PreprintPDF Available

Super Size Me: A Preregistered Replication

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract and Figures

Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky (2012, Experiment 1) found that consumers view larger-size options as a signal of higher status. We conducted a close replication of this finding (N = 415, MTurk), and observed a non-significant effect in the opposite direction (small product size-medium product size, original d = 1.49, 95% CI [1.09, 1.89], replication d =-0.10 [-0.34, 0.14]; small-large, original d = 0.89 [0.52, 1.26], replication d =-0.10 [-0.34, 0.14]; medium-large, original d = 0.62 [0.26, 0.98], replication d = 0.01 [-0.23, 0.25]). We discuss potential reasons for this unsuccessful replication as well as implications for the status-signaling literature in marketing.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Super Size Me: A Preregistered Replication
*Burak Tunca
Department of Business Administration,
Lund University School of Economics and Management
burak.tunca@fek.lu.se
^Ignazio Ziano
Department of Marketing, Grenoble Ecole de Management,
Univ Grenoble Alpes ComUE
ignazio.ziano@grenoble-em.com
Xu Wenting
Department of Marketing, Grenoble Ecole de Management,
Univ Grenoble Alpes ComUE
Wenting.XU@grenoble-em.com
*First author
^Corresponding author
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 2
Corresponding author
Ignazio Ziano, Department of Marketing, Grenoble Ecole de Management, Univ Grenoble Alpes
ComUE, Email; ignazio.ziano@grenoble-em.com
Author bios:
Burak Tunca is a senior lecturer at the Deparment of Business Administration, Lund University
School of Economics and Management. His research focuses on consumer behavior.
Ignazio Ziano is an assistant professor at the Department of Marketing, Grenoble Ecole de
Management, Univ Grenoble Alpes ComUE. His research focuses on consumer behaviour and
judgment and decision-making.
Xu Wenting was a student at Grenoble Ecole de Management during the academic year 2018-19.
Declaration of Conflict of Interest:
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Authorship declaration:
Ignazio supervised Xu Wenting on her master’s thesis. Burak verified analyses and conclusions,
and performed new ones, and completed the manuscript submission draft. Ignazio and Burak
jointly finalized the manuscript for submission.
Xu Wenting conducted the replication as part of her “Grand Memoire(Master’s Thesis) at
Grenoble Ecole de Management during the academic year 2018-19.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 3
Abstract
Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky (2012, Experiment 1) found that consumers view larger-
size options as a signal of higher status. We conducted a close replication of this finding (N =
415, MTurk), and observed a non-significant effect in the opposite direction (small product size –
medium product size, original d = 1.49, 95% CI [1.09, 1.89], replication d = -0.10 [-0.34, 0.14];
small – large, original d = 0.89 [0.52, 1.26], replication d = -0.10 [-0.34, 0.14]; medium-large,
original d = 0.62 [0.26, 0.98], replication d = 0.01 [-0.23, 0.25]). We discuss potential reasons for
this unsuccessful replication as well as implications for the status-signaling literature in
marketing.
Keywords: status, inferences, product size, replication, open science
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 4
Super Size Me: A Preregistered Replication
Introduction
Why do consumers choose larger portions, for example at a fast-food restaurant, despite
the potential negative consequences of such choices on their health and well-being? Given that
larger portion sizes give rise to increased consumption (i.e, the portion size effect; Vandenbroele
et al., 2019; Zlatevska et al., 2014), understanding the factors influencing portion choices is of
importance to the efforts in reducing excessive eating related problems like obesity. Various
underlying mechanisms of larger portion choice are available in the literature. These explanations
include value for money (larger portions have lower price per unit), mindless eating (consumers
are inattentive to their choices, for example while dining with others), and estimation bias
(consumers are often uninformed about reference portion sizes and they fail to estimate
appropriate amount to eat; for a review, see Steenhuis and Poelman, 2017). To add to these
explanations, Dubois et al. (2012) presented a novel postulation: consumers choose larger-sized
food options to signal social status. Put simply, people do not choose larger portions to satiate the
need for food, but to satiate the need for status.
The evidence for this novel hypothesis attracted attention. To date, the study has been
cited over 250 times on Google Scholar (as of February 2020), and also appeared in mainstream
media such as The New York Times (Warren, 2011), Scientific American (Grewal, 2011), and The
Atlantic (Villarica, 2011). To illustrate the extent of publicity, Warren (2011) reported it in The
New York Times as a “fascinating research that links obesity with status” and proposed that anti-
obesity campaigns could benefit from altering the size-to-status relationship. Despite the
implications of Dubois et al.’s (2012) findings for marketing theory as well as policymaking,
independent replications of this study are not available in the literature, to the best of our
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 5
knowledge. In this replication report, we present a preregistered direct replication of the first
experiment in Dubois et al. (2012), which tested the hypothesis that choosing larger sizes in a set
of food options is associated with greater status, but does not significantly influence nonstatus
dimensions such as perceived niceness, honesty, and attractiveness.
