuswealth and income Using the same measures as in study1A we asked participants to rate Daniel on perceived sta-tus (a frac14 9) human capital (a frac14 83) scarcity (a frac14 9)and busyness (a frac14 93)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 1B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in study 1A confirmed the dis-tinctiveness of our main constructs (see the results table inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 1B) The analysis of the manipulationcheck confirmed that Daniel was perceived as more busyin the busy-letter (Mfrac14 544 SD frac14 107) than in theleisurely-letter condition (Mfrac14 258 SD frac14 107 F(1 110)frac14 20017 p lt 001) Compared to participants in theleisurely-letter condition participants in the busy-lettercondition perceived Daniel as higher in social status finan-cial wealth and income (Mfrac14 399 SD frac14 108 vsMfrac14 352 SD frac14 99 F(1 110) frac14 589 p frac14 017)Analyzing the two mediators confirmed that participantsfound Daniel in the busy-letter condition to have higherhuman capital characteristics (Mfrac14 442 SD frac14 99 vsMfrac14 304 SD frac14 92 F(1 110) frac14 5743 p lt 001) and tobe more scarce and in demand (Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 96 vsMfrac14 283 SD frac14 96 F(1 110) frac14 2815 p lt 001) than inthe leisurely-letter condition

Mediation Analyses (Study 1B) As in study 1A weperformed a multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes2013) As expected we found a significant indirect effect(76 95 CI from 52 to 111) for the mediation paththrough human capital and scarcity See figure 1 for esti-mated path coefficients and results on all indirect effects

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 125

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

We also ran the same analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was not significant when the mediators were re-versed (ndash01 95 CI from ndash18 to 15)

Discussion The results of studies 1A and 1B demon-strate that individuals posting Facebook updates or writingletters about their overworked lifestyle are perceived ashigher in status than individuals whose updates revealmore leisurely lifestyles Importantly consistent with hy-pothesis 2 these studies show that long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to higher inferences in terms ofhuman capital characteristics of the busy individual whichin turn enhance the extent to which this individual is per-ceived as scarce and in demand ultimately leading to posi-tive status attributions Finally these results demonstratethe discriminant validity of our critical constructs (ie per-ceived busyness level human capital scarcity and status)

To gain further insight into the specific dimensions ofbusyness driving the positive status attributions the fol-lowing set of studies examines the speed at which work isperformed (study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to theworking activity (study 2B) Moreover these studies

consider the moderating role of perceived social mobility

within American respondents

Study 2 The Dimensions of Busyness and theModerating Role of Perceived Social Mobility

The objective of this study is to dissect the dimensions

of busyness at work that may potentially lead to positive

inferences of status in the eyes of others Across two paral-

lel experimental designs we test and compare (between-

subjects) 10 different lifestyles reflecting three dimensions

of time consumption quantity (the amount of working

hours and leisure time) speed (pace at which work is per-

formed) and meaning (level of enjoyment and meaning

tied to work) Because both speed and meaning varied with

manipulations of busyness in the pilot test in study 2 our

aim is to isolate the effects of quantity (hours of work vs

leisure) while accounting for these additional dimensions

of busyness Specifically we will look at quantity and

speed in study 2A and we will examine quantity and

meaning in study 2B In the case of speed the quantity di-

mension of the busyness effect might be attenuated if

FIGURE 1

STUDY 1B RESULTS MEDIATION VIA HUMAN CAPITAL AND SCARCITY ON PERCEIVED STATUS

Busy at Work vs Leisurely

Lifestyle

b1 = 138

Status Inferences

Human Capital

In Demand and Scarce

b5 = -01

b2 = 71

b3 = 78

b6 = -01

b4 = -26

NOTEmdashMultiple-step mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples (model 6 in PROCESS Hayes 2013) Coefficients significantly different from zero are indicated

by asterisks (p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001)

The total indirect effect was significant (74 95 CI from 41 to 109)

The indirect effect through human capital and scarcity (the effect hypothesized in hypothesis 2) was significant (76 95 CI from 52 to 111)

The indirect effect through human capital was not significant (ndash02 95 CI from ndash34 to 3)

The indirect effect through scarcity was not significant (ndash01 95 CI from ndash24 to 26)

126 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 9: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

We also ran the same analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was not significant when the mediators were re-versed (ndash01 95 CI from ndash18 to 15)

Discussion The results of studies 1A and 1B demon-strate that individuals posting Facebook updates or writingletters about their overworked lifestyle are perceived ashigher in status than individuals whose updates revealmore leisurely lifestyles Importantly consistent with hy-pothesis 2 these studies show that long hours of work andlack of leisure time lead to higher inferences in terms ofhuman capital characteristics of the busy individual whichin turn enhance the extent to which this individual is per-ceived as scarce and in demand ultimately leading to posi-tive status attributions Finally these results demonstratethe discriminant validity of our critical constructs (ie per-ceived busyness level human capital scarcity and status)

To gain further insight into the specific dimensions ofbusyness driving the positive status attributions the fol-lowing set of studies examines the speed at which work isperformed (study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to theworking activity (study 2B) Moreover these studies

consider the moderating role of perceived social mobility

within American respondents

Study 2 The Dimensions of Busyness and theModerating Role of Perceived Social Mobility

The objective of this study is to dissect the dimensions

of busyness at work that may potentially lead to positive

inferences of status in the eyes of others Across two paral-

lel experimental designs we test and compare (between-

subjects) 10 different lifestyles reflecting three dimensions

of time consumption quantity (the amount of working

hours and leisure time) speed (pace at which work is per-

formed) and meaning (level of enjoyment and meaning

tied to work) Because both speed and meaning varied with

manipulations of busyness in the pilot test in study 2 our

aim is to isolate the effects of quantity (hours of work vs

leisure) while accounting for these additional dimensions

of busyness Specifically we will look at quantity and

speed in study 2A and we will examine quantity and

meaning in study 2B In the case of speed the quantity di-

mension of the busyness effect might be attenuated if

FIGURE 1

STUDY 1B RESULTS MEDIATION VIA HUMAN CAPITAL AND SCARCITY ON PERCEIVED STATUS

Busy at Work vs Leisurely

Lifestyle

b1 = 138

Status Inferences

Human Capital

In Demand and Scarce

b5 = -01

b2 = 71

b3 = 78

b6 = -01

b4 = -26

NOTEmdashMultiple-step mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples (model 6 in PROCESS Hayes 2013) Coefficients significantly different from zero are indicated

by asterisks (p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001)

The total indirect effect was significant (74 95 CI from 41 to 109)

The indirect effect through human capital and scarcity (the effect hypothesized in hypothesis 2) was significant (76 95 CI from 52 to 111)

The indirect effect through human capital was not significant (ndash02 95 CI from ndash34 to 3)

The indirect effect through scarcity was not significant (ndash01 95 CI from ndash24 to 26)

126 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 10: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

people infer the busy individual is inefficient and operates ata slower pace In the case of meaning one might infer that aperson who works many hours also has access to an enjoy-able and meaningful job thus controlling for meaning couldattenuate the positive signals derived from busyness andlack of leisure Moreover in these studies we test the moder-ating role of perceived social mobility (Bjoslashrnskov et al2013) Though we did not find an effect of respondentsrsquo em-ployment status in any of the follow-up analyses in the pre-vious studies to ensure that the documented positiveinferences in terms of status are not driven by participantsrsquoown desire to work and potential employment aspirations inthis study we recruit only people working full-time

