Selling Out 1

Selling Out: Producer Motives in Markets for Art

AMIT BHATTACHARJEE

JONATHAN Z. BERMAN

JASON DANA

BARBARA MELLERS*

UNDER REVIEW – PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE OR QUOTE WITHOUT

PERMISSION

Selling Out 2

*Amit Bhattacharjee ([email protected]) is a visiting assistant professor of

marketing at the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. Jonathan Z.

Berman ([email protected]) is a PhD candidate in marketing at The Wharton School,

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Jason Dana ([email protected]) is a

visiting assistant professor in organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management, Yale

University, New Haven, CT 06511. Barbara Mellers ([email protected]) is the I.

George Heyman University Professor of Psychology and Marketing at the University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. The authors thank Ethan Fixell and Evan Grove for

providing stimuli for the first two studies.

Contribution Statement

Although prior research has found that people judge the value of art based on characteristics of the artist, very little empirical work has examined whether inferences about an artists’ mental states can affect how their artwork is evaluated. To our knowledge, the current research is the first to investigate the normative standards by which consumers judge the motives of producers, and it identifies a distinction between markets for artistic and commercial products. This research is also the first to examine consumer judgments of selling out, or perceptions that producers have violated normative standards of integrity to pursue external rewards. The current findings highlight how consumers’ inferences about the motives of producers can shape their product evaluations even in the absence of objective differences, and point to a more general framework for understanding normative beliefs across market contexts.

Selling Out 3

Although producers are often evaluated favorably for demonstrating a willingness to change their

products to satisfy consumer needs, there may important exceptions in some market contexts.

Five experiments identify a fundamental difference between markets for commercial and artistic

products. Consumers reward commercial producers who focus on satisfying consumer

preferences, and view their products as higher in quality, but penalize artistic producers who do the same. Artistic producers who seek to satisfy consumer preferences are seen as selling out, or

compromising their integrity for external rewards. Consumers associate artistic integrity with

self-expression, which drives their perceptions of artistic product quality. Accordingly,

consumers prefer artists who seek only to satisfy their own preferences and ignore the preferences of others, even those of expert critics who typically define the standards of quality in artistic domains.

Selling Out 4

“When any creativity becomes useful, it is sucked into the vortex of commercialism, and when a thing becomes commercial, it becomes the enemy of man.” – Arthur Miller

Imagine you are thinking about buying a new home stereo system. Suppose you learned that its manufacturer conducted extensive market research to understand what features consumers desire, and created the stereo specifically to satisfy those desires. Would you feel better or worse about the quality of the stereo? Now consider a new song you might listen to on that stereo system. If you learned that the artist had conducted extensive market research and created the song to satisfy consumer desires, would you feel better or worse about the song?

Markets are founded on the premise that consumers prefer products that best meet their needs and desires. Fundamental business principles suggest that producers who understand consumer desires, and design products in accordance with these desires, tend to be most successful (Kotler and Keller 2011; Levitt 1960). Moreover, consumer preferences often define standards of product quality (Golder, Mitra and Moorman 2012). Consequently, it makes sense for producers to signal a willingness to adjust their products to match consumer preferences.

Yet, in contrast to the apparent desirability of responding to consumer desires, markets for artistic products abound with examples of producers who actively avoid signaling a concern for consumer preferences. Artists spanning different media and historical eras—from Donatello to James Joyce to Ingmar Bergman to Andy Kaufman —have been lauded for their very lack of sensitivity to consumer preferences (Cowen 1998). Commercially successful artists like Steven

Spielberg are often careful to assert that their popularity is a byproduct of their work rather than an objective (Hirschman 1983). Meanwhile, modern musical artists that emerge from satisfying niche tastes to gain widespread success, such as Metallica, Black Eyed Peas, and Arcade Fire, are carefully scrutinized and denounced for any evidence that they are intentionally trying to Selling Out 5

grow their audience (Powers 2011; Sisario 2010). While countless anecdotes suggest that

markets for artistic products are unique, little empirical work has systematically examined how the motives and intentions of producers affect consumer evaluations of products across different types of markets.

In this paper, we investigate how the motives of artistic producers affect how their work is perceived. Specifically, we examine consumer judgments of selling out, or perceptions that

producers have compromised their integrity in order to pursue external incentives. Across five studies, we demonstrate that consumers prefer artists who create products that they themselves

will most like rather than products that they believe others will most like. Artists who create

products to meet the preferences of others are labeled as “sellouts,” because they are perceived to

have compromised their artistic integrity for external rewards. Responsiveness to others’

preferences undermines quality perceptions and decreases purchase likelihood. Importantly, we

show that these integrity standards do not apply to commercial products. In fact, commercial

producers are rewarded rather than penalized for creating products to match others’ preferences.

SELF-EXPRESSION AND THE VALUE OF ART

Art has played a central role in every known human society (Dutton 2009). According to

scholarly definitions, artists create art in order to express their subjective conceptions of beauty,

emotion, or meaning (Bullot and Reber 2013; Hirschman 1983). Art is expressed “purely for its

own sake” (Holbrook and Zirlin 1985, p. 13), distinguishing it from utilitarian or commercial

products created by craftsmen to serve other functions (Becker 1978). Though scholars disagree

on the precise definition of art (Wartenberg 2006), we restrict our inquiry to consumers’ Selling Out 6

subjective evaluations of art. Hence, we focus on consumer perceptions of art rather than

imposing any particular a priori definition (cf. Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008). In other words, we

focus on whether consumers perceive that a product is intended as art or as a commercial

product. Though commercial products are evaluated in terms of their practical utility, prior

research suggests that consumers often rely on other factors to evaluate artistic quality.

First, artistic products derive value from their connection to the artist. Artwork is thought

to be imbued with the essence and properties of the artist (Newman, Diesendruck and Bloom

2011; Rozin, Millman and Nemeroff 1986). As a result, the value of an artistic product depends

on whether it was created by the artist (i.e., if it is an original or an exact replica) and the degree of contact with the artist responsible for its creation (Newman and Bloom 2012). Similarly, consumers’ subjective experiences and evaluations of an artistic product depend on the identity and reputation of the producer. For instance, consumers evaluate a poem more favorably when they are told that it was authored by a prestigious poet rather than an unknown poet (Bar-Hillel,

Maharshak, Moshinsky and Nofech 2012). Second, the value of art is tied to the processes that result in its creation (Dutton 2009). Artistic products represent the end result of an artistic performance (Newman and Bloom 2012), and greater perceived effort in creation can enhance evaluations (Kruger, Wirtz, Van Boven and Altermatt 2004).

These findings suggest that artistic products are expected to be self-expressive and reflect characteristics of the artist. Moreover, recent theoretical perspectives propose that perceptions of artists’ mental states play a crucial role in artistic appreciation (Bullot and Reber 2013). Holding all else constant, this theory suggests that consumers may view art differently based on their understanding of the artist’s thoughts during the creative process. Consistent with this possibility, some developmental work shows that children as young as two try to determine an artist’s Selling Out 7

intentions to help identify the content of ambiguous pictures (Preissler and Bloom 2008). Yet, it

remains unclear how consumers draw inferences about artists’ mental states and how these

inferences affect their evaluations of art. We expect that consumers’ perceptions of the motives

and intentions of artists will shape their view of the extent to which an artwork is self-expressive,

or truly reflective of the artists’ desires, and thus may affect their evaluations.

PRODUCER MOTIVES AND SELLING OUT

If the value of art is tied to self-expression, then consumers may dislike artists who try to

satisfy the tastes of others. Artistic producers who do so may be seen as failing to fulfill the self-

expressive purpose of art, weakening the degree of connection between artists and their artwork.

Hence, if consumers believe that a lack of self-expression degrades the value of art, then their evaluations of artistic products will be sensitive to producers’ motives in the creative process. In

addition, because art is an experiential product, quality expectations are especially likely to shape

the actual enjoyment of its consumption (Bar-Hillel et al. 2012; Golder et al. 2012; Lee,

Frederick and Ariely 2006; Wilcox, Roggeveen and Grewal 2011). For these reasons, we

propose that consumer judgments of artistic quality will depend on perceptions that the artist

focused on his own tastes rather than the tastes of others.

Moreover, we propose that these effects on consumer quality judgments will be driven by

perceptions of artistic integrity. Markets for artistic products provide incentives to satisfy others

(Cowen and Tabarrok 2000; Hirchman 1983), which consumers may view as inherently

threatening to authentic self-expression. Accordingly, artists who focus on satisfying others may

arouse suspicion that they are driven by ulterior motives (Fein and Hilton 1994). Just as evidence Selling Out 8

of sensitivity to external rewards undermines the perceived virtue of altruistic actors and the

value of their actions (Lin-Healy and Small 2012; Newman and Cain 2014), consumers may

discount the integrity and product quality of artists thought to create for the wrong reasons.