Method
Data collection and analyses plans were preregistered prior to data collection (see
http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=j9a6je; anonymized document). Data and analyses and
materials are available at https://osf.io/ue458/?view_only=bc68746df4504e5683f8832b0dc69ee2.
The original experiment was based on 183 undergraduates (74 males); data for the
replication experiment were collected from the Amazon MTurk participant pool (N = 415, 214
males, Mage = 37.9, SDage = 11.8), as part of a larger replication effort. The sample size was
therefore a function of available resources. A power analysis shows that this sampled had 99%
power of detecting the original effect size of product size on status inferences with an alpha level
of 5%, and 99.9+% power to detect the original mixed interaction between product size and
measured dimension (status vs. nonstatus; see supplementary materials for effect size conversion
and power analyses).
Participants received $ 0.50 as compensation. As with the original experiment (Dubois et
al., 2012, Study 1), our replication comprised a 3 (size of observed choice: small, medium, large)
x 3 (product: coffee, pizza, smoothie) x 2 (dimension: status, nonstatus) mixed design with size
and product as between-subject factors and dimension as a within-subject factor. Participants
were randomly assigned to one of nine conditions.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 6
Identical to the original study, participants were asked to read about a consumption
scenario in which a consumer chose the small, medium, or large option for one of three products
(coffee, pizza, or smoothie). While price was not salient in the pizza and smoothie conditions, the
coffee was presented as free. An example scenario is presented below:
“You’re at a local smoothie shop. An individual enters in the smoothie shop, and asks for
a smoothie. The cashier explains to him that the smoothies come in three sizes: small (16 oz),
medium (24 oz) and large (30 oz), and asks him which size he would like to choose. The
individual orders the largest size.”
Following the consumption scenario, participants were asked to make judgments of the
target person on status-related (this person has high status, is respected; = 0.75) and nonstatus-
related (this person is honest, nice, attractive; = 0.80) dimensions. These judgments were
recorded with a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”).
Participants were also asked a manipulation check, in which they had to identify which among
six traits had been presented to them (Roughness, Ruggedness, Niceness, Brutality, Suavity,
Intelligence). A total of 338 participants correctly selected “Niceness” (171 males, 167 females,
Mage = 39.05, SDage = 11.90). Results with or without exclusion were very similar. In order to
maximize statistical power and give the original effect the best chance to be detected, in the
tables we report all data without exclusion.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 7
Table 1
Classification of the replications presented here, based on LeBel et al. 2017
Design facet
In this replication
IV operationalization
same
DV operationalization
same
IV stimuli
same
DV stimuli
same
Procedural details
same
Physical settings
different
Contextual variables
different
Replication classification
Close replication
Results
Descriptive statistics for each condition are presented in Table 1. We first analyzed the full
3 (size) x 3 (product) x 2 (dimension) mixed-factorial model using repeated measures ANOVA.
As seen in Table 2, the only significant effect was the main effect of dimension, such that,
regardless of the experimental condition, participants rated the target consumers lower on the
status-related dimensions (M = 4.43, SE = 0.05) than the nonstatus-related dimensions (M = 4.77,
SE = 0.05; t(406) = 9.56, p < .001).