Participants (Studies 2A and 2B) We recruitedAmerican respondents for paid online surveys throughQualtrics (study 2A) and Amazon Mechanical Turk (study2B) We decided in advance to recruit about 300 peopleworking full-time (about 150 in each of the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure and short-working-hours-and-leisureconditions) per study leading to a sample of 300 partici-pants (57 female Mage frac14 45 average monthly gross in-come $3000ndash3999) in study 2A and 302 participants(42 female Mage frac14 35 average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) in study 2B

Method (Study 2A) We randomly assigned participantsto one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and noleisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (controlvs fast speed vs slow speed) between-subjects design Allparticipants read a description of an individual named JimFirst we manipulated quantity of work the first factorParticipants in the long-working-hours-and-no-leisure con-dition read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works 10 hoursa day during the week and works on weekends as wellrdquoParticipants in the short-working-hours-and-leisure condi-tion read ldquoJim is 35 years old he usually works less than7 hours a day during the week and does not work on week-endsrdquo We then manipulated the second factor speedthroughout three conditions fast speed slow speed and acontrol condition omitting this information Specificallyparticipants in the fast-speed condition read ldquoJim is thekind of person who likes to do things fast and multitask healways appears hurried and rushedrdquo In contrast partici-pants in the slow-speed condition read ldquoJim is the kind ofperson who likes to do things slowly one at a time henever appears hurried and rushedrdquo

As in study 1 participants were then asked to rate Jim onperceived status (a frac14 83) perceived human capital charac-teristics (a frac14 86) scarcity on the job market (a frac14 91) andbusyness (a frac14 82) Finally participants rated their agree-ment with three statements used in prior research (Bjoslashrnskovet al 2013) to measure perceived social mobility (1) Hardwork brings success in the long run (2) People are poor dueto laziness not injustice and (3) People have a chance to es-cape poverty (1frac14 Strongly disagree 7 frac14 Strongly agree)

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2A) The same discrimin-

ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmed

the distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table in

the web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2A) We conducted a 2

(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hours

and leisure) 3 (control vs fast speed vs slow speed)

ANOVA using ratings of busyness as the dependent vari-

able The analysis revealed a significant main effect for

long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac1447412 p lt 001) a significant main effect for speed (F(2

294) frac14 524 p frac14 006) and a nonsignificant interaction

(F(2 294) frac14 278 NS) Given the statistical significance

of both treatment variables we proceeded with an analysis

of the effect sizes to compare the relative impact of each

factor (Perdue and Summers 1986) The effect size of

quantity (x2 frac14 6) was about 56 times larger than the effect

size of speed (x2 frac14 01) suggesting that the amount of

hours worked generated a stronger main effect than the

speed dimension on inferences of busyness at work and

lack of leisure time consistent with the results from the

pilot study in the introduction

Results (Study 2A) We conducted the same 2 3

ANOVA using perceived status as the dependent variable

The analysis revealed a significant main effect for long

hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 294) frac14 1643 p lt001) a nonsignificant main effect for speed (F(2 294) frac14139 NS) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2 294) frac1424 NS) Replicating previous results participants attrib-

uted higher status to Jim in the long-working-hours-and-

no-leisure condition (Mfrac14 407 SD frac14 113) than in the

short-working-hours-and-leisure condition (Mfrac14 351 SD

frac14 124 F(1 298) frac14 1647 p lt 001) These results suggest

that busyness exerts a significant influence on inferences

of status even when the person in question may be per-

ceived to be somewhat slow That is a person who spends

many hours working is found to have more status than a

person who spends their time more leisurely regardless of

the speed at which they work

Moderation (Study 2A) Since there was no interaction

between the manipulations of quantity and speed of work

we collapsed the three speed-of-work conditions and con-

centrated on the analysis of the focal independent variable

of quantity of work (ie the long-working-hours-and no-

leisure vs short-working-hours-and-leisure conditions)

when testing the moderating role of perceived social mo-

bility (a frac14 59)3 We examined responses using a moder-

ated regression analysis with status as the dependent

3 Owing to the low reliability of the perceived social mobility scalein this study we also performed all analyses with the three items sep-arately We find significant interactions when each moderating item isconsidered separately

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 127

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 11: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

variable and the following independent variables a vari-

able for quantity (coded as 1 for long working hours and

no leisure and ndash1 for short working hours and leisure) the

perceived social mobility scale (z-scores) and their inter-

action As expected the analysis revealed a significant

main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 28 SE frac14 07 t(296)

frac14 409 p lt 001) a significant main effect of perceived

social mobility (b frac14 13 SE frac14 07 t(296) frac14 195 p frac14052) and a significant interaction (b frac14 19 SE frac14 07

t(296) frac14 272 p frac14 007) depicted in figure 2 (A) Next

we applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify re-

gions of significance of the effect of busyness across dif-

ferent levels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)

We find a significant effect of busyness on status attribu-

tions at and above 442 on the social mobility scale (at 442

on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08 t(296) frac14 197

p frac14 05) Below the level of 442 on social mobility there

are no differences in status inferences based on busyness

Thus long hours of work and lack of leisure time led to

higher inferences of status when respondents scored high

in perceived social mobility (ie above the Johnson-

Neyman point) consistent with hypothesis 3 In contrast

those respondents with lower levels of perceived social

mobility did not see busyness as an effective status signal

presumably because they do not believe that status can be

earned through work efforts

Mediation Analysis (Study 2A) We performed a

multiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with status

as the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-

ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in the

web appendix As predicted we find a significant indirect

effect (41 95 CI from 24 to 62) for the mediation path

through human capital and scarcity We also ran the ana-

lysis with the mediators in reverse order (scarcity first and

human capital second) The indirect effect was significant

(17 95 CI from 05 to 31) however its effect size

(standardized indirect effect frac14 07) was more than two

times smaller than our theorized model (standardized indir-

ect effect frac14 17)

Method (Study 2B) We randomly assigned participants

to one of six conditions in a 2 (long working hours and no

leisure vs short working hours and leisure) 3 (control

vs high meaning vs low meaning) between-subjects de-

sign All participants read a description of an individual

named Jim The manipulation of quantity the first factor

was identical to the one described in study 2A Next we

manipulated the meaningfulness and enjoyment tied to

work throughout three conditions high meaning low

meaning and a control condition omitting this information

Specifically participants in the high-meaning condition

read ldquoJim enjoys his job and finds it very meaningfulrdquo In

contrast participants in the low-meaning condition read

ldquoJim does not enjoy his job and does not find it particularly

meaningfulrdquo Participants answered the same questionsfrom study 2A

Preliminary Analyses (Study 2B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main constructs (see the table inthe web appendix)

Manipulation Check (Study 2B) We conducted a 2(long working hours and no leisure vs short working hoursand leisure) 3 (control vs high meaning vs low mean-ing) ANOVA using ratings of busyness (a frac14 9) as the de-pendent variable The analysis revealed a significant maineffect for long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296)frac14 41344 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main effect formeaning of work (F(2 296) frac14 143 NS) and a nonsignifi-cant interaction (F(2 296) frac14 42 NS) This result suggeststhat the quantity dimension exerts a significant effect on in-ferences of busyness at work whereas the meaning dimen-sion does not and that these two dimensions do notinteract While in the pilot study we found that busynessleads to inferences of having a meaningful job these re-sults suggest the relationship may not be bidirectional (iejob meaningfulness does not lead to perceptions ofbusyness)

Results (Study 2B) We then conducted the same 2 3ANOVA using status inferences (a frac14 9) as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed a significant main effect forlong hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 296) frac14 2223p lt 001) a significant main effect for meaning (F(2 296)frac14 1987 p lt 001) and a nonsignificant interaction (F(2296) frac14 155 NS) Participants granted higher status(Mfrac14 392 SD frac14 131) to the busy individual compared tothe leisurely individual (Mfrac14 329 SD frac14 12 F(1 300) frac141929 p lt 001) In addition participants thought Jim hadmore status when he had a more meaningful job (Mfrac14 402SD frac14 126) than when he had a less meaningful job(Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac14 3341 p lt 001) Thecontrol condition was between the two values (M frac14 378SDfrac14 133) and significantly different only from the low-meaning condition (Mfrac14 302 SD frac14 106 F(2 299) frac141947 p lt 001)

