Main Findings of the Paper
The Red Sneakers Effect: Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity
Task
Two sections of the submission
1. Write down the main findings of the paper (1 point)
What is (are) the research question(s) and what did they find?
Do not copy summary from the paper, put findings yourself
To the point and concise
Do not go from one study to the next
Summarize as a paper
Recommended length from ½ page to ¾ page
Task
2. Discuss 4 or more points from below, where you have an input (4 points)
Any research answers some questions and raises some interesting
questions/insightful queries. But also every research has its limitations or
problems
This part of the assignment is aimed at appreciating these ideas together
You need two parts
Some criticisms of the paper and some boundaries
At least one of each
Total of 4 or more
Do not just list the points
Discuss them!
ask: criticisms
We are looking for a particular type of criticisms
Should always relate back to the research question of the authors
Not only a problem is required, but also why it would favor the author’s
findings and if you test it without that problem this effect would disappear
Do not use criticisms like the following as they are always true of any
research
Authors did not test this in another country
Authors did not have 50% male and 50% female
Why?
You only need to argue, no support is needed
No citations etc. needed from other papers
Task: criticisms
E.g., the paper indicated that they would like to test the relationship of asking versus
instructing people to donate on the donation amounts. However, in the experiments, the
authors also used stronger words when instructing people to donate. This is a problem as
they might get their findings because the stronger words can lead them to donate and this
might have nothing to do with asking or instructing
Task: criticisms
Making a criticism
Some templates
Template 1
Step 1: Indicate what the author did
Step 2: What is the problem with that?
Step 3: How would this problem will favor the results that authors got. Suggest if they
would have done it in your way (indicate what it is), they would get opposite/no results
Template 2
Step 1: Indicate who did the author use in the study
Step 2: These subjects do a certain thing or have certain characteristics
Step 3: This IS the reason why they got these results, if they would use subject B
(indicate who), the results would be opposite/not present
Task: criticisms
Some templates
Template 3
Step 1: Indicate what the author stated they will do
Step 2: What did they actually do
Step 3: How are these two different and would impact the results in a way that will
favor authors’ hypothesis.
Template 4
Step 1: What is reason authors gave for why this effect happened
Step 2: What can be an alternative reason why this effect happened
Step 3: Provide an example of when authors effect would not happen where it is
supposed to, or when effect would happen even if authors explanation does not
support it
Task: criticisms
Please do not say that the results might be DIFFERENT, or if they do this or
the results MIGHT change if they do this
You need to be able to build an argument where there is reasonable doubt about
whether the results of the study are actually true or not
When you are not sure, ask yourself
If you put this criticism to the author, would he/she say, okay I think future studies
can check that or good point but that does not question our findings
Or would he/she say, oh we have not thought about that? Yes, if that is the case, then
our results might not hold. Or the authors will say yes, but I still think my explanation
can also be true under some other circumstances. Or they argue with you if your case
is true.
If your criticism is of the second type, you are doing fine
If it is the first type, think of something else
ask: boundaries or extending the paper
Indicate some ways in which the findings of the paper can be applied to
interesting scenarios in the industry
Go beyond the usual application e.g., this research takes about increasing shoe sales, it
can be applied in shoe stores
Duh!!
Examples of where from the research it should apply (based on the paper), but there
are reasons why it should not or where this will be very different than examples
provided
Make sure this application is not the same as mentioned in the paper
In criticism we are questioning the paper, in boundaries we are finding
exceptions
Just like criticism
Make sure that the application is based on specific research question in the paper and
not the context, one of the variables in the paper etc. i.e., it has to be an application of
the FULL research question
Task: application or extending
applications
Biggest problems:
Usual/not interesting applications
Same applications that authors tested or reported in the paper
Application not about author’s research question
Do
Find places where you are not sure if this breaks
Find places where it might be okay to apply, but it goes against
the intuitive understanding
Task: application or extending
applications
E.g., this research talks about how using complex words in ads lower
people’s liking of the ad. Based on the paper, I wonder if this is true
for ads for books or literature. It will be counterintuitive if ads for
selling literature are more liked if they are written using simple
words. <talk about why is it counterintuitive or add more
information to this idea>
Main Findings of the Paper
The research question of the paper titled “The Red Sneakers Effect: Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity” is whether individuals who deviate from social norms are perceived as having higher status and competence. The authors conducted a series of experiments to investigate this question and found the following main findings:
Nonconformity signals higher status: The authors found that individuals who deviated from social norms were perceived as having higher status compared to those who conformed. This effect was observed across different contexts, such as clothing choices and opinions.
Nonconformity signals competence: In addition to higher status, nonconformity was also associated with perceived competence. Participants rated nonconforming individuals as more competent than conforming individuals.
Moderating effects of expertise and status cues: The perceived status and competence associated with nonconformity were influenced by the presence of expertise cues and status cues. When nonconforming individuals were perceived to have expertise or high status, the effect was stronger.
Boundary conditions: The authors also explored the boundary conditions of the red sneakers effect. They found that the effect was attenuated when nonconforming behavior was associated with negative outcomes or when individuals had low social desirability.
Overall, the findings of the paper suggest that deviating from social norms can lead to positive perceptions of status and competence. These perceptions are influenced by various factors, such as expertise cues and status cues.
Criticisms of the Paper
Limited generalizability: One criticism of the paper is that the experiments were conducted in controlled laboratory settings, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to real-world situations. The artificial nature of the experiments may not fully capture the complexities of social interactions and the influence of nonconformity on status and competence perceptions in everyday life.
Lack of diverse samples: Another criticism is that the participants in the experiments were predominantly college students, which may not represent a diverse range of individuals across different age groups, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This limited sample may affect the external validity of the findings and their applicability to broader populations.
Failure to address reverse causality: The paper primarily focuses on the perception of status and competence resulting from nonconformity but does not adequately address reverse causality. It is possible that individuals with higher status and competence are more likely to engage in nonconforming behaviors, rather than nonconformity leading to increased perceptions of status and competence.
Potential confounding variables: The experiments conducted in the paper examined the effects of nonconformity on status and competence perceptions, but there may be confounding variables that were not adequately controlled for. Factors such as attractiveness, likability, or specific characteristics of the nonconforming behavior may have influenced participants’ perceptions.
Boundary Conditions and Extending the Paper
Workplace contexts: The findings of the paper can be extended to explore how nonconformity influences perceptions of status and competence in workplace environments. For example, examining how employees who deviate from traditional workplace norms are perceived by their colleagues and superiors could provide insights into the dynamics of status and competence in professional settings.
Cultural differences: The paper primarily focuses on nonconformity within Western cultures. Extending the research to explore cultural differences in the perception of nonconformity could reveal interesting insights into how societal norms impact status and competence judgments across different cultures.
Nonverbal cues: The paper primarily focuses on nonconforming behaviors and their impact on status and competence perceptions. However, extending the research to examine nonverbal cues, such as clothing choices or body language, could further elucidate the role of nonconformity in shaping social judgments.
Long-term consequences: The paper primarily focuses on immediate perceptions of status and competence resulting from nonconformity. Exploring the long-term consequences of these perceptions, such as career advancement or social influence, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of nonconformity on individuals’ lives.
In conclusion, while the paper provides valuable insights into the perception of status and competence resulting from nonconformity, there are limitations to consider. Criticisms regarding generalizability, sample diversity, reverse causality, and potential confounding variables should be acknowledged. Additionally, extending the research to different contexts and exploring boundary conditions can contribute to a deeper understanding of the red sneakers effect.