Table 2
Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for status- and nonstatus-related dimensions
across experimental conditions.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 8
Status-related dimensions
Nonstatus-related dimensions
High
Status
Respected
Status
(combined)
Honest
Nice
Attractive
Nonstatus
(combined)
Coffee:
Small (n = 40)
4.47
(1.32)
5.10
(1.06)
4.79
(0.93)
5.42
(1.11)
5.45
(1.22)
4.72
(1.11)
5.20
(0.84)
Medium (n = 49)
4.35
(1.35)
4.63
(1.27)
4.49
(1.24)
4.96
(1.22)
4.86
(1.32)
4.47
(1.26)
4.76
(1.14)
Large (n = 48)
4.21
(1.29)
4.42
(1.18)
4.31
(1.14)
4.90
(1.26)
4.56
(1.13)
4.31
(1.07)
4.59
(0.97)
Smoothie:
Small (n = 45)
3.98
(1.36)
4.64
(1.17)
4.31
(1.15)
5.00
(1.04)
4.91
(1.02)
4.67
(1.26)
4.86
(0.91)
Medium (n = 43)
4.33
(1.34)
4.65
(1.31)
4.49
(1.21)
4.98
(1.26)
4.93
(1.08)
4.51
(1.26)
4.81
(1.03)
Large (n = 46)
4.07
(1.20)
4.57
(1.42)
4.32
(1.11)
4.98
(1.29)
4.89
(1.27)
4.33
(1.28)
4.73
(1.10)
Pizza:
Small (n = 43)
4.21
(1.17)
4.44
(1.03)
4.33
(0.99)
4.72
(1.18)
4.58
(0.96)
4.37
(0.93)
4.56
(0.77)
Medium (n = 53)
4.34
(1.33)
4.58
(1.18)
4.46
(1.17)
4.98
(1.32)
4.83
(1.22)
4.40
(1.23)
4.74
(1.13)
Large (n = 48)
4.33
(1.46)
4.56
(1.11)
4.45
(1.12)
4.92
(1.18)
4.90
(1.06)
4.50
(1.15)
4.77
(0.98)
Average:
Small (n = 128)
4.21
(1.29)
4.72
(1.12)
4.47
(1.05)
5.04
(1.14)
4.97
(1.12)
4.59
(1.11)
4.87
(0.88)
Medium (n = 145)
4.39
(1.33)
4.62
(1.24)
4.48
(1.20)
4.97
(1.26)
4.87
(1.21)
4.46
(1.24)
4.77
(1.10)
Large (n = 142)
4.20
(1.32)
4.51
(1.24)
4.36
(1.12)
4.93
(1.24)
4.78
(1.16)
4.38
(1.17)
4.70
(1.01)
Next, in accord with the analyses in the original study, we collapsed the different product
scenarios and conducted a 3 (size) x 2 (dimension) repeated measures ANOVA. Again, the main
effect of dimension was significant (F(1, 412) = 91.69, p < .001, η²p = 0.18), indicating that
participants rated the individual higher on nonstatus compared to status dimension; yet, more
pertinent to the main findings of the original study that larger size choices would be associated
with perceived status (original result: F(1, 177) = 4.06, p = .03, η²p = 0.05), the interaction
between size and dimension was not significant (F(2, 412) = 0.83, p = .435, η²p < 0.01). For
status-related dimensions, choice size did not have any effect (F(2, 412) = 0.48, p = .620, η²p =
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 9
0.002). As seen in Figure 1, perceived status of the consumer did not differ across small (M =
4.46, SE =0.10), medium (M = 4.48, SE = 0.09), and large (M = 4.36, SE = 0.09) choice
conditions (for comparisons, all ps > .350). Similarly, judgments on nonstatus-related dimensions
were also not affected by the choice size manipulation (F(2, 412) = 0.94, p = .391, η²p = 0.005;
Msmall = 4.86, SE = 0.09; Mmedium = 4.77, SE = 0.08; Mlarge = 4.70, SE = 0.08; for comparisons, all
ps > .170).
Excluding participants who did not pass the attention check, we also found no significant
interaction between product size and rated dimension (F(2, 329) = 0.82, p = 0.44, η²p = 0.005).
Size had no significant effect on status traits (F(2, 335) = 0.014, p = .99, η²p < .001). In order to
maximize power in the tables and in the rest of this work we report all data without exclusion.
Figure 1. Comparisons of status- and nonstatus-related dimensions across different product sizes.
In Table 3, we present a comparison between the results of the original study and the
replication study, including following the replication classification of LeBel et al. (2019).
Although the original study reported rather large effects of product size on status perceptions, in
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 10
the replication study effects were nonsignificant in the opposite of the hypothesized direction
(status perceptions were lowest in the large product size condition).
Table 3
Comparisons for status-related dimensions between the replication and original study.
Replication Study
Original Study
Size
Comparison
Mdiffere
nce
t(412)
p
Cohen’s d
[95% CI]
Mdiff
erence
t(182)
p
Cohen’s
d *
Recalculated
Cohen’s d
[95% CI] *
Replication
classification
according to
LeBel et al. 2019
Large vs.
Small
-0.11
-0.77
.442
-0.10
[-0.34, 0.14]
1.95
4.66
.001
1.10
1.49
[1.09, 1.89]
No signal-
inconsistent
Large vs.
Medium
-0.12
-0.90
.367
-0.10
[-0.34, 0.14]
1.19
2.95
.01
0.65
0.89
[0.52, 1.26]
No signal
inconsistent
Medium vs.
Small
0.01
0.11
.916
0.01
[-0.23, 0.25]
0.76
2.27
.05
0.46
0.62
[0.26, 0.98]
No signal-
inconsistent
*see supplementary materials for a note on how the original effect sizes were recalculated
Note on the Effect Sizes
In order to compare the effect sizes, we recalculated the original effect sizes from the
reported F-values using two independent tools (Lakens, 2013; Uanhoro, 2017). For both the
interaction and the effect of product size on status, we found smaller effect sizes and slightly
higher p-values than the original. We compared effect sizes in the present replication, effect sizes
reported in the original paper, and effect sizes we recalculated based on the summary statistics
provided in the original paper, and we provided 90% confidence intervals (as it is customary with
η²p , which cannot be smaller than 0).