Moderation (Study 2B) Because there was no inter-action between the manipulations of quantity and meaningwe collapsed the three meaning conditions and concen-trated on the analysis of the focal independent variable ofquantity of work (ie long working hours and no leisurevs short working hours and leisure) to test the moderatingrole of perceived social mobility (a frac14 79) The same mod-erated regression analysis conducted in study 2A revealeda significant main effect of quantity of work (b frac14 32 SEfrac14 07 t(298) frac14 458 p lt 001) a nonsignificant main ef-fect of perceived social mobility (b frac14 06 SE frac14 07 t(298)frac14 89 NS) and a significant interaction (b frac14 29 SE frac1407 t(298) frac14 412 p lt 001) depicted in figure 2 (B) We

128 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 12: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

applied the Johnson-Neyman procedure to identify regionsof significance of the effect of busyness across differentlevels of social mobility beliefs (Spiller et al 2013)Consistent with hypothesis 3 we find a significant effectof social mobility at and above 382 on the social mobility

scale (at 382 on the seven-point scale b frac14 16 SE frac14 08t(298) frac14 197 p frac14 05) Below the level of 382 on socialmobility there are no differences in status inferences basedon busyness As in study 2A long hours of work and lackof leisure predicted higher inferences of status when

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2A (A) AND 2B (B) RESULTS PERCEIVED STATUS AS A FUNCTION OF BUSYNESS AT WORK AND OBSERVERSrsquoPERCEIVED SOCIAL MOBILITY

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (A)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived social mobility

Status inferences (B)

Short workinghours andleisure

Long workinghours and Noleisure

NOTEmdashBlue lines fixed at Johnson-Neyman points (442 for 2A and 382 for 2B)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 129

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 13: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

respondents scored high in perceived social mobility (ieabove the Johnson-Neyman point)

Mediation Analysis (Study 2B) Next we performed amultiple-step mediation analysis (Hayes 2013) with statusas the dependent variable Figure and estimated path coef-ficients and results on all indirect effects are reported in theweb appendix As expected we find a significant indirecteffect (79 95 CI from 59 to 104) for the mediationpath through human capital (a frac14 86) and scarcity (a frac1495) We also ran the analysis with the mediators in reverseorder (scarcity first and human capital second) The indir-ect effect was significant (ndash08 95 CI from ndash17 to ndash01)however its effect size (standardized indirect effect frac14 ndash03) was more than 10 times smaller than our theorizedmodel (standardized indirect effect frac14 31)

Discussion Across two distinct populations of partici-pants working full-time this study explores three dimen-sions of busyness potentially leading to positive inferencesof status in the eyes of others quantity speed and mean-ing While speed of work certainly influences perceptionsof busyness (main effect of speed on the manipulationcheck in study 2A) and the level of meaning tied to workhas an impact on inferences of status (main effect of mean-ing on status in study 2B) quantity of work is the only di-mension systematically influencing both perceptions andexerting the strongest effect Moreover controlling forspeed and meaning did not impact the effect of quantityConsistent with our hypotheses this study documents twicethe moderating role of perceived social mobility on infer-ences of heightened status within American participantsThe next study further deepens our understanding of theconditions under which long hours of work and lack ofleisure operate as a signal of status by testing our propos-itions with an international sample of participants drawnfrom Italy and the United States

Study 3 The Busyness Effect and Cross-CulturalDifferences Americans versus Italians

Study 3 explores the moderating role of culture (UnitedStates vs Italy) where we compare the responses of Italianand American participants to an individual working longhours versus an individual who does not work at all andconducts a leisurely lifestyle If individuals can afford tonot work at all and engage in leisure they may also beviewed as having financial resources suggesting a strongertest of our manipulation This operationalization of thecomparison group where someone does not work at alland also enjoys leisure is a consistent portrayal ofVeblenrsquos conceptualization (18992007) In line with hy-pothesis 3 we predict that Americans will interpret longhours of work as a stronger signal of status than leisuretime whereas the effect will be reversed for EuropeansThese predictions are consistent with the perception (not

necessarily the reality) that Americans live in a mobile so-ciety where individual effort can move people up anddown the income ladder while Europeans believe that theylive in less mobile societies (Alesina et al 2004)Relatedly Americans value earned status more whereasEuropeans value ascribed status more (Foladare 1969)

Method We decided in advance to recruit 200 partici-pants (about 100 in each of the working-busy-lifestyle andnonworking-leisurely-lifestyle conditions) Italian partici-pants (98) were recruited through Qualtrics (46 femaleMage frac14 40 47 employed full-time 38 employed part-time 15 unemployed average monthly gross incomee1000ndash1999) and US American participants (112) wererecruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (48 femaleMage frac14 38 62 employed full-time 24 employed part-time 14 unemployed average monthly gross income$2000ndash2999) Participants responded to a paid online sur-vey in their native language (ie either English or Italian)and read a short description of a 35-year-old individualnamed Jeff (or Giovanni for Italians) We randomly as-signed participants to one of two conditions working busylifestyle or nonworking leisurely lifestyle Participants inthe working-busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeffhe is 35 years old Jeff works long hours and his calendaris always fullrdquo In contrast participants in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition read ldquoImagine Jeff he is 35years old Jeff does not work and has a leisurely lifestylerdquoBecause we were particularly concerned about demand ef-fects in this study we collected all the status measuresused in study 1A Precisely as in study 1A participantsrated Jeffrsquos social status (a frac14 9) located him on the socio-economic status ladder and rated him on two status-relateddimensions (a frac14 71) and three non-status-related dimen-sions Moreover participants answered the same manipula-tion check questions on busyness (a frac14 92) from previousstudies Finally to gain deeper insight into Italian partici-pantsrsquo thought processes we gave respondents the oppor-tunity to comment on why they thought Jeff led thatparticular lifestyle

Results The analysis of the manipulation check con-firmed that Jeff was seen as busier at work in the working-busy-lifestyle condition than in the nonworking-leisurely-lifestyle condition by both Italians (Mfrac14 554 SD frac14 93 vsMfrac14 267 SD frac14 12 F(1 96) frac14 17681 p lt 001) andAmericans (Mfrac14 598 SD frac14 81 vs Mfrac14 161 SD frac14 64F(1 109) frac14 100033 p lt 001)

Next we conducted a 2 (working busy lifestyle vs non-working leisurely lifestyle) 2 (United States vsEurope) ANOVA with perceived status as the dependentvariable The analysis revealed no significant main effectfor long hours of work and lack of leisure (F(1 206) frac1401 NS) a significant main effect of country (F(1 206)frac14 1096 p frac14 001) and more importantly a significantcross-over interaction (F(1 206) frac14 1407 p lt 001)

130 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 14: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

depicted in figure 34 As predicted Americans grantedgreater status to the working individual conducting a busylifestyle than to the nonworking individual conducting aleisurely lifestyle (M frac14 462 SD frac14 89 vs M frac14 395 SDfrac14 175 F(1 206) frac14 754 p frac14 007) In contrast we ob-tained the opposite pattern of results from Italian respond-ents who granted less overall status to the working busyindividual than to the nonworking leisure individual (Mfrac14 454 SD frac14 85 vs M frac14 521 SD frac14 135 F(1 206) frac14659 p frac14 011) On average Italians gave higher ratingsthan Americans (as shown by the main effect of country)a result that may be linked to cross-cultural differences ininterpreting and responding to scales (Heine et al 2002Krueger et al 2008) We recommend refraining from dir-ectly comparing answers to the same condition betweencountries and drawing potentially erroneous conclusionsthe analysis should rather focus on the differences be-tween conditions within each country as reported aboveThe results and graphs on the other measures which sup-port hypothesis 3 and address demand effects are re-ported in the web appendix for space reasons

