What criticisms can you give about each study's (1-4 and Follow Up Study) methodology and results? Give at least 5 total criticisms.

40 FIGURE 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Characleristics of the Observer (Need for Uniqueness and Familiarity) Indawdual . _ Status and Percewed as Perceived . Competence Conforming vs. Autonomy . Infere m: es Nonconi'ormmg Characteristics of the Environment (Prestige Context) Characteristics of the Behavior [Intentionalitvl strong disruption and violation of the norm. Accordingly. the manipulations in our studies center on creative noncon formity and avoidance of similaritythat is. manifestations of nonconformity within the realm of commonly accepted behaviors. Study 1 examines the responses of shop assistants in lux ury boutiques in Milan. Italy. and illustrates that nonconr formity. as compared to conformity. leads to inferences of higher status among individuals who are familiar with the environment. Study 2 investigates the effect of nonconfomi ity and the role of the prestige context in a professional setting by testing students' responses to the dress style of their professors. Study 3 delves into the underlying mecha nisms of the red sneakers effect and demonstrates that infer, ences of status and competence are mediated by the autonomy that participants perceive in the individual's nonconforming behavior. Moreover. this study shows that the positive in ferences dissipate when the nonconforming behavior is per ceived as unintentional. Study 4 examines the moderating role of observers' need for uniqueness and shows that par ticipants with high levels of need for uniqueness tend to attribute more status and competence to nonconforming be haviors as compared to participants with lower needs for uniqueness. Finally. in a followup study we increase the validity of our ndings by examining nonconformity and need for uniqueness outside the laboratory. RESEARCH DESIGN AND FINDINGS Study 1: Status Inferences Based on a Nonconforming Dress Style We begin our investigation by examining whether indi viduals confer greater status to people who do not conform to shared norms of behavior in a given context. We create vignettes that describe a potential client who enters an el egant boutique and engages in either conforming or non conforming behavior. We employ two different operation JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH alizations of nonconforming behavior to luxury stores. In study 1A. we manipulate nonconformity through style of dress (e.g.. entering the store wearing a gym outt vs. a dress). and in study [B we examine consumers' use of well, known brand names (e.g.. wearing a Swatch watch vs. a Rolex). We selected luxury boutiques as an experimental setting due to their established and commonly perceived behavioral norm of elegant dress. Thus. we expect that in this specic context. rather than in ordinary stores. a casual dress style will stand out and will be perceived as a deviation from the established standard. Moreover. we consider the case of people who are either familiar or less familiar with the context being examined by comparing the responses of two samples: shop assistants in luxury shops in downtown Milan. Italy. and women recruited in Milan's central train station. We predict that participants who are familiar with the context (i.e.. the shop assistants) will confer greater status to the nonconforming client rather than to the con forming one. However. we expect the effect to be attenuated or even reversed for participants who are less familiar with the context (i.e.. pedestrians recruited at the central station). Prior to running studies 1A and 13. we conducted an ex ploratory interview in Rome with the store manager of a prestigious luxury brand. According to him. shoppers at highend boutiques generally wear elegant and expensive clothing. in keeping with the store's luxury atmosphere. How ever. he admitted that his store's very top clientele also includes customers who dress quite casually. Therefore. we expect shop assistants in luxury boutiques. who are familiar with the environment and are motivated to determine the status of potential customers. to be able to detect and in terpret the unconventional behavior of potential customers as a signal of status. Method. We recruited 109 female adults in downtown Milan. All participants responded to a short survey in Italian and received a pen for participating in the study. Fiftyrtwo participants were shop assistants working in boutiques sell, ing luxury brands such as Armani. Burberry. Christian Dior. La Perla. Les Copains. and Valentino (i.e.. individuals fa miliar with the environment of a highend boutique). On average. shop assistants had 12 years of experience in the fashion sector and an estimated net income ranging from 14.400 to 16.800 per year. The other 57 female partici pants were recruited at Milan's central station (i.e.. individ uals less familiar with the environment of a highrend bour tique). The estimated average net income for women living in Milan is 15.800 (Registry Ofce Milan 2011). Thus. both groups share comparable demographic proles (gender. age. income. and nationality). but the rst group is better acquainted with the environment of luxury boutiques than the second group. Participants completed the study in their own environment (boutique or train station) and were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: conforming versus nonconforming potential client. Participants in each condition read a vignette about a potential client entering a luxury boutique. In study 1A. the text read: \"Imagine that a woman is entering a luxury This content downloaded from ml? 1 0.301.137 only-1011,07 Feb 2022 2] 53 :44 UTC _....._L..J_ All use subj eet to http s. :'faboutJ stor. orgfteuns BELLEZZA, GINO, AND KEINAN 41 boutique in downtown Milan during winter. She looks ap- FIGURE 2 proximately 35 years old." Participants in the nonconform- ing condition next read: "She is wearing gym clothes and STUDY 1A RESULTS: THE EFFECT OF NONCONFORMITY a jacket." Participants in the conforming condition next read: AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE ENVIRONMENT "She is wearing a dress and a fur coat." After reading the vignette, participants answered questions, using 1-7 scales, D to assess whether they believed the individual described Status as a Luxury Client could be a potential client at the luxury store and whether 5.7 she might be a VIP or a celebrity. Specifically, participants answered three questions assessing the woman's status as a 4.9 luxury client: 1. "How likely is the woman described to O Shop Assistants purchase something in the store?" (1 = very unlikely, 7 = 3.8 very likely). 2. "Imagine that the woman described were to 3.5 Pedestrians buy something. Would she spend more or less than the av- erage store client?" (1 = less than average, 7 = more than average). 3. "Can she afford the most expensive items in the store?" (1 = definitely yes, 7 = definitely no). We averaged the three items and used the resulting measure of status as a luxury client as the first dependent variable in our analyses. Next, participants answered one question as- Conforming Nonconforming sessing the client's perceived status as a celebrity, the second dependent variable: "Is she likely to be a VIP or a celebrity?" (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). In study 1B, partic- Celebrity Status ipants in both conditions read: "Imagine that a woman is entering a luxury boutique in downtown Milan during sum- 4.9 mer. She looks approximately 35 years old." Next, partic- 1.3 O Shop Assistants ipants in the nonconforming condition read: "She is wearing 4.0 plastic flip-flops and she has a Swatch on her wrist." Par- ticipants in the conforming condition read: "She is wearing Pedestrians sandals with heels and she has a Rolex on her wrist." After reading the description of the client, participants answered 3 2.5 the same questions as in study 1A. Results (Study IA). A 2 (nonconforming vs. conforming 2 client) x 2 (familiar vs. unfamiliar observer) between-sub- jects ANOVA using ratings of the potential as a luxury client (a = .88) as the dependent variable revealed a significant Conforming Nonconforming main effect for nonconformity (F(1, 104) = 4.9, p