The original interaction was F(1, 177) = 4.06, original p = .03, recalculated p = .045,
original η²p = 0.05, but we recalculated it as η²p = 0.02, 90% CI [0.0002, 0.07]. In our replication,
we obtained the following results: F(2, 412) = 0.83, p = .435, η²p < 0.01, 90% CI [0, 0.017]
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 11
The original main effect of product size on status inferences yielded F(1, 177) = 10.22, original p
= .001, recalculated p = .002, original η²p = 0.10, recalculated η²p = 0.05, 90% CI [0.012, 0.12].
Note that the recalculated p could be due to a different rounding. Our replicated effect size on
status: F(2, 412) = 0.48, p = .620, η²p < 0.01, 90% CI [0, 0.012]. The same can be said about the
Cohen’s ds reported at page 1051. Recalculating them yields much larger effect sizes (see
supplementary materials for details), which we report in Table 3.
General Discussion
In this research note, we failed to replicate the first experiment from Dubois et al. (2012),
which found that consumers associated larger portion choices with higher status. Given the high
similarities in terms of independent and dependent variables and their operationalizations, we
classify our attempt as a close replication following LeBel et al.’s (2019) guidelines (see Table 1).
What could be the reasons for this replication failure? First, although we conducted a direct
replication in terms of materials and procedure, one major difference from the original study was
the study sample. The original experiment was based on 183 undergraduate students (average age
not available); the replication was based on 415 participants from MTurk (Mage = 37.9).
Assuming that the undergraduate sample was much younger, age might have influenced results,
such that while students could associate mundane products like coffee, smoothie, or pizza with
status, older consumers could not. Second, another possible explanation is that students on
average have lower socioeconomic status, and given the link between low socioeconomic status
and higher propensity for status consumption (Dubois and Ordabayeva, 2015), students were
more likely to associate larger portion sizes with status. Both objections, however, have yet to be
tested. In fact, there are plenty of successful replications in which an original finding obtained
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 12
with students was successfully replicated on MTurk samples (Ziano, Wang, et al., in press; Ziano,
Yao, et al., in press).
A third explanation could be the association between status and health behaviors, which
have long been associated with higher socioeconomic status (Pampel et al., 2010). Particularly,
healthy food consumption is prevalent among middle and upper social class while consumption
of unhealthy choices such as fast food is common among lower social class (Hupkens et al.,
2000; Pechey and Monsivais, 2016). This connection between status and health behaviors has
been further augmented in today’s popular culture. For instance, several famous social media
influencers are portraying a wealthy lifestyle coupled with healthy behaviors such as eating well,
meditating, and doing physical exercise (Vaterlaus et al., 2015). Consequently, it is possible that
consumers today perceive larger portion choices to be unhealthy, and do not associate such
unhealthy behaviors with status.
The findings of Dubois et al. (2012) have been greatly influential in the marketing
literature; yet, our preregistered direct replication casts doubt on the generalizability of the
relationship between larger food portions and status. We therefore strongly recommend
conducting further preregistered conceptual and direct replications to ascertain whether larger
portions in fact signal higher status. Obesity and other excessive food consumption related health
problems have significant consequences, and scientific research findings that inform
policymaking in these areas must be robust. The postulation that consumers signal status via
choosing larger portions is certainly novel and worthwhile to examine. Nevertheless, we
conclude that the evidence for this postulation remains inconclusive until further replications are
available in the literature.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 13
References
Dubois D and Ordabayeva N (2015) Social hierarchy, social status, and status consumption. In:
The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology. Cambridge Handbooks in
Psychology. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press, pp. 332–367. DOI:
10.1017/CBO9781107706552.013.
Dubois D, Rucker DD and Galinsky AD (2012) Super Size Me: Product Size as a Signal of
Status. Journal of Consumer Research 38(6): 1047–1062. DOI: 10.1086/661890.
Grewal D (2011) When You Try to Buy Status, It Can Backfire. Available at:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-lure-trap-luxury-goods/
(accessed 19 December 2019).
Hupkens CLH, Knibbe RA and Drop MJ (2000) Social class differences in food consumptionThe
explanatory value of permissiveness and health and cost considerations. European
Journal of Public Health 10(2): 108–113. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/10.2.108.
Lakens D (2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a
practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology 4. Frontiers. DOI:
10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
LeBel EP, Vanpaemel W, Cheung I, et al. (2019) A Brief Guide to Evaluate Replications. Meta-
Psychology 3. DOI: 10.15626/MP.2018.843.
Pampel FC, Krueger PM and Denney JT (2010) Socioeconomic Disparities in Health Behaviors.
Annual review of sociology 36: 349–370. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102529.