Artists who focus on consumer tastes may be seen as motivated by monetary rewards, and those

who focus on peers or critics may be seen as motivated by reputational rewards. We expect that

pursuing either of these extrinsic rewards will be seen as a violation of self-expressive artistic

norms. Therefore, we expect that consumers will perceive an exclusive focus on satisfying one’s

own tastes as a signal of artistic integrity, whereas an attempt to satisfy the tastes of others

signals a violation of artistic integrity.

Selling Out

To assess whether artists seeking to satisfy others are viewed as trading artistic integrity

for external rewards, we examine if consumers view this behavior as selling out. Selling out is

defined as compromising standards of integrity to attain external rewards (Currid 2007). This

term is not limited to the artistic domain, as individuals readily apply it to integrity violations

across various contexts, such as betraying the interests of one’s ethnic or social group (Bunten

2008; Chasin 2000; Kennedy 2009), abandoning one’s pedagogical obligations (Woodhouse

2009), or engaging in political corruption (Schippers and Henry 2000). Across these contexts,

selling out may be viewed as putting a price on one’s principles (cf. Baron and Spranca 1997;

Tetlock 2002) or violating one’s duty to be true to oneself (Knobe 2005; Newman, Bloom and

Knobe 2014), thereby provoking criticism. Selling Out 9

To investigate lay definitions of selling out, we conducted an exploratory survey at a university lab (N = 100, 50% female, mean age = 24). Participants were asked to define selling out, indicate if it is wrong, and provide an example. Two independent coders who were blind to hypotheses categorized these open-ended responses, exhibiting very good initial inter-rater reliability and resolving disagreements through subsequent discussion (average κ = .79, p <

.001). An overwhelming majority of responses defined selling out as either compromising principles for external rewards (72%) or prioritizing money above other factors (22%), while the few remaining responses described it as giving in to social pressure (3%), taking shortcuts (2%), or a retail stockout (1%). Most respondents (84%) described selling out as wrong, with only a minority reporting that it depends on the situation (9%) or does not warrant condemnation at all

(7%). Finally, the largest proportion of examples generated by our respondents mentioned artists

(38%), while the rest referred to businesspeople (23%), politicians (17%), athletes (11%), or those involved in some kind of social service (11%). These results provide preliminary evidence that most people adhere to our conceptualization of selling out, deem it objectionable, and think of it as prevalent within, but not limited to, markets for art.

Artistic versus Commercial Markets

Although the actions that comprise selling out may differ across domains, they consistently involve tradeoffs between integrity and extrinsic gain. We expect that the integrity standards most relevant to a given domain will dictate the behaviors that are considered selling out. In the current research, we focus on violations of artistic integrity standards. We propose that producers of artistic products will be perceived as sellouts if they focus on satisfying the Selling Out 10

preferences of others, which consumers will perceive as compromising self-expression for extrinsic rewards (e.g., money, fame, critical acclaim).

However, we do not expect consumers to apply the same integrity standards to producers of commercial products. In commercial domains, self-expression may be viewed as less essential to product quality, and norms may instead favor satisfying others’ needs (Golder et al. 2012;

Kotler and Keller 2011; Levitt 1960). Accordingly, we expect that commercial producers who

focus on satisfying others will not be judged as sellouts. Instead, satisfying others’ preferences

may lead to more positive evaluations and judgments of higher commercial product quality.

Empirical Overview

This paper empirically investigates perceptions of selling out, a perceived compromise of

integrity for personal gain, in markets for art. We hypothesize that: 1) consumer judgments of

artistic quality are influenced by producer motives; 2) a producer focus on self-satisfaction (i.e.,

an artist satisfying their own preferences) is expected to create higher quality artistic products than a focus on satisfying consumers or critics; 3) artistic producers who focus on satisfying

consumers’ or critics’ tastes over their own are perceived as sellouts; and 4) the role of producers

differs in artistic versus commercial domains, such that a commercial producer focus on

satisfying others results in higher perceptions of integrity and product quality.

Note that our predictions depart from previous work in important ways. Many scholars

(e.g., Becker 1978; Cowen and Tabarrok 2000) have highlighted differences in the artistic tastes

of lay consumers versus the relatively highbrow tastes of expert critics and artists themselves.

According to this view, seeking to satisfy consumers might be detrimental to quality, but artists Selling Out 11 should be judged as producing higher quality art when they seek to satisfy the preferences of expert critics above their own (Hirschman 1983; Holbrook 1999). Instead, we predict that seeking to satisfy consumers or expert critics alike will signal undesirable artist motives and reduce perceptions of artistic integrity and product quality. Moreover, the motives of artists should affect perceived artistic quality even in the absence of objective product differences.

Accordingly, objective product quality or information about producer ability is held constant in our studies. Some past work also shows that changes in the social meaning of a product can dilute its value as an identity signal, leading to abandonment by its original consumers (Berger and Heath 2007). Instead, we investigate the normative standards that consumers apply to producers independent of these social considerations.

The results of five studies support our hypotheses. Studies 1A and 1B find that information about the motives of artistic producers changes consumer evaluations of an actual product experience by affecting perceptions of producer artistic integrity. Study 2 shows that perceptions of artistic integrity are rooted in artist self-satisfaction: seeking to satisfy either expert critics or non-expert consumers undermines product evaluations. Finally, studies 3 and 4 identify a key difference between markets for art and markets for commercial products: while artistic producers are penalized for creating products in order to meet others’ preferences, commercial producers are rewarded for doing so. Across studies, sample sizes were determined in advance. We report all measures we collected, all conditions that were included in our studies, and all complete participant responses (Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn 2011).

STUDY 1A: CONSUMER FOCUS UNDERMINES PERCEIVED ARTISTIC QUALITY

Selling Out 12

Study 1A investigated whether an artistic producer’s motives in the production process can influence the quality experienced by consumers. Participants read one of two descriptions about a musical group completing a new album. In one description the artists focused on creating music in accordance with their own preferences, while in the other description, they changed their music in accordance with consumer preferences. After reading the description, all participants listened to and evaluated the same song clip. We expected perceived quality to decline when the producer considered consumer preferences rather than their own.

Method

Ninety-four adults from the U.S. were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk to participate in exchange for financial payment (46% female, mean age = 32 years). Participants were told that they would be listening to a clip of a song by a rock band named Lionheart.

Before listening to the song, participants first read information about the band that they were told was based on a profile in an online music publication (see Appendix for full scenario).

The band’s debut album, released a year ago, earned moderate sales and moderately positive critical reviews. A website that aggregates reviews found that the average critical rating was 67 out of 100. The song participants would be listening to was from Lionheart’s new second album.

Participants were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions that manipulated the group’s motives in recording their new album. In the Self condition, the band focused on satisfying its own musical tastes, whereas in the Consumer condition the band focused on changing to appeal to consumer tastes. The description of the band’s focus read as follows

(Consumer-Focus condition in brackets): Selling Out 13

As they prepared to begin work on their second album, the four members of Lionheart met to discuss their goals for the new album. They had received a variety of advice from friends, other musicians, and industry insiders. Ultimately, the band members decided to maintain [change] the musical style they had established in their first album. In recording their new album, they worked to create the music they most like [audiences most like] in order to maintain [improve] their sound [sales].

After reading the description, all participants listened to the same one-minute clip of a rock song.

The song was taken from an actual musical group that is no longer active. An item at the end of the study confirmed that no participants expressed familiarity with the song or the group.

Participants evaluated the music on four items assessing their preferences and subjective

perceptions of quality (“How much do you like Lionheart’s new single?”; “How good do you

think Lionheart’s new album is?”; “How interested are you in downloading Lionheart’s new

album?”; “How likely are you to recommend Lionheart’s new album to a friend?”; 1 = not at all,

9 = very much so). These items loaded together and were combined to create a measure of perceived quality (α = .90).

Next, participants rated the integrity of the producer on five items (“Lionheart has artistic integrity.”; “Lionheart is authentic.”; “Lionheart’s band members are sellouts (reverse coded).”;

“Lionheart cares only about making high quality music.” and “Lionheart cares only about

making money (reverse coded).”; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much so). These items were averaged

to create a measure of perceived integrity (α = .91). Participants also made a binary judgment of

whether the band had sold out. (“Lionheart sold out,” 0 = no, 1 = yes).

At the end of the study, we included an exploratory measure of actual behavior.

Participants were offered the opportunity to take two minutes to listen to a second song from Selling Out 14

Lionheart’s new album. Those who agreed listened to an additional two-minute song clip, while

those who declined were directed to the survey ending1.