Discussion As hypothesized we find that status infer-ences based on long hours of work and lack of leisure time

are culturally dependent While busyness at work is associ-ated with higher status among Americans the effect is re-versed for Italians Interestingly Italiansrsquo open-endedexplanations in the working busy condition suggest thatrather than associating long hours of work with an aspir-ational lifestyle these respondents associate it with ldquothenecessity to support his familyrdquo or ldquobecause he is forced bycircumstancesrdquo In contrast the explanations in the leis-urely lifestyle condition suggest that Italians reason con-sistently with Veblenrsquos theory and think that Giovanni is sowealthy that he does not have to work ldquoHis family is richhe does not have to worry about bringing home the bacon[ldquobreadrdquo in Italian portare il pane a casa] so he doesnrsquotdo anything from morning to evening 365 days a yearrdquo

In the next set of studies we consider specific marketingimplications for brands and products associated with busy-ness at work and lack of leisure time

Study 4 The Signaling Power of Brands andProducts Associated with Busyness at Work

In previous studies we directly manipulated the busy-ness level of a hypothetical individual In study 4 our aimis to determine whether subtler yet visible signals of busy-ness would have a similar effect While luxury productsand brands have been shown to be an effective tool to com-municate status our aim in this study is to determinewhether the use of busyness-signaling products or services

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3 RESULTS CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AS BOUNDARY CONDITION

40

52

46 45

2

3

4

5

6

United states Europe

Status inferences

Non-workingleisurelylifestyle

Working busylifestyle

NOTEmdashError bars denote standard errors

4 We found the same interaction in an almost identical instantiationof the study with another sample of 193 participants (94 Italians fromQualtrics 99 Americans from Mechanical Turk study 3 replicationweb appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 131

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 15: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

can also effectively convey status regardless of how busyone truly is Specifically study 4A examines how a time-saving grocery service associated with a busy lifestyle (iePeapod which offers online shopping and delivery) cansignal status as compared to an expensive food and grocerybrand associated with a more well-off lifestyle (ie WholeFoods) and to a control brand (ie Trader Joersquos) In add-ition study 4B examines the signaling power of timesavingproducts associated with busyness (ie a hands-freeBluetooth headset) as compared to products associatedwith leisure and free time (ie a pair of headphones formusic and leisure)

Pretest for Retail Brands (Study 4A) We confirmedthat the two retail brands Peapod and Whole Foods wereassociated with a busy-at-work lifestyle (Peapod) or awealthy lifestyle (Whole Foods) in a pretest with an inde-pendent sample of 64 participants (50 female Mage frac1423 American) drawn from the same pool of lab respond-ents of the main study We selected the following list of re-tail brands that have outlets in Massachusetts (the regionwhere the study took place) Star Market Costco Peapodonline grocery shopping Trader Joersquos Walmart WholeFoods and Safeway We measured the extent to whichthese retail brands were associated with working busy andwealthy lifestyles For each brand participants rated thelevel of association with a randomized list of four life-styles In your opinion to what degree is [retail brand]associated with the following lifestyles (a) Busy at work(b) Working long hours (c) Expensive (d) Rich (1 frac14 Notassociated at all 7 frac14 Extremely associated) Peapodrsquos levelof association with the two items tapping into busyness atwork (a frac14 86) was significantly higher (M frac14 471SDfrac14 179) than Whole Foodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139F(61) frac14 1027 p frac14 002) and it had the highest level of as-sociation with a busy lifestyle among all pretested brandsWhole Foodsrsquo level of association with the two items tap-ping into a wealthy lifestyle (a frac14 9) was higher (M frac14597 SDfrac14 108) than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 405 SDfrac14 158F(61) frac14 7063 p lt 001) and it had the highest richnessrating among all brands Trader Joersquos was picked as thecontrol brand since its association with a working busylifestyle (Mfrac14 396 SDfrac14 122) was similar to WholeFoodsrsquo (M frac14 382 SDfrac14 139 F(62) frac14 203 NS) butlower than Peapodrsquos (M frac14 471 SDfrac14 179 F(60) frac14 591p frac14 018) and its association with a wealthy lifestyle(Mfrac14 428 SDfrac14 132) was similar to Peapodrsquos (Mfrac14 405SDfrac14 158 F(60) frac14 95 NS) but lower than Whole Foodsrsquo(M frac14 597 SDfrac14 108 F(62) frac14 6797 p lt 001)Accordingly we would expect that if busyness is an effect-ive signal of status then Peapod would signal as much sta-tus as Whole Foods (a brand associated with moretraditional status attributes such as wealth) and signal sig-nificantly more status than Trader Joersquos (a brand found tohave lower associations with both busyness and wealth)

Method (Study 4A) Aiming to collect about 150 re-

sponses per condition we recruited 475 participants (50

female Mage frac14 26 American 60 monthly average

household income $2000ndash2999) for a lab study at

Harvard University consisting of both students and com-

munity members We randomly assigned participants to

one of three conditions Peapodworking busy lifestyle or

Whole Foodswealthy lifestyle or Trader Joersquoscontrol life-

style Participants read a paragraph about a grocery brand

and a customer Matthew Respondents in the working-

busy-lifestyle condition read ldquoPeapod is an online grocery

service in the United States Peapodrsquos home delivery ser-

vice allows consumers to shop online and receive groceries

delivered right to their homesrdquo Participants in the wealthy-

lifestyle condition read ldquoWhole Foods is a chain of super-

markets in the United States Consumers can buy groceries

at Whole Foods stores located throughout the countryrdquo

Participants in the control-lifestyle condition read ldquoTrader

Joersquos is a chain of supermarkets in the United States

Consumers can buy groceries at Trader Joersquos stores located

throughout the countryrdquo All participants then read

ldquoImagine Matthew he is 35 years old Matthew typically

buys groceries at PeapodWhole FoodsTrader Joersquosrdquo

Using the same measure as in previous studies participants

assessed Matthewrsquos social status (a frac14 82) and rated his

level of busyness

Results (Study 4A) The analysis of the manipulation

check confirmed that Matthew was perceived as busier

when shopping through Peapod A one-way ANOVA with

perceived level of busyness as the dependent measure re-

vealed a significant effect of condition (F(2 472) frac14 3119

p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed that Matthew was

perceived as busier when shopping at Peapod (Mfrac14 517

SD frac14 118) than at Whole Foods (Mfrac14 441 SD frac14 89

F(1 472) frac14 4626 p lt 001) or at Trader Joersquos (Mfrac14 44

SD frac14 9 F(1 472) frac14 4689 p lt 001) The difference in

terms of level of busyness between Whole Foods and

Trader Joersquos was not significantA one-way ANOVA with status inferences as the de-

pendent measure revealed a significant effect of condition

(F(2 472) frac14 152 p lt 001) Planned contrasts revealed

that participants rated Matthewrsquos status as higher in the

Peapod condition (Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) than in the Trader