Pechey R and Monsivais P (2016) Socioeconomic inequalities in the healthiness of food choices:
Exploring the contributions of food expenditures. Preventive Medicine 88: 203–209. DOI:
10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.012.
Steenhuis I and Poelman M (2017) Portion Size: Latest Developments and Interventions. Current
Obesity Reports 6(1): 10–17. DOI: 10.1007/s13679-017-0239-x.
Uanhoro J (2017) Effect Size Calculators. Available at: https://effect-size-
calculator.herokuapp.com/ (accessed 28 February 2020).
Vandenbroele J, Van Kerckhove A and Zlatevska N (2019) Portion size effects vary: The size of
food units is a bigger problem than the number. Appetite 140: 27–40. DOI:
10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.025.
Vaterlaus JM, Patten EV, Roche C, et al. (2015) #Gettinghealthy: The perceived influence of
social media on young adult health behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior 45: 151–
157. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.013.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 14
Villarica H (2011) Study of the Day: What That Venti Coffee Really Says About You. Available
at: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/11/study-of-the-day-what-that-venti-
coffee-really-says-about-you/247864/ (accessed 19 December 2019).
Warren J (2011) A New Linkage Offers Possibilities in the Anti-Obesity Campaign. The New York
Times, 3 November. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/us/a-new-linkage-
offers-possibilities-in-the-anti-obesity-campaign.html (accessed 19 December 2019).
Ziano I, Yao D, Gao Y, et al. (in press) Impact of ownership on liking and value: Replications and
extensions of three ownership effect experiments. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16962.84163/3.
Ziano I, Wang YJ, Sany SS, et al. (in press) Perceived morality of direct versus indirect harm:
Replications of the preference for indirect harm effect. Meta Psychology. DOI:
10.31234/osf.io/bs7jf.
Zlatevska N, Dubelaar C and Holden SS (2014) Sizing up the Effect of Portion Size on
Consumption: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Marketing 78(3): 140–154. DOI:
10.1509/jm.12.0303.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 15
Super Size Me: A Preregistered Replication
Supplementary materials
Table of contents
Data and analyses ......................................................................................................... 16
Post-hoc power analyses ............................................................................................... 18
Dimension by product size interaction ..................................................................... 18
Recalculation of original Cohen’s d effect sizes .......................................................... 22
Difference between small and large product size on status inferences .................... 22
Difference between medium and large product size on status inferences ................ 23
Difference between small and medium product size on status inferences ............... 23
Original survey ............................................................................................................. 25
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 16
Data and analyses
Data collection and analyses plans were preregistered prior to data collection (see
http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=j9a6je; anonymized document). Data, analyses and materials
are available at https://osf.io/ue458/?view_only=bc68746df4504e5683f8832b0dc69ee2.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 17
Table S1
Difference and similarities between original studies and replication attempts
Dubois et al.
(2012) Experiment
1
Present
replication
Sample size
183
415
Geographic origin
Not reported
US American
Gender
74 males, 109
females
214 males, 199
females
Average age
(years)
Not reported
37.9 years old
Medium (location)
Not reported
Computer (online)
Compensation
Not reported
$0.50
Year
Not reported (on or
before 2012)
2019
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 18
Post-hoc power analyses
Dimension by product size interaction
Figure S1. Converting interaction η2p into Cohen’s f, using Uanhoro (2019) online calculator.
Note that using this method, the effect size we obtained is smaller than the one reported in the
original paper, even though we used the same summary statistics they provided. Therefore, the
subsequent power analysis is very conservative, since it is relative to an effect size 2p = .022)
about half the size of the one reported in Dubois et al. (2012), 2p = .05)
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 19
Figure S2. Power analyses for the interaction between product size and status vs. non status
dimension.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 20
Figure S3. Converting main effect of product size on status η2p into Cohen’s f, using Uanhoro
(2019) online calculator. Note that using this method, the effect size we obtained is smaller than
the one reported in the original paper, even though we used the same summary statistics they
provided. Therefore, the subsequent power analysis is very conservative, since it is relative to an
effect size 2p = .055) about half the size of the one reported in Dubois et al. (2012) 2p = .10).
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 21
Figure S4. Power analysis for the effect of product size on status inferences given our sample.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 22
Recalculation of original Cohen’s d effect sizes
Note: we recalculated and report the original article Cohen’s ds assuming that cell size
(small, medium, large size) is equal. Here, we also report somewhat extreme differences in cell
size. Still, the effect size does not change dramatically, and in fact is even farther away compared
to the original estimates (small-large d = 1.10; small-medium d = 0.46; medium-large d = 0.65).
We note that the reported p-values are also inconsistent with the reported means.
Difference between small and large product size on status inferences
Figure S5. Difference between small and large product size on status inferences, assuming equal
cell sizes. Calculated with Lakens’ (2013) method.