Results

Perceived Quality. As predicted, producer motives affected the perceived quality of

participants’ actual product experience (see figure 1A). Evaluations of the music declined when the producer was described as changing to cater to consumer preferences versus maintaining a fit

with their own preferences (M = 4.43, SD = 1.77 vs. M = 5.63, SD = 1.85, t(92) = 3.21, p = .002).

------Insert figure 1A about here------

Perceived Integrity. We assessed our theorized mechanism by analyzing perceptions of

producer integrity. Perceived integrity decreased when the producer changed to please

consumers versus maintained their style to please themselves (M = 4.44, SD = 1.75 vs. M = 7.28,

SD = 1.26; t(92) = 9.11, p < .001).

We tested mediation using the bootstrapping technique (Hayes 2013), and found that the

bias-corrected 95% confidence interval for the size of the indirect effect excluded zero (indirect

effect = -1.24, SE = 0.33, 95% CI [-2.027, -0.671]). Perceptions of producer integrity mediated

the effects of producer motives on participants’ evaluations of product quality.

1 In studies 1A, 1B, 2, and 4, we also included an exploratory measure of expected critical acclaim. The item asked “What do you think the average critical rating will be” for the new artwork being evaluated in each study (0 = low quality, 100 = high quality). This measure always followed the same pattern as perceived quality, and was significantly affected by producer focus in studies 1A, 1B, and 4. Selling Out 15

Selling Out. In binary judgments, the producer was judged to be a sellout more often when they changed versus maintained their product (51.1% vs. 4.1%, χ2(1) = 26.58, p < .001).

Consumption Behavior. Producer motives marginally affected participants’ subsequent consumption behavior. Fewer participants chose to spend their time listening to a second song clip if producers changed to fit consumer preferences rather than maintaining their products

(28.9% vs. 44.9%, χ2(1) = 2.57, p = .109).

STUDY 1B: CONSUMER FOCUS ALONE DRIVES INFERENCES OF SELLING OUT

The results of study 1A provide initial evidence that artistic producers who change their products in response to consumer tastes are judged to be sellouts. However, this study explicitly specified that the producer’s motive was to improve sales. In the absence of explicitly stated motives, it is unclear if participants will infer extrinsic motives and label producers as sellouts.

We conducted study 1B to test whether a producer focus on consumer tastes, in and of itself, would trigger inferences of extrinsic producer motives and reduced artistic integrity.

We also examined a potential alternative mechanism. Though participants in study 1A evaluated the same song and had no information about the social associations around it, their evaluations might have been driven by a preference for unique artistic products. Consumers often avoid artistic products that have been adopted by mainstream audiences, and may dislike the work of audience-focused artists because it does not allow them to reliably signal their own identity or “coolness” (Berger and Heath 2007; Warren and Campbell 2014). Hence, we tested the potential role of participants’ needs for uniqueness in consumption (Ruvio, Shoham and

Brencic 2008; Tian, Bearden and Hunter 2001). If the effects of producer motives on evaluations Selling Out 16

or integrity judgments depend on consumer preferences for uniqueness, then these effects should attenuate with a low need for uniqueness and strengthen with a high need for uniqueness.

Method

One hundred four U.S. adults recruited through Mechanical Turk participated in

exchange for payment (41% female, mean age = 34 years). As in our first study, they were

assigned to one of two groups (Producer Focus: Self vs. Consumer).

Participants read the same scenario from study 1A, with one change: we omitted any

mention that the band sought to increase its sales. The end of the scenario read as follows

(Consumer-Focus condition in brackets):

Ultimately, the band members decided to think exclusively about what would currently satisfy them [audiences] the most. As they began recording, they carefully focused on creating music that they themselves [audiences] would most like. As a result, the band maintained [changed] its current musical style on its new album.

After reading this description, participants listened to the song clip used in study 1A.

They again evaluated their liking and quality perceptions of the music on four items (α = .88).

Next, participants completed the five artistic integrity items used in study 1A, as well as

one additional item (“Lionheart makes music for the right reasons.”). All six items loaded

together and were combined (α = .93). Participants then judged whether the band had sold out.

Finally, we measured participants’ need for uniqueness in consumption using a twelve-

item scale (e.g., “When a product I own becomes popular among the general population, I begin

to use it less.” 1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree; Ruvio et al. 2008; Tian et al. 2001). All

items loaded together and were combined in a consumer need for uniqueness index (α = .94).

Selling Out 17

Results

Perceived Quality. As predicted, producer motives affected participants’ perceptions of

the quality of their actual product experience. Participants rated the song as lower quality when

the artist focused on audience preferences rather than their own preferences (M = 4.68, SD = 1.58

vs. M = 5.52, SD = 1.39, t(102) = 2.87, p = .005; see figure 1B).

Perceived Integrity. We again examined selling out by analyzing perceptions of producer

integrity. Perceived integrity decreased when the producer focused on consumers, relative to

focusing on themselves (M = 4.17, SD = 1.70 vs. M = 7.22, SD = 0.92, t(102) = 11.61, p < .001).

We again tested our mechanism using the bootstrapping method (Hayes 2013). Perceived

producer integrity mediated the effects of producer focus on perceived quality, supporting our

conceptualization of selling out (indirect effect = -1.39, SE = 0.39, 95% CI [-2.195, -0.714]).

Selling Out. Binary judgments of selling out were consistent with perceptions of integrity,

as the consumer-focused producer was labeled a sellout more frequently than a self-focused

producer (62.5% vs. 1.8%, χ2(1) = 45.54, p < .001).

------Insert figure 1B about here------

Consumer Need for Uniqueness. We found no evidence that participants’ tastes for uniqueness moderate the effects of producer focus on perceived quality or perceived integrity.

Consumer need for uniqueness did not significantly affect perceived quality (b = 0.13, t < 1, p =

.617) or interact with producer focus (b = -0.04, t < 1, p = .803). There was also no significant

main effect or interaction with producer focus on perceptions of integrity (b = -0.17, t < 1, p = Selling Out 18

.480; b = 0.07, t < 1, p = .662). The indirect effects of producer focus on evaluations through perceived integrity remained significant across all values of need for uniqueness. Participants’ judgments of artistic integrity appear to be independent of their individual tastes for uniqueness.

Discussion

Together, studies 1A and 1B demonstrate that perceived producer motives influence perceptions of product quality. Participants liked the same piece of music less when they were told that the artist was motivated to satisfy consumer tastes rather than their own tastes.

Mediational evidence supports the notion that these quality perceptions were driven by judgments of selling out, or a perceived compromise of artistic integrity. Notably, these results held regardless of whether the artist was explicitly described as motivated to increase sales or whether this information was omitted. Responsiveness to consumer tastes alone appears sufficient to drive inferences that producers lack artistic integrity and are motivated by external rewards. Moreover, differences in tastes for unique consumption cannot explain judgments of producer integrity or their influence on perceived quality. These findings suggest that consumers may hold artistic producers to similar normative standards regardless of their individual tastes.

Though these results support our theorizing, two alternative explanations remain that could also account for these results. First, instead of responding to the artist’s focus on consumer tastes, participants may have simply disliked that the artist changed their artistic style. That is, artistic producers who change their artistic products may be judged unfavorably compared to those who maintain them, irrespective of their motives for doing so. Second, people may believe that other consumers tend to have poor taste, so that artists who seek to satisfy the preferences of Selling Out 19

consumers must reduce their product quality to do so. This explanation aligns with research suggesting that artists and expert critics prefer higher quality art, while mass audiences composed of non-expert consumers demand lower quality art (Gans 1974; Holbrook 1999). If so, then declines in quality should be specific to a producer focus on non-expert audiences, and should not occur when artists cater to experts. Our next study directly tests these possibilities.

STUDY 2: OTHER FOCUS, NOT CHANGE, REDUCES EXPECTED QUALITY

The findings of studies 1A and 1B support the notion that artistic producers who focus on the tastes of others are thought to have lower integrity and create lower quality products. Because both studies examined a musical artist, one objective of study 2 was to investigate these effects in another artistic domain. To do so, we used a scenario about a painter. However, the main purpose of study 2 was to compare our main predictions to two potential alternate explanations.

First, we tested whether people dislike artists who change their products in general, rather

than artists who make changes specifically to satisfy the tastes of others. To do so, we examined

evaluations of an artistic producer who changes their products in accordance with their own

evolving tastes. We expected that perceptions of artistic quality and producer integrity would

decline only when product changes are spurred by a desire to satisfy the preferences of others,

rather than a desire to satisfy the producer’s own changing tastes.