Joersquos condition (Mfrac14 435 SD frac14 88 F(1 472) frac14 1475

plt 001) Thus participants inferred that a person who

uses Peapod has more status than a person who shops at

Trader Joersquos despite the two brands being associated with

a similar lifestyle in terms of wealth Moreover the differ-

ence in status ratings between the Peapod condition

(Mfrac14 473 SD frac14 97) and Whole Foods condition

(Mfrac14 489 SD frac14 81) was not significant (F(1 472) frac14239 NS) Thus participants inferred that a Peapod shop-

per has the same status as a Whole Foods shopper despite

132 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 16: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

the Peapod brand being perceived as significantly lesswell-off than Whole Foods

To control for potential confounds linked to brand spe-cificities in a follow-up study (web appendix) we focusedon the Peapod brand and manipulated between-subjectsdifferent levels of busyness at work We find that thePeapod shopper is seen as higher in status when he usesPeapod because he is busy at work and does not have timeto shop for groceries than when he uses Peapod becausehe is not particularly busy at work and has time to searchonline

Method (Study 4B) We decided in advance to recruit120 participants (about 60 per condition) for a study atColumbia University The final sample size (122) included64 students enrolled in an undergraduate class and 58 labrespondents participating in a lab study Respondents (68female Mage frac14 23) were randomly assigned to one of twoconditions Bluetoothbusy lifestyle or headphonesleis-urely lifestyle Participants in both conditions readldquoImagine Anne a 35-year-old woman She is often seenwearing the product belowrdquo Participants in the Bluetoothbusy-lifestyle condition saw a picture of a female headwith a hands-free Bluetooth headset whereas participantsin the headphonesleisurely-lifestyle condition saw a pic-ture of a female head with a pair of headphones for musicand leisure (see web appendix for pictures)5 Because wewere particularly concerned about demand effects in thisstudy we collected all the status measures used in study1A Precisely as in study 1A participants rated Annersquos so-cial status (a frac14 89) located her on the socioeconomic sta-tus ladder and rated her on two status-related dimensions(a frac14 77) and three non-status-related dimensions In add-ition for the two mediators we collected the same meas-ures from previous studies on human capital (a frac14 92) andscarcity on the job market (a frac14 79) Finally respondentswere asked to estimate the price of the product (ldquoWhat isthe price of the product that Anne is wearing [Insert anumber]rdquo) and to rate the extent to which they perceivedthe products as innovative and technological (1 frac14 Not atall 7 frac14 Extremely a frac14 69) to control for the possibilitythat differences between conditions could be driven by per-ceptions of expensiveness and innovativeness rather thanperceptions of busyness and lack of leisure

Preliminary Analyses (Study 4B) The same discrimin-ant validity tests conducted in previous studies confirmedthe distinctiveness of our main variables (see the results inthe web appendix)

Results (Study 4B) Because indeed the Bluetooth wasperceived as a more technological and innovative device

(Mfrac14 39 SD frac14 89 vs Mfrac14 297 SD frac14 99 F(1 120) frac143004 p lt 001) and a more expensive device than theheadphones (Mfrac14 $7379 SD frac14 4494 vs Mfrac14 $3448

SD frac14 8793 F(1 120) frac14 976 p frac14 002) we conducted aseries of ANCOVAs with condition as fixed factor andinnovativeness ratings and price as covariates (all the fol-

lowing analyses yield the same results even without covari-ates) Compared to participants in the headphones

condition participants in the Bluetooth condition perceivedAnne as higher in social status financial wealth and in-come (Mfrac14 504 SD frac14 75 vs Mfrac14 38 SD frac14 78 F(1

117) frac14 4168 p lt 001) they placed her on a higher rungon the socioeconomic status ladder (Mfrac14 682 SD frac14 122vs Mfrac14 547 SD frac14 114 F(1 116) frac14 1896 p lt 001)

and they also saw her as higher in status and respect(Mfrac14 481 SD frac14 8 vs Mfrac14 389 SD frac14 72 F(1 117) frac142184 p lt 001) Importantly participants indicated nosignificant difference on how nice honest and attractivethe individual was between conditions (Mfrac14 387 SD frac14 5

vs Mfrac14 404 SD frac14 43 F(1 117) frac14 215 NS) Finallyparticipants perceived Anne to possess higher human cap-

ital in the Bluetooth condition (Mfrac14 537 SD frac14 9 vsMfrac14 415 SD frac14 78 F(1 117) frac14 3326 p lt 001) and tobe more in demand (Mfrac14 449 SD frac14 96 vs Mfrac14 355 SD

frac14 72 F(1 117) frac14 2009 p lt 001)6 All mediation ana-lyses which again support hypothesis 2 are fully reported

in the web appendix

Discussion Findings from this study demonstrate thesignaling power of brands and products associated with an

overworked lifestyle such as a timesaving grocery brand(study 4A) or a multitasking Bluetooth headset (study 4B)These findings are consistent with popular blogs and maga-

zine articles providing suggestions on how to look busyFor example a recent humorous blog (wwwthefacultyloungeorg) suggests people should ldquotalk on one of those

Bluetooth ear thingies for your cell phone at all timesrdquo toldquomake sure you convey to others the full extent of your

busyness and importancerdquo Our findings again provide evi-dence in support of our proposed mediating mechanismsand show that status inferences are driven by the belief that

the busy individual has higher human capital characteris-tics and is scarcer and more in demand even for the subtler

use of timesaving products and services

GENERAL DISCUSSION

While research on conspicuous consumption has typic-

ally analyzed how people spend money on products thatsignal status in this research we investigate conspicuous

consumption in relation to time We demonstrate the condi-tions under which displaying onersquos busyness at work and

5 The two productsrsquo images were pretested with a separate group of140 respondents (see pretest in web appendix) The Bluetooth headsetis more strongly associated with a busy lifestyle and lack of leisurethan the headphones

6 We found the same results in a similar instantiation of the study(study 4B replication web appendix)

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 133

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 17: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

lack of leisure time operates as a visible signal of status inthe eyes of others A series of studies across several distinctgroups of participants demonstrates that the positive statuseffect of displaying onersquos busyness and lack of leisure timeis driven by the perception that a busy person possessesdesired human capital characteristics (competence ambi-tion) and is scarce and in demand in the job market Weexamine cultural values (perceived social mobility) and dif-ferences among cultures (ie North America vs Europe) todemonstrate moderators and boundary conditions of thebusyness effect Finally we show how social media can bestrategically used to signal status by revealing informationabout onersquos level of busyness in addition to consideringhow the use of timesaving services (eg Peapod) and prod-ucts (eg Bluetooth) can trigger inferences of busyness andstatus regardless of how busy one truly is

Our findings deepen our understanding of how busynessand status inferences are related and contribute to severalstreams of literature First while past research on status sig-naling has primarily focused on how the expenditure ofmoney has been a vehicle to signal status (Bellezza andKeinan 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Griskevicius et al2007 Han et al 2010 Keinan Crener and Bellezza 2016Mandel et al 2006 Ordabayeva and Chandon 2011 Ruckerand Galinsky 2008 Wang and Griskevicius 2014 Ward andDahl 2014) we explore how the expenditure of time canlead to the same end Second we expand research on the de-cline of leisure time (Gershuny 2005 Hamermesh and Lee2007 Hochschild 1997 Rutherford 2001 Schor 1992Southerton and Tomlinson 2005) by uncovering the condi-tions under which the absence of holidays and busyness op-erate as costly and visible status symbols Third ourinvestigation contributes to previous research on productscarcity (Brehm 1966 Cialdini 1993 Lynn 1991 Snyderand Fromkin 1980) by demonstrating that busyness at workcan be associated with scarcity of individuals Instead ofassociating oneself with scarce resources (eg diamondscars or expensive real estate) consumers can signal statusby portraying themselves as a scarce resource through theconspicuous display of busyness and lack of leisure Fourthour novel predictions contribute to recent research analyzingmore subtle and alternative signals of status such as seem-ingly unbranded luxury products and nonconforming behav-iors (Bellezza et al 2014 Berger and Ward 2010 Duboiset al 2012 Han et al 2010) Finally we contribute to cross-cultural research in consumer behavior (Aaker 2006 AakerBenet-Martınez and Garolera 2001 Briley and Aaker 2006Craig and Douglas 2006 euroUstuner and Holt 2010) by demon-strating that status inferences based on busyness at work andlack of leisure time are culturally dependent