Figure S6. Difference between small and large product size on status inferences, assuming
unequal cell sizes. Calculated with Lakens’ (2013) method.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 23
Difference between medium and large product size on status inferences
Figure S7. Difference between medium and large product size on status inferences, assuming
equal cell sizes. Calculated with Lakens’ (2013) method.
Figure S8. Difference between medium and large product size on status inferences, assuming
unequal cell sizes. Calculated with Lakens’ (2013) method.
Difference between small and medium product size on status inferences
Figure S9. Difference between medium and small product size on status inferences, assuming
equal cell sizes. Calculated with Lakens’ (2013) method.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 24
Figure S10. Difference between medium and small product size on status inferences, assuming
unequal cell sizes. Calculated with Lakens’ (2013) method.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 25
Original survey
Month In which month were you born?
▼ January ... December
Day Which day were you born?
▼ 1 ... 31
gender What's your gender?
o Male
o Female
age What's your age?
18
26
34
43
51
59
67
75
84
92
100
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 26
job Which statement best describes your current employment status?
o Working (paid employee)
o Working (self-employed)
o Not working (temporary layoff from a job)
o Not working (looking for work)
o Not working (retired)
o Not working (disabled)
o Not working (other) ________________________________________________
o Prefer not to answer
End of Block: demographics_tot
Start of Block: Super Size Me: Product Size as a Signal of Status
Smoothie_large You’re at a local smoothie shop. An individual enters in the smoothie shop, and
asks for a smoothie. The cashier explains to him that the smoothies come in three sizes: small
(16 oz), medium (24 oz) and large (30 oz), and asks him which size he would like to choose.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 27
The individual orders the largest size.
Please rate the individual on the following traits.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
High
status
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Respected
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Smoothie_medium You’re at a local smoothie shop. An individual enters in the smoothie shop,
and asks for a smoothie. The cashier explains to him that the smoothies come in three sizes:
small (16 oz), medium (24 oz) and large (30 oz), and asks him which size he would like to
choose.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 28
The individual orders the medium size.
Please rate this individual on the following traits.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
High
status
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Respected
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Smoothie_small You’re at a local smoothie shop. An individual enters in the smoothie shop, and
asks for a smoothie. The cashier explains to him that the smoothies come in three sizes: small
(16 oz), medium (24 oz) and large (30 oz), and asks him which size he would like to choose.
The individual orders the smallest size.
Please rate this individual on the following traits.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
High
status
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Respected
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 29
Coffee_large You’re at a local restaurant An individual enters in the restaurant, he knows the
restaurant provide free coffee. The cashier explains to him that the coffee come in three sizes:
small (8 oz), medium (12 oz) and large (16 oz), and asks him which size he would like to
choose.
The individual orders the largest size.
Please rate this individual on the following traits.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
High
status
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Respected
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Coffee_medium You’re at a local restaurant An individual enters in the restaurant, he knows the
restaurant provide free coffee. The cashier explains to him that the coffee come in three sizes:
small (8 oz), medium (12 oz) and large (16 oz), and asks him which size he would like to
choose.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 30
The individual orders the medium size.
Please rate this individual on the following traits.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
High
status
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Respected
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Coffee_small You’re at a local restaurant An individual enters in the restaurant, he knows the
restaurant provide free coffee. The cashier explains to him that the coffee come in three sizes:
small (8 oz), medium (12 oz) and large (16 oz), and asks him which size he would like to
choose.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 31
The individual orders the smallest size.
Please rate this individual on the following traits.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
High
status
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Respected
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Pizza_large You’re at a local pizzeria. An individual enters in the pizzeria, and asks for a pizza.
The cashier explains to him that the pizza come in three sizes: small (12 inch), medium (14 inch)
and large (16 inch), and asks him which size he would like to choose.
The individual orders the largest size.
Please rate this individual on the following traits.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
High
status
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Respected
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 32
Pizza_medium You’re at a local pizzeria. An individual enters in the pizzeria, and asks for a
pizza. The cashier explains to him that the pizza come in three sizes: small (12 inch), medium
(14 inch) and large (16 inch), and asks him which size he would like to choose.
The individual orders the medium size.
Please rate this individual on the following traits.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
High
status
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Respected
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Pizza_small You’re at a local pizzeria. An individual enters in the pizzeria, and asks for a pizza.
The cashier explains to him that the pizza come in three sizes: small (12 inch), medium (14 inch)
and large (16 inch), and asks him which size he would like to choose.
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 33
The individual orders the smallest size.