Second, we tested whether people penalize artists only when they cater to other

consumers thought to have poor taste, rather than when they cater to the tastes of others in

general. To do so, we examined how an artist is perceived when they seek to satisfy the tastes of

critics. If these effects are specific to catering to non-experts, then changing products to cater to Selling Out 20 expert critics (i.e., the gatekeepers that define and uphold quality standards; Becker 1982) should not reduce perceived product quality in the same way. Rather, a product that is altered to better appeal to critics’ tastes should be perceived as higher quality than a product that remains unchanged. Instead, we expected that even seeking to satisfy expert critics would be viewed as a violation of self-expressive standards of artistic integrity for an external reward (e.g., increased fame or critical acclaim). Thus, we predicted that catering to the tastes of consumers or critics alike would reduce perceptions of producer integrity and expectations of product quality.

Method

One hundred sixty-two U.S. adult participants were recruited through Mechanical Turk in exchange for financial payment (43% female, mean age = 32 years). They were randomly assigned to one of four groups (Producer Focus: Maintain for Self vs. Change for Self vs.

Change for Consumers vs. Change for Critics) in a between-subjects design.

Participants read a scenario about a painter named Mark whose debut gallery show had resulted in moderate sales and moderate reviews from critics (see Appendix). Mark was considering maintaining or changing his artistic style as he began work for his second gallery show. His current and new potential artistic styles were described as either emphasizing the use of matte acrylic paints with heavy brush strokes or glossy oil paints with light brush strokes, with the descriptions counterbalanced. Artistic style did not affect results and is not discussed further.

Participants then read that Mark either maintained his style to focus on his own tastes

(Maintain for Self) or changed his style. The reason Mark changed his style varied across three conditions: either to satisfy his own evolving tastes (Change for Self condition), to satisfy Selling Out 21

customers’ tastes (Change for Consumers), or to satisfy critics’ tastes (Change for Critics). The

manipulation read as follows (Change conditions in brackets and artistic style in braces):

Ultimately, Mark decides to think exclusively about what will currently satisfy him [customers; critics] the most. As he begins his work, he carefully focuses on creating paintings that he himself [customers; critics] will most like. As a result, he maintains [changes] his current style and continues [starts] using glossy oil paints with light brush strokes {matte acrylic paints with heavy brush strokes} for his second gallery show.

After reading the description, participants provided ratings of expected quality on the

same four items used in the initial studies, adapted for the current scenario (e.g., “How good do

you think Mark’s new gallery show will be?”; α = .85). Next, participants rated their perceptions

of Mark’s artistic integrity on the same six measures used in study 1B (α = .93) and indicated

whether or not he was a sellout (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Finally, we also included an exploratory measure assessing expected sales relative to

Mark’s first gallery show (“How well do you think Mark’s paintings will sell in his new gallery

show?” 1 = much lower sales than his first show, 9 = much higher sales than his first show).

Results

Perceived Quality. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of producer focus on perceived quality (F(3,158) = 10.77, p < .001; see figure 2). Contrasts found that compared to when the producer maintained the product unchanged (M = 6.26, SD = 1.13), participants expected quality to decrease with product changes motivated by either consumer preferences (M

= 5.68, SD = 1.43, t(77) = 2.16, p = .034) or critical preferences (M = 5.31, SD = 1.64, t(78) =

3.55, p = .001). Similarly, relative to when the producer changed the product in accordance with Selling Out 22 his own preferences (M = 6.69, SD = 0.98), participants expected lower product quality with changes made to satisfy consumers (t(80) = 3.84, p < .001) or critics (t(81) = 5.27, p < .001).

Expected quality did not differ significantly when the producer changed to satisfy his own preferences, relative to maintaining the product to fit his own preferences (t(77) = 1.60, p =

.114). Hence, changes are not seen as detrimental when motivated by producer self-satisfaction.

We also found no differences in expected quality between changes made to satisfy consumers versus critics (t(81) = 1.42, p = .158). Catering to critics is just as bad as catering to consumers.

Together, results suggest that a producer focus on satisfying others’ preferences degrades perceived product quality relative to a producer focus on self-satisfaction.

------Insert figure 2 about here------

Perceived Integrity. The effects of producer focus on perceptions of artistic integrity mirrored those on product evaluations (F(3,158) = 59.80, p < .001). Relative to a producer who maintained the same product (M = 7.58, SD = 0.95), producers were judged as having less integrity when they changed for either consumer preferences (M = 4.73, SD = 1.91, t(77) = 8.77, p < .001) or critical preferences (M = 4.23, SD = 1.58, t(78) = 10.37, p < .001). Similarly, relative to changes made for self-satisfaction (M = 7.40, SD = 1.05), perceptions of artistic integrity decreased with changes made to satisfy consumers (t(80) = 8.39, p < .001) or critics

(t(81) = 10.02, p < .001). Judgments of integrity did not differ between maintaining a product versus changing for self-satisfaction (t(77) = 0.55, p = .587). Changing for consumers versus critics also resulted in no significant differences in perceived integrity (t(81) = 1.58, p = .119). Selling Out 23

We again tested mediation using the bootstrapping technique (Hayes 2013). Perceptions

of producer integrity mediated the effects of producer focus on participants’ product evaluations,

supporting our theorizing (indirect effect = -0.58, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.778, -0.402]).

Selling Out. The effects of producer focus on binary judgments of selling out was

consistent (χ2(1) = 67.40, p < .001; see figure 3). Compared to maintaining their product in line with their own preferences (2.6%), producers who changed their product for consumers (56.1%,

χ2(1) = 24.19, p < .001) or critics (69.0%, χ2(1) = 34.77, p < .001) were more frequently

perceived as sellouts. Similarly, producers who changed for self-satisfaction (2.4%) were viewed

as sellouts less frequently than those who changed for consumers (χ2(1) = 25.98, p < .001) or critics (χ2(1) = 37.05, p < .001). Selling out judgments did not differ between maintaining a

product versus changing to suit one’s own preferences (χ2(1) < 0.01, p = .957), or between

changing to satisfy consumers versus critics (χ2(1) = 0.99, p = .321).

------Insert figure 3 about here------

Expected Sales. Producer focus significantly affected expected sales (F(3,158) = 2.89, p

= .037). Contrasts showed that participants expected lower sales after changes to satisfy critics

(M = 5.71, SD = 1.70), relative to changes for self-satisfaction (M = 6.54, SD = 1.29, t(81) =

2.61, p = .010) or changes to satisfy consumers (M = 6.37, SD = 1.46, t(81) = 2.06, p = .041), but no differences relative to maintaining the product (M = 5.92, SD = 1.24, t(77) = 0.64, p = .522).

Discussion

Selling Out 24

These findings provide evidence that a producer focus on satisfying the preferences of

others is expected to undermine artistic product quality. Participants expected an artist to produce

lower quality products after changing his work to appeal to either non-expert consumers or

expert critics. Product changes motivated by the evolving tastes of producers themselves were

not expected to degrade artistic quality in the same way. An exploratory measure found that sales

were expected to decline when an artistic producer sought to satisfy critics rather than focusing

on consumers or his own tastes, consistent with the notion that expert critics may have more

highbrow, niche tastes than the general populace.

The effects of producer focus on consumer expectations of artistic quality were driven by

perceptions of producer integrity. Consistent with our theorizing, artistic producers who focus

exclusively on self-satisfaction are thought to exhibit the most integrity and produce the best

quality products. Our next study examines how these consumer judgments of artistic producers compare to judgments of producers within commercial markets.

STUDY 3: FOCUSING ON CONSUMERS HARMS ART BUT IMPROVES

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

Altering artistic products to fit the tastes of others is seen as selling out, a compromise of integrity that reduces product value. Study 3 directly compared markets for art to markets for commercial products to test whether these judgments are specific to market type. We predicted

that the damaging effects of seeking to satisfy others’ preferences would be limited to producers

in artistic markets and would not hold within commercial markets. In commercial markets, we Selling Out 25

expected that producers would be rewarded for creating products to appeal to consumer tastes rather than their own. In order to assess generalizability, we examined four markets of each type.

Method

One hundred twenty U.S. adults participated through Mechanical Turk in exchange for

payment (38% female, mean age = 32). Participants were randomly assigned to evaluate either

artistic or commercial producers. In each condition, participants read four scenarios describing producers of different products. Thus, we used a 2 (Market Type: Artistic vs. Commercial) x 4

(Scenario) mixed design. Scenario order was randomized within each condition.

The four Artistic scenarios involved Songwriters, Painters, Novelists, and Filmmakers.

Manipulation checks on a series of nine-point scales (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely) confirmed that these professions were viewed as more “artistic” than “commercial” (average M = 7.90, SD

= 0.98 vs. M = 5.43, SD = 1.50, t(59) = 11.63, p < .001) in each individual scenario (all ts > 5.35, ps < .001). The Commercial scenarios involved Software Developers, Event Planners, Home

Contractors, and Brand Managers. These professions were rated as more commercial than artistic

(average M = 6.83, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 5.15, SD = 1.76, t(59) = 5.89, p < .001) in each individual scenario (all ts > 4.64, ps < .001), supporting our operational approach.