Directions for Future Research

Our research could be further applied to examine otherconsumption phenomena and to explore additional

moderators One important boundary condition is per-ceived agency (ie the extent to which onersquos overworkedlifestyle and lack of leisure time are perceived as a volun-tary and deliberate choice) One could imagine that a per-son with many financial burdens has no choice but to bebusy with work working overtime or even taking morethan one job and thus may be perceived to have less statusIn a follow-up study we directly manipulated whether thedecision to work long hours was framed as deliberate ornot As predicted we find that when long hours at workand limited leisure time are not perceived to be the productof a voluntary and deliberate choice the positive infer-ences associated with busyness remain significant but aresignificantly weakened Another potential boundary condi-tion could be economic class Though empirical evidenceis mixed (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014)7 it may be thatpeople infer that a busy person is from a higher socioeco-nomic background because there is a natural correlationbetween these two types of people in the world a propos-ition that is also more consistent with the substitution effectin economics To control for this possibility in anotherfollow-up study (web appendix) participants consideredmore busy versus less busy individuals across varying eco-nomic classes (wealthyupper middlelower middlelowerclass) A busyness effect was still found when wecontrolled for economic class suggesting that within aneconomic class which presumably consists of people withsimilar occupations being busy can still serve as an effect-ive status signal Even amongst the lower class busier indi-viduals were awarded higher status attributions than lessbusy individuals Both these follow-up studies suggest thateven if a person has to work to make ends meet or is froma lower class busyness can still impact perceptions of sta-tus presumably because the busy individual may be foundto be more competent and ambitious leading them to beperceived as a scarce resource compared to those from asimilar economic background who are not as busy

The current investigation has not examined yet whetherthe moderator (perceived social mobility) intervenes beforeor after the two mediators (human capital characteristicsand perceived scarcity) Thus future research could pre-cisely examine if people who perceive their society as par-ticularly mobile and believe in work as a means for socialaffirmation interpret busyness at work as a stronger signalof human capital characteristics and scarcity as comparedto people with weaker beliefs in social mobility (ie thereis an interaction between moderator and mediators) or ifhigher status attributions through the two mediators are atplay for everyone indiscriminately (ie there is no inter-action between moderator and mediators)

7 For example people employed in management professions earn al-most twice as much as people employed in production and transporta-tion though both categories have the highest number of hours workedper week

134 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 18: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

Although busy people who always work presumablyhave little time off it would also be interesting to examinehow the small amount of leisure time available to them isspent and whether it impacts perceptions of status in theeyes of others Analyses of leisure time in contemporarysociety suggest that the consumption of free time is in-creasingly ldquoharriedrdquo and characterized by an accelerationof the pace at which leisure is enjoyed (Linder 1970Robinson and Godbey 2005) We predict that observerswill attribute even higher status to those people who be-sides being busy are also able to enjoy and live their livesto the maximum (ie ldquowork hard and play hardrdquo) Sincetodayrsquos consumers are striving to ldquohave it allrdquo and aspirefor achievements in multiple domains even when engagingin leisure activities (Keinan and Kivetz 2011) the ldquoworkhard and play hardrdquo lifestylemdashembodying both hard workand a propensity to enjoy lifemdashshould represent the mostaspirational and highly regarded model

Our work examines a potentially more socially accept-able and efficient way for people to signal their social sta-tus that goes beyond spending financial resources to obtainluxury products Though past research has found an associ-ation between inferences of status for people who use ex-pensive luxury products such inferences may be tainted byviews that those same people are extrinsically motivatedand less likeable (Van Boven Campbell and Gilovich2010) However we surmise that by using busyness to sig-nal onersquos status one can avoid these negative side effectsFuture research should determine whether this is indeedthe case and explore the conditions under which trying toohard to appear busy may backfire In addition to beingmore socially acceptable signaling onersquos status throughbusyness at work may also be more cost-effective For ex-ample rather than spending money on the expensivebrands (Whole Foods) one can display status by using po-tentially cheaper timesaving brands (eg Peapod) com-plaining about onersquos level of busyness or simply byappearing busy Social media has also opened up a newway to communicate onersquos level of busyness to a largenumber of people through status updates and tweets Theemergence of such communication media may have evenenhanced the efficacy of busyness as a more appropriatestatus signal Signaling onersquos busyness may be a more dis-guised way to signal onersquos status on social media comparedto traditional forms of luxury consumption which may bemore proper in a physical setting Future research couldfurther consider the relationship between social media andmethods of status signaling

Finally it is interesting that people find the busy life-style so aspirational and associate it with status given thatthe downsides of this lifestyle are often acknowledged anddiscussed (eg the negative impact on happiness well-being and health) Future research could examine whetherhighlighting the physical and psychological costs of anoverworked lifestyle would decrease or increase its

association with status and make it more or less aspir-ational in the eyes of others

Managerial Implications

A deeper understanding of the conspicuous consumptionof time and the role of busyness as a status symbol hasinteresting implications for marketers of both timesavingand symbolic products Our findings offer a different per-spective on how to promote and advertise timesaving andmultitasking benefits of specific products New technolo-gies and innovations (eg voice recognition and remotecontrol technologies) often allow consumers to reduce thetime it takes to perform specific tasks Rather than focusingon time saving in an abstract sense communication cam-paigns might emphasize how well such products integratewith an overworked lifestyle For example notable authorMichael Pollan (2013) argues that marketing messages bythe processed food industry flatter consumersrsquo sense ofbusyness implicitly telling them ldquoYou donrsquot have time tocook yoursquore too important yoursquore a loser if you have timeto cookrdquo Our findings support the notion that appealing toconsumersrsquo lack of time could be a form of flattery mak-ing consumers feel their time is very valuable Feelingbusy and overworked may make us feel in demand andscarce and therefore more valuable and important Othertimesaving services like Peapod should consider ways tomake their offerings more conspicuous allowing people tosignal their status and enhance the value of their products

Targeting busy and pressed-for-time consumers has alsoproven to be a rewarding strategy for products originallyconceived for other segments and positioned on otherbenefits For instance coders engineers and venture capit-alists are increasingly turning to liquid meals and pow-dered drinks (eg Soylent Schmoylent Schmilk PeopleChow) so they can more quickly get back to their computerwork The demand in Silicon Valley for these productsoriginally catered to athletes and dieters is so high thatsome engineers report being put on monthly waiting lists toreceive their first orders (Chen 2015) As seen in theaforementioned Cadillac ad even symbolic luxury brandsand products that do not necessarily offer timesaving bene-fits may try to associate the brand with an aspirational andglorified busy lifestyle As another example consider thefollowing print ad by Rolex ldquoChecking his watch costsBill Gates $300 a second What is your time worthrdquoRather than flattering consumersrsquo purchase ability and fi-nancial wealth brands can flatter consumersrsquo busyness andlack of valuable time to waste

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

Participants for the pilot study in the introduction andstudy 4B were recruited in 2016 at the BehavioralResearch Lab (Columbia Business School) The dataset of