Please rate this individual on the following traits.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
High
status
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Respected
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Honest
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Nice
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
End of Block: Super Size Me: Product Size as a Signal of Status
Start of Block: att_check
att_check Among the following traits, on what were you asked to judge the individual?
o Roughness
o Ruggedness
o Niceness
o Brutality
o Suavity
o Intelligence
End of Block: att_check
Start of Block: CODE AND FEEDBACK
PRODUCT SIZE AND STATUS: REPLICATION 34
feedback If you have any comments, please write them down in the box below
________________________________________________________________
code This is the code you need to copy and paste:
CGNHNN
End of Block: CODE AND FEEDBACK
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The ownership effect is the phenomenon that owning an object increases liking and ‎perceived value of that object (Beggan, 1992). We conducted close replications of three ‎ownership effect experiments using different paradigms in two data collections (MTurk, ‎total n = 1312). We successfully replicated Nuttin’s (1987) name-letter effect with ‎participants rating a higher liking for letters of the alphabet included in their first names ‎‎(vs. letters not included) (Study 1: d = 1.08 to 1.42). We found partial support for Mandel ‎‎(2002), with participants indicating higher price for an object when they were the owners ‎‎(vs. non-owners) (original: d = 0.50; Study 3a: d = 0.65; Study 3b: d = 0.49), but mixed ‎findings regarding the hypothesized moderator. Finally, we failed to find support for Irmak, ‎Wakslak, and Trope’s (2013) study that showed differences in prices set by sellers/owners ‎and buyers (original: d = 0.99; Study 2a: d = 0.10; Study 2b: d = 0.01 to 0.06). Our results ‎suggest that ownership effects may depend on the paradigm of choice. We discuss potential ‎moderators of the ownership effect and suggest future research directions. Materials, ‎datasets, and code are available on https://osf.io/2cg3e/ .‎
Article
Full-text available
Royzman and Baron (2002) demonstrated that people prefer indirect harm to direct harm: ‎they judge actions that produce harm as a by-product to be more moral than actions that ‎produce harm directly. In two preregistered studies, we successfully replicated Study 2 of ‎Royzman and Baron (2002) with a Hong Kong student sample (N = 46) and an online ‎American Mechanical Turk sample (N = 314). We found consistent evidential support for ‎the preference for indirect harm phenomenon (d = 0.46 [0.26, 0.65] to 0.47 [0.18, 0.75]), ‎weaker than effects reported in the original findings of the target article (d = 0.70 [0.40, ‎‎0.99]). We also successfully replicated findings regarding reasons underlying a preference ‎for indirect harm (directness, intent, omission, probability of harm, and appearance of ‎harm). All materials, data, and code are available on: https://osf.io/ewq8g/
Article
Full-text available
The importance of replication is becoming increasingly appreciated, however, considerably less consensus exists about how to evaluate the design and results of replications. We make concrete recommendations on how to evaluate replications with more nuance than what is typically done currently in the literature. We highlight six study characteristics that are crucial for evaluating replications: replication method similarity, replication differences, investigator independence, method/data transparency, analytic result reproducibility, and auxiliary hypotheses’ plausibility evidence. We also recommend a more nuanced approach to statistically interpret replication results at the individual-study and meta-analytic levels, and propose clearer language to communicate replication results.
Article
Full-text available
While it is well-known that larger food portions lead to increased consumption (i.e., the portion size effect), previous studies confound the effect of the size and the number of food units making up the larger portion. Moreover, empirical tests of the mechanism underlying the portions size effect are scarce. In response to these shortcomings, we present three experiments that test the impact of food unit-size and unit-number on consumption of increasingly large portion sizes, and assess whether perceptions of quantity (driven by unit size or number)mediate the portion size effect. Study 1 (n = 185), tracking actual consumption, shows that the portion size effect is determined more by unit-size than unit-number. Relative consumption ratios are higher when participants were served portions made up of enlarged food units compared to more food units. Since perceived quantity and consumption are thought to be negatively related, Study 2 (n = 193)reveals that consumers’ quantity perceptions of portions are lower for unit-size (vs. unit-number)increases. Study 3 (n = 189)considers both perceived quantity and consumption and demonstrates that perceived quantity indeed mediates the effect of food portion size on consumption. Finally, this study also shows that encouraging consumers to focus perceptually on size when portion size increases are in terms of unit-size, or focus on number when portion size increases are in terms of unit-number, supports them in increasing quantity perceptions and decreasing actual consumption. Hence, manipulating the perceptual focus of consumers helps to mitigate the portion size effect. The findings contribute to literature on the portion size effect and numerosity heuristic, and provide practical insights on food packaging so to tackle the obesity crisis.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose of review: The aim of this review is to provide an overview of (1) underlying mechanisms of the effect of portion size on energy intake, (2) external factors explaining the portion size effect and (3) interventions and measurements aimed at food portion size. Recent findings: Previous studies have shown that portion sizes have increased in recent decades. Many experimental studies have been conducted to unravel the mechanisms underlying the portion-size effect on food intake (e.g. the appropriateness mechanism, the 'unit bias' mechanism, the 'previous experience/expectation' mechanism, the 'visual cue' mechanism and the 'bite size' mechanism). In addition, external factors have been found to drive food portion selection and consumption (e.g. value for money, mindless eating, levels of awareness, estimation bias. Research on several interventions (ranging from 'providing information' to 'eliminating choice') have been conducted, but remain scarce, especially intervention studies in which portion size is a key focus in weight loss. Moreover, only three new instruments with respect to portion control behavior have been developed. There is considerable evidence for the portion-size effect on energy intake. However, the work on interventions targeting portion size and measurements for portion control behavior are limited. Moreover, from the literature it is not yet clear what type of interventions work best, for whom and in what context.