Each scenario followed the same script, and described two identical producers who

differed only on whether they focused on their own preferences or on consumer preferences

while creating their product (see Appendix). For instance, in the Artistic-Songwriter

(Commercial-Software-Developer in brackets) condition, participants read the following: Selling Out 26

Jeff and Fred each work as singer/songwriters [software developers for new technologies]. They have each worked hard to develop their musical style and songwriting skills [programming style and skills].

Though both are skilled and respected by their peers, each takes a different approach to writing songs [programming software]. Jeff thinks mostly about creating music [software] he himself will like, with little regard for what customers will like. Fred thinks mostly about creating music [software] that customers will like, with little regard for what he himself will like.

After each scenario, we presented measures directly comparing the two producers.

Participants rated relative product quality on two items (“If you had the opportunity, whose work

would you be more likely to purchase?”; “Whose work do you think is higher quality?” -4 =

Jeff’s work is much higher quality, 0 = Jeff and Fred’s work are of equal quality, 4 = Fred’s work is much higher quality), which were combined (average r = .81). They also indicated their

perceptions of relative producer integrity (“Who do you think has greater integrity?”), and

relative sales (“Whose work do you think is more popular with customers?”). The study ended

with the manipulation check items assessing artistic and commercial perceptions reported above.

Results

Perceived Quality. We used one-sample t-tests to analyze perceived relative quality in the

Artistic condition and the Commercial condition. Negative values indicate evaluations favoring the self-focused producer, zero represents no perceived differences between the two producers, and positive values favor the consumer-focused producer. On average, Artistic quality perceptions favored producers who created products to satisfy their own personal preferences

(average M = -0.70, SD = 1.80; t(59) = -3.01, p = .004). However, those in the Commercial condition expected higher quality work from the producer who created products with consumer Selling Out 27

preferences in mind (average M = 1.97, SD = 1.35, t(59) = 11.31, p < .001; see figure 4).

Results were consistent across individual scenarios. Quality ratings were significantly less

than zero for the Songwriter, Novelist, and Painter (Ms < -0.67, SDs < 2.08, ts < -2.67, ps < .010)

and directionally negative for the Filmmaker (M = -0.18, SD = 2.01, t(59) = -0.70, p = .485). In

Artistic markets, people favored producers who put their own preferences ahead of their customers. In contrast, people’s quality judgments consistently favored Commercial market producers who put customer preferences first (Ms > 1.75, SDs < 2.01, ts > 6.76, ps < .001).

------Insert figure 4 about here------

Perceived Integrity. Participants’ perceptions of integrity mirrored their quality judgments. On average, Artistic producers who focused on their own preferences were perceived to have greater integrity (M = -1.62, SD = 1.76; t(59) = -7.12, p < .001). In contrast, in the

Commercial conditions, integrity ratings were higher for producers who created products according to consumer preferences (M = 1.30, SD = 1.78; t(59) = 5.67, p < .001).

Average ratings in all four Artistic market scenarios were negative, suggesting that the integrity of artistic producers is associated with focusing on their own preferences (Ms < -1.30,

SDs < 2.17, ts < -4.65, ps < .001). In contrast, average ratings in all four Commercial scenarios were positive (Ms > 1.15, SDs < 2.21, ts > 4.30, ps < .001). For commercial producers, people believe that integrity entails a focus on consumer preferences.

Expected Sales. Expected sales favored the producer who focused on consumer tastes within both the Artistic (average M = 1.91, SD = 1.44; t(59) = 10.29, p < .001) and the

Commercial conditions (average M = 2.86, SD = 1.21; t(59) = 18.27, p < .001). Ratings were Selling Out 28

positive in all eight scenarios (Ms > 1.45, SDs < 2.13, ts > 6.06, ps < .001), indicating that people

expect producers who focus on consumer preferences to earn higher sales across market types.

Discussion

These findings illustrate a clear distinction in the way that consumers evaluate producers in artistic versus commercial markets. In artistic markets, people associate higher product quality and integrity with producers creating products to satisfy their own preferences. However, in commercial markets, product evaluations and perceptions of integrity favor producers who focus on satisfying consumer preferences. Only sales expectations appear to be judged consistently across markets, whereby a consumer focus is always thought to increase sales.

This evidence suggests that producer integrity is defined differently within artistic versus commercial markets. Study 4 further investigated this distinction by testing whether an artistic integrity violation would also influence evaluations of commercial products or affect evaluations of artistic products exclusively. In particular, this next study tested whether producers of the same type of product would be held to different standards of integrity based on the intended usage of the product.

STUDY 4: CONSUMER FOCUS HARMS PRODUCTS INTENDED AS ART

Our final study built on study 3 by manipulating only the intended usage of the same product. Participants evaluated a professional photographer whose work was intended to be used for artistic purposes or commercial purposes. We predicted that photographs intended to be used Selling Out 29

as art would be perceived as higher quality when the producer focused on his own preferences,

but commercial photographs would receive higher evaluations when the producer prioritized

consumer preferences.

A second objective was to further test the notion that standards of integrity vary across markets. Study 3 departed from our first two studies by using a single measure of integrity that was not specific to art, allowing participants to define integrity differently in commercial market contexts. In study 4, we explored the possibility that even a clear violation of artistic integrity would not diminish the perceived quality of a product intended for commercial usage. Though we expected that a commercial producer who denies their own preferences to satisfy others would be seen as a sellout when judged by standards of artistic integrity (i.e., authentic self- expression), we did not expect that this violation would undermine perceptions of commercial product quality. In other words, we expected that perceptions of compromised artistic integrity would degrade quality when a product was intended to be used as art, but not when the same product was intended for commercial usage.

Method

One hundred sixty U.S. adults participated via Mechanical Turk for payment (41% female, mean age = 31 years). The study used a 2 (Producer Focus: Self vs. Consumers) x 2

(Product Usage: Artistic vs. Commercial) between-subjects design.

Participants read a scenario about Mark, a professional photographer (see Appendix). In the Artistic condition, they learned that Mark specializes in “artistic photography,” while in the

Commercial condition his specialty was “commercial wedding photography.” Participants then Selling Out 30

read that Mark is well-respected by his peers and his work over the last year earned a score of 81

out of 100 on a local photography website, though his sales were slightly below average.

Next, participants learned that a photographer friend advised Mark to “suppress his own

personal tastes and think more about what is currently popular.” In the Self-Focus condition,

Mark chose “not to take his friend’s advice. He decides not to think about what people will like and instead, to take photographs mainly according to his personal style.” In the Consumer-Focus condition, Mark chose “to take his friend’s advice. He decides to suppress his personal style, and instead, to mainly think about taking photographs according to what people will like.”

After reading the description, participants evaluated Mark and his work. They rated the expected quality of Mark’s work over the next year and the likelihood they would recommend it to a friend, which were combined into a perceived quality index (r = .61). Participants also rated

Mark’s integrity on five items drawn from studies 1 - 2 (α = .92) and indicated whether he was a sellout (0 = no, 1 = yes). Finally, they indicated their expectations of Mark’s sales and popularity with customers (combined into an expected sales index; r = .93).

Results

Perceived Quality. We found an interaction of producer focus and product usage on quality perceptions (F(1,156) = 21.01, p < .001; see figure 5). For artistic photographs, changing to satisfy consumers reduced quality relative to focusing on self-satisfaction (M = 4.91, SD =

1.60 vs. M = 6.15, SD = 1.33, t(79) = 3.80, p < .001). In contrast, for commercial photographs, changing for consumers increased evaluations relative to maintaining the same product for self- satisfaction (M = 6.01, SD = 1.47 vs. M = 5.17, SD = 1.31, t(77) = 2.68, p = .009). Selling Out 31

------Insert figure 5 about here------

Perceived Integrity. There was a main effect of producer focus on perceptions of artistic

integrity (F(1,156) = 237.52, p < .001). Changing products in response to consumer preferences

decreased perceived producer integrity relative to maintaining products that fit their own

preferences (M = 4.77, SD = 1.65 vs. M = 7.99, SD = 0.92). As expected, a focus on satisfying

others constitutes a violation of artistic integrity standards across contexts.

This effect was qualified by an interaction between producer focus and product usage

(F(1,156) = 3.79, p = .053). Producers who kept their products unchanged did not vary in

perceived artistic integrity, regardless of artistic or commercial usage (M = 8.03, SD = 0.88 vs. M

= 7.94, SD = 0.97, t < 1, p = .766). However, changing artistic photographs to satisfy consumers

resulted in lower perceptions of artistic integrity than changing commercial photographs in the

same way (M = 4.41, SD = 1.83 vs. M = 5.13, SD = 1.39, t(78) = 2.46, p = .015). Though

violations of artistic integrity may be defined consistently across markets, the same violation

may be seen as less severe for producers creating products for commercial use.