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 135

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 19: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

tweets analyzed in the pilot study was scraped from theweb (httpstwittercomHumblebrag) in 2013 Participantsin studies 1A 2A and 3 (American respondents) were re-cruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk in 2014 2015and 2016 Participants in study 1B were recruited in 2016at the Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) Participants for studies 2B and 3(Italian respondents) were recruited through Qualtrics in2015 Participants in study 4A (including pretest andfollow-up study) were recruited in 2014 and 2015 at theCLER lab (Harvard Business School) Lab managers withthe support of research assistants managed data collectionat the CLER lab (Harvard Business School) theBehavioral Research Lab (Columbia Business School) andthe Behavioral Lab (McDonough School of Business atGeorgetown University) The three authors jointly ana-lyzed all the data

REFERENCES

Aaker Jennifer L (2006) ldquoDelineating Culturerdquo Journal ofConsumer Psychology 16 (4) 343ndash47

Aaker Jennifer L V Benet-Martınez and J Garolera (2001)ldquoConsumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture A Study ofJapanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 81 (3) 492ndash508

Adams James Truslow (1931) The Epic of America BostonLittle Brown and Company

Adler Nancy E Elissa S Epel Castellazzo Grace and JeannetteR Ickovics (2000) ldquoRelationship of Subjective andObjective Social Status with Psychological and PhysiologicalFunctioningrdquo Health Psychology 19 (6) 586ndash92

Aguiar Mark and Erik Hurst (2006) ldquoMeasuring Trends inLeisure the Allocation of Time over Five DecadesrdquoNational Bureau of Economic Research (WP 12082)

Alesina Alberto Rafael Di Tella and Robert MacCulloch (2004)ldquoInequality and Happiness Are Europeans and AmericansDifferentrdquo Journal of Public Economics 88 (9ndash10) 2009ndash42

Alesina Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2005) ldquoPreferences forRedistribution in the Land of Opportunitiesrdquo Journal ofPublic Economics 89 (5) 897ndash931

Alford Henry (2012) ldquoIf I Do Humblebrag So Myselfrdquo New YorkTimes December 2 ST2

Anderson Cameron Michael W Kraus Adam D Galinsky andDacher Keltner (2012) ldquoThe Local-Ladder Effect SocialStatus and Subjective Well-Beingrdquo Psychological Science23 (7) 764ndash71

Anderson James C and David W Gerbing (1988) ldquoStructuralEquation Modeling in Practice A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approachrdquo PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3) 411ndash23

Ariely Dan Emir Kamenica and Drazen Prelec (2008) ldquoManrsquosSearch for Meaning The Case of Legosrdquo Journal ofEconomic Behavior amp Organization 67 (3) 671ndash77

Becker Gary S (1965) ldquoA Theory of the Allocation of TimerdquoEconomic Journal 75 (299) 493ndash517

Bellezza Silvia Francesca Gino and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoTheRed Sneakers Effect Inferring Status and Competence fromSignals of Nonconformityrdquo Journal of Consumer Research41 (1) 35ndash54

Bellezza Silvia and Anat Keinan (2014) ldquoBrand Tourists HowNonndashCore Users Enhance the Brand Image by ElicitingPriderdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (2) 397ndash417

Bennhold Katrin (2004) ldquoLove of Leisure and EuropersquosReasonsrdquo New York Times July 29

Berger Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010) ldquoSubtle Signals ofInconspicuous Consumptionrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 37 (4) 555ndash69

Berry Leonard L (1979) ldquoTime-Buying Consumerrdquo Journal ofRetailing 55 (4) 58ndash69

Bjoslashrnskov Christian Axel Dreher Justina V Fischer JanSchnellenbach and Kai Gehring (2013) ldquoInequality andHappiness When Perceived Social Mobility and EconomicReality Do Not Matchrdquo Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization 91 (July) 75ndash92

Bourdieu Pierre (1984) Distinction A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Brehm Jack W (1966) A Theory of Psychological ReactanceNew York Academic Press

Briley Donnel A and Jennifer L Aaker (2006) ldquoWhen DoesCulture Matter Effects of Personal Knowledge on theCorrection of Culture-Based Judgmentsrdquo Journal ofMarketing Research 43 (3) 395ndash408

Brim Orville Gilbert (2009) Look at Me The Fame Motive fromChildhood to Death Chicago University of Chicago Press

Brislin Richard W and Eugene S Kim (2003) ldquoCulturalDiversity in Peoplersquos Understanding and Uses of TimerdquoApplied Psychology 52 (3) 363ndash82

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) ldquoLabor Force Statistics fromthe Current Population Surveyrdquo httpwwwblsgovcpslfcharacteristicshtmhours

Camerer Colin Linda Babcock George Loewenstein andRichard H Thaler (1997) ldquoLabor Supply of New York CityCabdrivers One Day at a Timerdquo Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 112 (2) 407ndash41

Catry Bernard ldquoThe great pretenders the magic of luxury goodsrdquoBusiness Strategy Review 143 (2003) 10ndash17

Chen Brian X (2015) ldquoIn Busy Silicon Valley Protein Powder Isin Demandrdquo New York Times May 25 B1

Cialdini Robert B (1993) Influence The Psychology ofPersuasion New York HarperCollins

Cicero Marcus Tullius (1913) De Officiis Cambridge MAHarvard University Press

Corneo Giacomo and Hans Peter Gruner (2002) ldquoIndividualPreferences for Political Redistributionrdquo Journal of PublicEconomics 83 (1) 83ndash107

Craig C Samuel and Susan P Douglas (2006) ldquoBeyond NationalCulture Implications of Cultural Dynamics for ConsumerResearchrdquo International Marketing Review 23 (3) 322ndash42

Dubois David Derek D Rucker and Adam D Galinsky (2012)ldquoSuper Size Me Product Size as a Signal of Statusrdquo Journalof Consumer Psychology 38 (6) 1047ndash62

Economist (2014) ldquoNice Work If You Can Get Outrdquo TheEconomist April 22

Foladare Irving S (1969) ldquoA Clarification of lsquoAscribed Statusrsquoand lsquoAchieved Statusrsquordquo Sociological Quarterly 10 (1)53ndash61

Fornell Claes and David F Larcker (1981) ldquoEvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables andMeasurement Errorrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1)39ndash50

136 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 20: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

Frank Robert (2012) ldquoUltra-Rich Spend More on Vacations Lesson Blingrdquo httpwwwcnbccomid48910234

Frank Robert H and Ben S Bernanke (2007) Principles ofMicroeconomics New York NY McGraw-Hill

Fuchs Christoph Emanuela Prandelli Martin Schreier andDarren W Dahl (2013) ldquoAll That Is Users Might Not BeGold How Labeling Products as User Designed Backfires inthe Context of Luxury Fashion Brandsrdquo Journal ofMarketing 77 (5) 75ndash91

Gershuny Jonathan (2005) ldquoBusyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate Working Classrdquo Social Research 72(2) 287ndash314

Griskevicius Vladas Joshua M Tybur Jill M Sundie Robert BCialdini Geoffrey F Miller and Douglas T Kenrick (2007)ldquoBlatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption WhenRomantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signalsrdquo Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 93 (1) 85ndash102

Gross Barbara L (1987) ldquoTime Scarcity InterdisciplinaryPerspectives and Implications for Consumer BehaviorrdquoResearch in Consumer Behavior 2 (2) 1ndash54

Hamermesh Daniel S and Jungmin Lee (2007) ldquoStressed Out onFour Continents Time Crunch or Yuppie Kvetchrdquo Reviewof Economics and Statistics 89 (2) 374ndash83

Han Young Jee Joseph C Nunes and Xavier Dreze (2010)ldquoSignaling Status with Luxury Goods The Role of BrandProminencerdquo Journal of Marketing 74 (July) 15ndash30

Hayes Andrew F (2013) Introduction to Mediation Moderationand Conditional Process Analysis A Regression-BasedApproach Guilford Press