Article
Full-text available
Investigations of the contribution of food costs to socioeconomic inequalities in diet quality may have been limited by the use of estimated (vs. actual) food expenditures, not accounting for where individuals shop, and possible reverse mediation between food expenditures and healthiness of food choices. This study aimed to explore the extent to which food expenditure mediates socioeconomic inequalities in the healthiness of household food choices. Observational panel data on take-home food and beverage purchases, including expenditure, throughout 2010 were obtained for 24,879 UK households stratified by occupational social class. Purchases of (1) fruit and vegetables and (2) less-healthy foods/beverages indicated healthiness of choices. Supermarket choice was determined by whether households ever visited market-defined high-price and/or low-price supermarkets. Results showed that higher occupational social class was significantly associated with greater food expenditure, which was in turn associated with healthier purchasing. In mediation analyses, 63% of the socioeconomic differences in choices of less-healthy foods/beverages were mediated by expenditure, and 36% for fruit and vegetables, but these figures were reduced to 53% and 31% respectively when controlling for supermarket choice. However, reverse mediation analyses were also significant, suggesting that 10% of socioeconomic inequalities in expenditure were mediated by healthiness of choices. Findings suggest that lower food expenditure is likely to be a key contributor to less-healthy food choices among lower socioeconomic groups. However, the potential influence of cost may have been overestimated previously if studies did not account for supermarket choice or explore possible reverse mediation between expenditure and healthiness of choices.
Chapter
Full-text available
Status consumption has recently sparked the interest of many researchers in consumer behavior and marketing. This chapter delineates the relationship between social hierarchy and social status, offers a multi-disciplinary review of recent research in the area, and outlines the most promising avenues for future research. In the first part of the chapter we describe the basic principles of social hierarchy and status. We adopt a holistic view of social status and review the defining dimensions of status signals as well as the broad consequences of having or lacking status. We then describe how social hierarchies shape status attainment and maintenance. In the second part of the chapter, we focus on status processes embedded in consumer contexts. Specifically, we introduce the notion of status consumption and define its main roles – associative, dissociative, compensatory, and uncertainty-reducer. We then review recent findings on the antecedents or consequences of status consumption. In the final section we propose several promising directions for future research on the psychology and economics of status. Given that consumer settings are natural areas for the creation, growth and use of status signals, the marketplace constitutes a particularly well-suited field of investigation for status research.
Article
Full-text available
Food marketing is facing increasing challenges in using portion size (e.g., “supersizing”) as a marketing tool. Marketers use portion size to attract customers and encourage purchase, but social agencies are expressing concern that larger portion sizes encourage greater consumption. This in turn raises concerns about excessive consumption and obesity. This paper addresses two questions that are central to this debate: How much effect does portion size have on consumption, and are there limits to this effect? A meta-analytic review revealed that, for a doubling of portion size, consumption increases by 35% on average. However, the effect has limits. An extended analysis showed that the effect of portion size is curvilinear: as portions become increasingly larger, the effect diminishes. In addition, although the portion-size effect is widespread and robust across a range of individual and environmental factors, the analysis showed that the portion-size effect is weaker among children, women, and overweight individuals, for non-snack food items and in contexts in which more attention is being given to the food being eaten.
Article
This research proposes that consumers’ preference for supersized food and drinks may have roots in the status-signaling value of larger options. An initial experiment found that consumers view larger-sized options within a set as having greater status. Because low-power consumers desire status, we manipulated power to test our core propositions. Whether induced in the lab or in the field, states of powerlessness led individuals to disproportionately choose larger food options from an assortment. Furthermore, this preference for larger-sized options was enhanced when consumption was public, reversed when the size-to-status relationship was negative (i.e., smaller was equated with greater status), and mediated by consumers’ need for status. This research demonstrates that choosing a product on the basis of its relative size allows consumers to signal status, illustrates the consequences of such a choice for consumers’ food consumption, and highlights the central role of a product category’s size-to-status relationship in driving consumer choice.