We ran a moderated mediation analysis using the bootstrap method (Hayes 2013) to test whether product usage affected the mediating role of artistic integrity perceptions on product quality judgments. For artistic photographs, there was a significant indirect effect of producer focus on product evaluations through perceptions of artistic integrity (indirect effect = -1.20, SE

= 0.20, 95% CI [-1.631, -0.814]). However, for commercial photographs, the indirect effect of perceived integrity on perceived quality did not reach significance (indirect effect = -0.29, SE =

0.17, 95% CI [-0.609, 0.034]). Results supported the expected moderated mediation effect. Selling Out 32

Selling Out. Changing either product to match consumer preferences was perceived as

selling out more than not making a change (53.8% vs. 0.0%, χ2(1) = 58.80, p < .001). However, we found an interaction with intended product usage (χ2(1) = 50.47, p < .001). While maintaining

the same product was never viewed as selling out regardless of product usage (both 0.0%),

changing to satisfy consumers was seen as selling out significantly more when the photographs

were intended for artistic versus commercial usage (70.0% vs. 37.5%, χ2(1) = 7.24, p = .007).

Expected Sales. There was a main effect of producer focus on expected sales (F(1,156) =

74.43, p < .001), such that changing to fit consumer preferences was expected to increase sales

above maintaining a self-focus regardless of product usage (M = 6.74, SD = 1.46 vs. M = 4.85,

SD = 1.38). This main effect was qualified by a significant interaction, whereby producer focus

had a larger effect on expected sales for commercial usage than artistic usage (F(1,156) = 7.88, p

= .006). While changing artistic photographs to fit consumer preferences was expected to

increase sales above maintaining a fit with producer preferences (M = 6.43, SD = 1.59 vs. M =

5.15, SD = 1.31, t(79) = 3.96, p < .001), this expected sales increase was even larger for

changing versus maintaining commercial photographs (M = 7.05, SD = 1.25 vs. M = 4.54, SD =

1.38, t(77) = 8.48, p < .001).

Discussion

Study 4 shows that consumer-focused product changes have differential effects on

expected quality depending on whether people are judging artistic or commercial products.

When an artistic photographer changed his style to match consumer preferences, participants

expected the quality of his photographs to decline, despite believing that his sales would Selling Out 33 increase. This compromise of artistic integrity was detrimental to the perceived quality of an artistic product. However, the same compromise of artistic integrity did not reduce commercial product quality. When a commercial wedding photographer made the same change, participants expected the quality of his photographs and his sales to increase. These findings further illustrate the specificity of standards of producer integrity within different market contexts.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Across five studies and a variety of domains, we demonstrate how the motives of artistic producers affect both expected and experienced product quality. Our findings illustrate an essential distinction in the standards people apply within markets for artistic versus commercial products. Consumers reward commercial producers who change their products to fit consumer tastes, but penalize artistic producers who do the same. For artists, a focus on satisfying others is thought to damage integrity and undermine their work quality. Ironically, consumers most prefer artists who seem to ignore rather than consider consumer preferences.

Since the main objective of this research was to understand what producer motives consumers regard as normatively appropriate, we explicitly described the focus of the producer in each study. Though the focus or motives of producers cannot be directly observed in reality, discussions within the art world about the quality of an artist’s work often revolve around assumptions about their motives (e.g., Powers 2011; Yau 2014). For instance, people may infer that artists who avoid risks and play it safe are motivated by the prospect of commercial success

(Dingwall 2014). Such inferences may be subject to motivational biases, whereby people believe Selling Out 34

that artists they personally like are motivated only by artistic self-expression but ascribe ulterior

motives to artists they dislike (cf. Beverland and Farrelly 2010; Kunda 1990).

A related possibility is that consumers care more about artistic integrity for artists with

high potential ability. The perceived costs of selling out may depend on the counterfactual

scenario (cf. Newman and Cain 2014), or what the producer is likely to achieve with the “right”

motivation. Selling out may be much more detrimental to product evaluations when the producer

could otherwise make excellent quality art, but its costs may be negligible when a producer is

thought to have little potential for high quality work. Our studies cannot address this possibility,

since they either described artists who were capable of producing at least moderate quality art or

presented an actual song that most participants rated as at least moderate in quality. Though

some recent work highlights how future potential can increase the value of current work

(Poehlman and Newman 2014; Tormala, Jia and Norton 2012), future research can explore how

normative standards are applied to those with high versus low potential ability.

Although the current investigation focuses on perceptions of product quality, our

exploratory measures of expected sales reveal an interesting pattern of results. Participants in

studies 3 and 4 felt that an artistic producer focus on appealing to consumer tastes would increase

sales even as product quality declined. Hence, consumers seem to expect that other consumers

would like these products but they themselves would not. Just as people often believe that they

conform less to social influence than others (Pronin, Berger and Molouki 2007), consumers may

feel that they have more refined tastes or place more value on integrity more than others. Note

that study 2 found mixed evidence for these ideas, suggesting that there may be additional factors at play. Further research may shed further light on when consumers expect product sales and quality to converge or diverge (cf. Berger and Heath 2007). Selling Out 35

The manipulation of market type in our final study raises another interesting question: what factors determine whether artistic norms or commercial norms should apply, and how malleable are these perceptions? A posttest on the scenarios from study 4 found that when the producers’ photographs were intended for commercial versus artistic usage, his profession was viewed as more “commercial” (M = 5.65, SD = 2.11 vs. M = 4.75, SD = 2.01, t(78) = 1.96, p =

.054), but was not as significantly less “artistic” (M = 7.40, SD = 1.34 vs. M = 7.70, SD = 1.20, t(78) = 1.06, p = .294). These results may help to further explain participants’ judgments of the commercial wedding photographer in study 4. Higher commercial perceptions might account for why participants’ perceptions of artistic integrity did not drive their judgments of commercial product quality, while high artistic perceptions might account for why a significant minority of participants still viewed the commercial photographer as a sellout (i.e., as still subject to artistic norms). Future work may better clarify which norms are applied in which market contexts.

The extent to which a market is considered artistic or creative may vary and dictate which production practices are acceptable (Hirschman 1983), whether social or communal norms are applied (McGraw, Schwartz and Tetlock 2012; Newman and Cain 2014), and which external rewards are appropriate. Under some circumstances, pursuing reputational benefits may be seen as more acceptable than pursuing monetary benefits, since the latter may more clearly marry the sacred with the profane (Fiske and Tetlock 1997; McGraw and Tetlock 2005). Even within a given market, the strength of artistic versus commercial norms may vary across professions or within professions as a function of different approaches to work (Berg, Grant and Johnson 2010).

These norms may affect how employees react to different aspects of the work environment.

Towards a General Theory of Selling Out Selling Out 36

We define selling out as a compromise of integrity for external rewards. Our results show

that these integrity standards vary by domain: while consumers associate integrity with producer

self-focus in artistic markets, they ascribe greater integrity to consumer-focused producers in commercial markets. Though the behaviors that violate integrity may vary, one point of consistency in our definition of selling out is the role of external rewards. This suggests a potentially important distinction between two constructs: whether producers focus on their own tastes or others’ tastes in creating their products and whether producers are driven by motives rooted in self-satisfaction or external rewards. The results of our initial studies suggest that in markets for art, other-focus triggers inferences that an artistic producer is motivated by external rewards, driving consumer judgments of selling out. However, in commercial markets, the implications of this distinction are less clear. Nevertheless, an underlying role of producer

motives suggests a possible unifying framework that may hold generally: selling out may be

defined in terms of compromising normative intrinsic motives for the sake of extrinsic rewards.

Intrinsic motivation refers to doing an activity just for its inherent rewards, while

extrinsic motivation refers to doing an activity in order to attain some other separate outcome

(Ryan and Deci 2000). Within artistic markets, valuing intrinsic motivation aligns well with

consumers preferring artists who create products only for the sake of their own satisfaction. This

link is less clear for commercial producers, who are rewarded for prioritizing consumer

preferences above their own when they create products. Though commercial markets operate on

the notion that producers focus on satisfying consumer needs primarily as a means to greater

monetary rewards (Kasser, Cohn, Kanner and Ryan 2007; Kotler and Keller 2011), consumers

may dislike commercial producers who seem to be motivated primarily by these external Selling Out 37

rewards. Even in commercial markets, they may favor producers who seem intrinsically

motivated to cater to consumer preferences. In fact, commercial producers who appear

intrinsically motivated to satisfy consumer needs may be thought to create better products than

those who do so only as a means to earning profits.