Heine Steven J Darrin R Lehman Kaiping Peng and JoeGreenholtz (2002) ldquoWhatrsquos Wrong with Cross-CulturalComparisons of Subjective Likert Scales The Reference-Group Effectrdquo Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 82 (6) 903

Hochschild Arlie Russel (1997) The Time Bind New YorkHenry Holt and Company

Hsee Christopher K Adelle X Yang and Liangyan Wang(2010) ldquoIdleness Aversion and the Need for JustifiableBusynessrdquo Psychological Science 21 (7) 926ndash30

Imbens Guido W Donald B Rubin and Bruce I Sacerdote(2001) ldquoEstimating the Effect of Unearned Income on LaborEarnings Savings and Consumption Evidence from aSurvey of Lottery Playersrdquo American Economic Review 91(4) 778ndash94

Jacoby Jacob George J Szybillo and Carol Kohn Berning(1976) ldquoTime and Consumer Behavior An InterdisciplinaryOverviewrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 74 (4) 320ndash39

Kahneman Daniel Alan B Krueger David Schkade NorbertSchwarz and Arthur A Stone (2006) ldquoWould You BeHappier if You Were Richer A Focusing Illusionrdquo Science312 (5782) 1908ndash10

Keinan Anat Sandrine Crener and Silvia Bellezza (2016)ldquoLuxury Branding Research New Perspectives and FuturePrioritiesrdquo in Online Luxury Retailing Leveraging DigitalOpportunities Research Industry Practice and OpenQuestions Philadelphia Baker Retailing Center WhartonSchool University of Pennsylvania 16ndash33

Keinan Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011) ldquoProductivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiencesrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (6) 935ndash50

Kreider Tim (2012) ldquoThe lsquoBusyrsquo Traprdquo New York TimesJune 30

Krueger Alan B Daniel Kahneman Claude Fischler DavidSchkade Norbert Schwarz and Arthur A Stone (2008)ldquoTime Use and Subjective Well-Being in France and theUSrdquo Social Indicators Research 93 (1) 7ndash18

Kuhn Peter and Fernando Lozano (2008) ldquoThe ExpandingWorkweek Understanding Trends in Long Work Hoursamong US Men 1979ndash2006rdquo Journal of Labor Economics26 (2) 311ndash43

Linder Staffan Burenstam (1970) The Harried Leisure ClassNew York Columbia University Press

Linton Ralph (1936) The Study of Man An Introduction NewYork Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc

Lynn Michael (1991) ldquoScarcity Effects on Value A QuantitativeReview of the Commodity Theory Literaturerdquo Psychologyand Marketing 8 (1) 43ndash57

Magee Joe C and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoSocial HierarchyThe Self Reinforcing Nature of Power and Statusrdquo Academyof Management Annals 2 (1) 351ndash198

Mandel Naomi Petia K Petrova and Robert B Cialdini (2006)ldquoImages of Success and the Preference for Luxury BrandsrdquoJournal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) 57ndash69

Nakamura Leonard I (2000) ldquoEconomics and the NewEconomy The Invisible Hand Meets Creative DestructionrdquoBusiness Review (JulyAugust) 15ndash30

Ordabayeva Nailya and Pierre Chandon (2011) ldquoGetting Aheadof the Joneses When Equality Increases ConspicuousConsumption among Bottom-Tier Consumersrdquo Journal ofConsumer Research 38 (1) 27ndash41

Perdue Barbara C and John O Summers (1986) ldquoChecking theSuccess of Manipulations in Marketing ExperimentsrdquoJournal of Marketing Research 23 (4) 317ndash26

Pollan Michael (2013) ldquoHow Cooking Can Change Your Liferdquohttpbitly1kInqRR

Richards Greg (1998) ldquoTime for a Holiday Social Rights andInternational Tourism Consumptionrdquo Time amp Society 7 (1)145ndash60

mdashmdashmdash (1999) ldquoVacations and the Quality of Liferdquo Journal ofBusiness Research 44 (3) 189ndash98

Robinson John P and Godbey Geoffrey (2005) ldquoBusyness asUsualrdquo Social Research 72 (2) 407ndash26

Rucker Derek D and Adam D Galinsky (2008) ldquoDesire toAcquire Powerlessness and Compensatory ConsumptionrdquoJournal of Consumer Research (35) 257ndash67

Rutherford Sarah (2001) ldquolsquoAre You Going Home Alreadyrsquo TheLong Hours Culture Women Managers and PatriarchalClosurerdquo Time Society 10 (2ndash3) 259ndash76

Schor Juliet (1992) The Overworked American The UnexpectedDecline of Leisure New York BasicBooks

Schulte Brigid (2014) Overwhelmed Work Love and PlayWhen No One Has the Time New York Sarah CrichtonBooks

Scott Maura L Martin Mende and Lisa E Bolton (2013)ldquoJudging the Book by Its Cover How Consumers DecodeConspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer ndash SellerRelationshipsrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 50 (3)334ndash47

Snyder C R and L Howard Fromkin (1980) Uniqueness TheHuman Pursuit of Difference New York Plenum Press

Southerton Dale and Mark Tomlinson (2005) ldquolsquoPressed forTimersquo The Differential Impacts of a lsquoTime SqueezersquordquoSociological Review 53 (2) 215ndash39

Spiller Stephen A Gavan J Fitzsimons John G Lynch Jr andGary H McClelland (2013) ldquoSpotlights Floodlights and the

BELLEZZA PAHARIA AND KEINAN 137

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7
Page 21: Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of ...€¦ · Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol SILVIA BELLEZZA

Magic Number Zero Simple Effects Tests in ModeratedRegressionrdquo Journal of Marketing Research 2 (50) 277ndash88

euroUstuner Tuba and Douglas B Holt (2010) ldquoToward a Theory ofStatus Consumption in Less Industrialized CountriesrdquoJournal of Consumer Research 37 (1) 37ndash56

Van Boven Leaf Margaret C Campbell and Thomas Gilovich(2010) ldquoStigmatizing Materialism On Stereotypes andImpressions of Materialistic and Experiential PursuitsrdquoPersonality amp Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (4) 551ndash63

Veblen Thorstein (18992007) The Theory of the Leisure ClassNew York Oxford University Press

Voth Hans-Joachim (2001) ldquoThe Longest Years New Estimatesof Labor Input in England 1760ndash1830rdquo Journal ofEconomic History 61 (4) 1065ndash82

Wang Yajin and Vladas Griskevicius (2014) ldquoConspicuousConsumption Relationships and Rivals Womenrsquos Luxury

Products as Signals to Other Womenrdquo Journal of ConsumerResearch 40 (5) 834ndash54

Ward Morgan K and Darren W Dahl (2014) ldquoShould the DevilSell Prada Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring ConsumersrsquoDesire for the Brandrdquo Journal of Consumer Research 41 (3)590ndash609

Wasik John F (2013) ldquoThe Biggest Financial Asset in YourPortfolio Is Yourdquo New York Times February 12 F7

Wilcox Keith Juliano Laran Andrew T Stephen and Peter PZubcsek (2016) ldquoHow Being Busy Can Increase Motivationand Reduce Task Completion Timerdquo Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 110 (3) 371ndash84

Wittels Harris (2012) Humblebrag The Art of False ModestyNew York Hachette Book Group

138 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Downloaded from httpsacademicoupcomjcrarticle-abstract4411182736404by Columbia University Libraries useron 10 April 2018

  • ucw076-FN1
  • ucw076-TF1
  • ucw076-FN2
  • ucw076-FN3
  • ucw076-FN4
  • ucw076-FN5
  • ucw076-FN6
  • ucw076-FN7