Though our current findings cannot address this possibility, results from a follow-up study provide initial support. We recruited adult participants from Mechanical Turk (N = 151,

36% female, mean age = 31 years) and assigned them to evaluate either a producer of either artistic or commercial products, with market types drawn from those used in study 3. Participants read a short scenario about a producer who was either motivated mostly by their own passion for their work (i.e., intrinsic motives) or mostly by financial success from their work (i.e., extrinsic motives). A 2 x 2 ANOVA found that across both market types, extrinsic motives were thought to result in lower quality products than intrinsic motives (M = 5.19, SD = 1.72 vs. M = 6.97, SD

= 1.32, F(1,147) = 58.43, p < .001; see figure 6). Extrinsic versus intrinsic motives also decreased perceptions of producer integrity (M = 4.52, SD = 1.93 vs. M = 7.72, SD = 1.31,

F(1,147) = 152.52, p < .001) and increased perceptions that the producer was a sellout (M = 6.06,

SD = 2.43 vs. M = 1.91, SD = 1.68, F(1,147) = 147.46, p < .001).

------Insert figure 6 about here------

These results provide preliminary evidence that producer integrity standards are defined to align with the intrinsic motives that are most desirable in a given context. In commercial markets, selling out may be defined in terms of a producer’s perceived willingness to compromise an intrinsic focus on consumer needs to increase profits. In other words, even in Selling Out 38

commercial markets that are presumably expected to operate on the basis of extrinsic incentives,

consumers may dislike extrinsically motivated producers and seek intrinsically motivated

producers. Consumers may not naturally link a producer focus on others to extrinsic motives, in

contrast with prior findings that people overestimate the influence of extrinsic motives on others’

behavior (Heath 1999; Miller 1999; Miller and Ratner 1998). Little work has examined if the

need to appear intrinsically motivated can constrain the behavior of commercial producers (cf.

Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler 1986), and this possibility warrants further investigation.

Accordingly, there may be strategic benefits to signaling intrinsic motives for creating

commercial products, irrespective of a producer’s actual motivation. Recent research highlights

how brands can benefit from crafting underdog narratives that incorporate passion (Paharia,

Keinan, Avery and Schor 2011). Brands like Nantucket Nectars, Ben & Jerry’s, Clif Bar, and

Patagonia consistently highlight their humble beginnings and emphasize their passion for their

products. Google publicizes its integrity with self-proclaimed motto “Don’t be evil,” while Dell

emphasizes its excitement about its products by referring to itself as the “world’s largest startup.”

Perhaps no recent commercial producer has signaled intrinsic motives as adeptly as Apple.

Before his death, Steve Jobs routinely expressed such sentiments explicitly (Isaacson 2011):

“The older I get, the more I see how much motivations matter…If you don't love something,

you're not going to go the extra mile, work the extra weekend, challenge the status quo as much.”

Despite assumptions that commercial producers seek to maximize profits, consumers

may perceive ample variation in their motives. Companies that contribute more value to society

may be thought to do so because they care more about serving consumers than making profits

(Aaker, Vohs and Mogilner 2010; Bhattacharjee, Dana and Baron 2014). Hence, expressing

indifference toward profits may increase future profits by enhancing perceptions of producer Selling Out 39

integrity. Investigating this discomfort with external incentives may help shed light on the most

fundamental challenges of life in a market economy. Though adherence to unbending human

ideals may elicit admiration, modern life often demands compromise in return for prosperity.

Conclusion

Though a developed market society may offer people many ways to balance their

intrinsic desires with incentives to meet the needs of others, all of these ways may be imperfect.

Markets for art distill this basic conflict to its essence. Artists must balance desires for artistic

self-satisfaction with the need to earn enough resources to survive. Strict adherence to the belief

that high quality art results only from a focus on pure artistic self-satisfaction may not only be unfair and unrealistic, but may also require a reexamination of many of history’s greatest artistic achievements. The Renaissance sculptor Cellini remarked in his memoirs, “You poor idiots, I’m a poor goldsmith, and I work for anyone who pays me.” Mozart noted in his letters that his “sole purpose is to make as much money as possible,” and Charlie Chaplin revealed that he “went into the business for money and the art grew out of it” (Cowen 1998, p. 18). Michelangelo’s Sistine

Chapel ceiling and Francis Ford Coppola’s film, “The Godfather,” resulted from both artists’ need to alleviate severe debts, and only in spite of initial dissatisfaction with the demands of their respective work (Iannone 2011). The boundaries between the motives that drive human behavior, like the boundaries between art and commerce, may be hopelessly indistinct. Perhaps Andy

Warhol (1977) came closer to reality when he claimed, “Good business is the best art.”

Selling Out 40

APPENDIX: STUDY STIMULI

Study 1A: Self-Focus condition [Consumer-Focus in brackets]

Lionheart is a young, four-piece rock band from Chicago. The members are childhood friends who grew up aspiring to be musicians.

Their debut album, released a year ago, had moderate sales and received positive but not stellar critical reviews. However, the band was noted as having potential. A website that averages music reviews reported that the average critical rating for the album was 67 out of 100.

Despite the moderate sales of its debut, the band earned enough from album sales and touring to live relatively comfortably and finance the recording and production of its second album.

As they prepared to begin work on their second album, the four members of Lionheart met to discuss their goals for the new album. They had received a variety of advice from friends, other musicians, and industry insiders. Ultimately, the band members decided to maintain [change] the musical style they had established in their first album. In recording their new album, they worked to create the music they most like [audiences most like] in order to maintain [improve] their sound [sales].

Study 2: Matte Acrylic Paints artistic style {Glossy Oil Paints counterbalanced in braces}

Mark Stevens is a young painter from Chicago.

His recent debut gallery show was a moderate success. Mark sold some, but not all, of his paintings. In addition, he received positive but not glowing reviews from area art critics, who noted his potential to grow as an artist.

Mark specializes in painting portraits. His artistic style, as displayed in his gallery debut, has always emphasized the use of {matte acrylic paints with heavy brush strokes}.

As he prepares to begin work for his second gallery show, he thinks about his approach. Mark considers changing his style to use more {glossy oil paints with light brush strokes}.

Maintain for Self condition [Change for Self in brackets] Ultimately, Mark decides to think exclusively about what will currently satisfy him the most. As he begins his work, he carefully focuses on creating paintings that he himself will most like. As a result, he maintains [changes] his current style and continues using {matte acrylic paints with heavy brush strokes} [starts using {glossy oil paints with light brush strokes}] for his second gallery show.

Change for Consumers condition [Change for Critics in brackets] Selling Out 41

Ultimately, Mark decides to think exclusively about what will currently satisfy customer [critics] the most. As he begins his work, he carefully focuses on creating paintings that customers [critics] will most like. As a result, he changes his current style and starts using starts using {glossy oil paints with light brush strokes} for his second gallery show.

Study 3: Artistic condition [Commercial in brackets]

Artistic-Songwriter scenario [Commercial-Software Developer in brackets] Jeff and Fred each work as singer/songwriters [software developers for new technologies]. They have each worked hard to develop their musical style and songwriting skills [programming style and skills].

Though both are skilled and respected by their peers, each takes a different approach to writing songs [programming software]. Jeff thinks mostly about creating music [software] he himself will like, with little regard for what customers will like. Fred thinks mostly about creating music [software] that customers will like, with little regard for what he himself will like.

Artistic-Painter scenario [Commercial-Event Planner in brackets] Stan and Will each work as visual artists and painters [event planners]. They each grew up liking visual art [to entertain] and have worked hard to develop their artistic style and painting skills [event coordination style and skills].

Though both are skilled and respected by their peers, each takes a different approach to painting [planning and coordinating events]. Stan thinks mostly about creating paintings [events] he himself will like, with little regard for what customers will like. Will thinks mostly about creating paintings [events] that customers will like, with little regard for what he himself will like.

Artistic-Novelist scenario [Commercial-Home Contractor in brackets] Mark and Pete each work as novelists and creative writers [home contractors]. They each grew up liking modern literature [wood-working] and have worked hard to develop their writing style and skills [home building style and skills].

Though both are skilled and respected by their peers, each takes a different approach to writing novels [building homes]. Mark thinks mostly about creating novels [homes] he himself will like, with little regard for what customers will like. Pete thinks mostly about creating novels [homes] that customers will like, with little regard for what he himself will like.

Artistic-Filmmaker scenario [Commercial-Brand Manager in brackets] Brad and Matt each work as filmmakers [social media brand managers]. They each grew up liking film [advertising] and have worked hard to develop their filmmaking style and directing skills [brand management style and skills].

Selling Out 42

Though both are skilled and respected by their peers, each takes a different approach to filmmaking [brand management]. Brad thinks mostly about creating films [social media campaigns] he himself will like, with little regard for what customers will like. Matt thinks mostly about creating films [social media campaigns] that customers will like, with little regard for what he himself will like.

Study 4: Hard Edge Lens Filter style {Soft Edge Lens Filter counterbalanced in braces}

Artistic Product Usage condition [Commercial Product Usage in brackets] Mark is a young professional photographer. He specializes in artistic [commercial wedding] photography and earns a living selling photos to art galleries and individual art collectors [wedding planning companies and couples getting married].

Mark is well respected by his peers within the photography community for his natural eye and photographic skill. A photography website that rates local photographers gave Mark's body of work over the past year a rating 81 out of 100, a very good score. However, Mark's photographs do not sell very well, and his sales over the last year were slightly below average. Despite his lack of popularity with customers, he makes enough money to live relatively comfortably.

Recently, as Mark was discussing his photographic style with a photographer friend, his friend advised him to suppress his own personal taste and think more about what is currently popular. His friend noted that a growing trend in photography is the use of {hard edge lens filters, undersaturated colors, and heavy shadow}. However, Mark has always preferred using {soft edge lens filters, oversaturated colors, and little shadow}. He has always felt that this approach defines his personal style.

Self-Focus condition: Though he feels a little uncertain, Mark decides not to take his friend’s advice. He decides not to think about what people will like, and instead, to take photographs mainly according to his personal style. Over the course of the next year, Mark resolves to use {soft edge lens filters, oversaturated colors, and little shadow} in his artistic [commercial wedding] photographs.

Consumer-Focus condition: Though he feels a little uncertain, Mark decides to take his friend’s advice. He decides to suppress his personal style, and instead, to think mainly about taking photographs according to what people will like. Over the course of the next year, Mark resolves to use {hard edge lens filters, undersaturated colors, and heavy shadow} in his artistic [commercial wedding] photographs.

Selling Out 43

REFERENCES

Aaker, Jennifer L., Kathleen D. Vohs, and Cassie Mogilner (2010), “Nonprofits are Seen as

Warm and For-profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 37 (August), 224-37.

Becker, Howard S. (1978), "Arts and Crafts," American Journal of Sociology, 83, 862-89.

——— (1982), Art Worlds, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bar-Hillel, Maya, Alon Maharshak, Avital Moshinsky, and Ruth Nofech, R. (2012), “A Rose by

Any Other Name: A Social-Cognitive Perspective on Poets and Poetry,” Judgment and

Decision Making, 7 (2), 149-64.

Baron, Jonathan and Mark Spranca (1997), “Protected Values,” Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 70 (1), 1-16.

Berg, Justin M., Adam M. Grant, and Victoria Johnson (2010), “When Callings are Calling:

Crafting Work and Leisure in Pursuit of Unanswered Occupational

Callings,” Organization Science, 21 (5): 973-994.

Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity

Signaling and Product Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 121-34.

Beverland, Michael B., and Francis J. Farrelly (2010), “The Quest for Authenticity in

Consumption: Consumers’ Purposive Choice of Authentic Cues to Shape Experienced

Outcomes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 838-56.

Bhattacharjee, Amit, Jason Dana, and Jonathan Baron (2014), “Can Profit Be Good? Zero-Sum

Thinking, Neglect of Incentives, and Anti-Profit Beliefs,” working paper, Dartmouth

College. Selling Out 44

Bullot, Nicolas J., and Rolf Reber (2013), “The Artful Mind Meets Art History: Toward a

Psycho-historical Framework for the Science of Art Appreciation,” Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 36 (2), 123-37.

Bunten, Alexis C. (2008), “Sharing Culture or Selling Out? Developing the Commodified

Persona in the Heritage Industry,” American Ethnologist, 35 (3), 380-95.

Caplan, Bryan (2007), The Myth of the Rational Voter, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Chasin, Alexandra (2001), Selling Out: The Gay and Lesbian Movement Goes to Market, New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cowen, Tyler (1998), In Praise of Commercial Culture, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Cowen, Tyler and Alexander Tabarrok (2000), “An Economic Theory of Avant-Garde and

Popular Art, or High and Low Culture,” Southern Economic Journal, 67 (23), 232-53.

Currid, Elizabeth (2007), “The Economics of a Good Party: Social Mechanics and the

Legitimization of Art/Culture,” Journal of Economics and Finance, 31 (3), 386-94.

Dingwall, John (2014), “Marriage May Have Mellowed Nine Inch Nails' Trent Reznor…But it

Hasn't Made Him Compromise Approach to Music,” Daily Record, May 4.

Dutton, Denis (2009), The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure and Evolution, Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Fein, Steven and James L. Hilton (1994), “Judging Others in the Shadow of Suspicion,”

Motivation and Emotion, 18 (2), 167-198.

Fiske, Alan Page, and Philip E. Tetlock (1997), “Taboo Trade‐offs: Reactions to Transactions

That Transgress the Spheres of Justice,” Political Psychology, 18 (2), 255-97. Selling Out 45

Gans, Herbert J. (1974), Popular Culture and High Culture, New York: Basic.

Golder, Peter N., Debanjan Mitra, and Christine Moorman (2012), “What is Quality? An

Integrative Framework of Processes and States,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 1-23.

Hagtvedt, Henrik and Vanessa M. Patrick (2008), “Art Infusion: The Influence of Visual Art on

the Perception and Evaluation of Consumer Products,” Journal of Marketing Research,

45, 379-89.

Hayes, Andrew F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process

Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York: Guilford Press.

Heath, Chip (1999), “On the Social Psychology of Agency Relationships: Lay Theories of

Motivation Overemphasize Extrinsic Incentives,” Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 78 (1), 25-62.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1983), “Aesthetics, Ideologies and the Limits of the Marketing

Concept,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (3), 45-55.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1999), “Popular Appeal Versus Expert Judgments of Motion Pictures,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (2), 144-55.

Holbrook, Morris B. and Robert B. Zirlin (1985), “Artistic Creation, Artworks and Aesthetic

Appreciation: Some Philosophical Contributions to Nonprofit Marketing,” Advances in

Nonprofit Marketing, 1 (1), 1-54.

Iannone, Jason (2011), “5 Artistic Geniuses Who Only Became Great After Selling Out,”

Cracked.com, March 8.

Isaacson, Walter (2011), Steve Jobs, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler (1986), “Fairness as a Constraint on

Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market,” American Economic Review, 76 (4), 728-41. Selling Out 46

Kasser, Tim, Steve Cohn, Allen D. Kanner, and Richard M. Ryan (2007), “Some Costs of

American Corporate Capitalism: A Psychological Exploration of Value and Goal

Conflicts,” Psychological Inquiry, 18 (1), 1-22.

Kennedy, Randall (2009), Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal, New York: Random House.

Kotler, Philip and Kevin L. Keller (2011), Marketing Management (14th edition), Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Knobe, Joshua (2005), “Ordinary Ethical Reasoning and the Ideal of ‘Being Yourself’,”

Philosophical Psychology, 18 (3), 327-40.

Kruger, Justin, Derrick Wirtz, Leaf Van Boven, and T. William Altermatt (2004), “The Effort

Heuristic,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (1), 91-98.

Kunda, Ziva (1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3), 480-

98.

Lee, Leonard, Shane Frederick, and Dan Ariely (2006), “Try It, You'll Like It: The Influence of

Expectation, Consumption, and Revelation on Preferences for Beer,” Psychological

Science, 17 (12), 1054-58.

Levitt, Theodore (1960), “Marketing Myopia,” Harvard Business Review, 38 (4), 24-47.

Lin-Healy, Fern and Deborah A. Small (2012), “Cheapened Altruism: Discounting Personally

Affected Prosocial Actors,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

117 (2), 269-74.

McGraw, A. Peter, Janet A. Schwartz, and Philip E. Tetlock (2012), “From the Commercial to

the Communal: Reframing Taboo Trade-offs in Religious and Pharmaceutical

Marketing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (1), 157-73. Selling Out 47

McGraw, A. Peter, and Philip Tetlock (2005), “Taboo Trade-offs, Relational Framing, and the

Acceptability of Exchanges,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 2-15.

Miller, Dale T. (1999), “The Norm of Self-Interest,” American Psychologist, 54 (12), 1053-60.

Miller, Dale T., and Rebecca K. Ratner (1998), “The Disparity Between the Actual and Assumed

Power of Self-interest,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (1), 53-62.

Newman, George E. and Paul Bloom (2012), “Art and authenticity: The Importance of Originals

in Judgments of Value,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141 (3), 558-69.

Newman, George E., Paul Bloom, and Joshua Knobe (2014), “Value Judgments and the True

Self,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40 (2), 203-16.

Newman, George and Daylian Cain (2014), “Tainted Altruism: When Doing Some Good Is

Evaluated as Worse Than Doing No Good at All,” Psychological Science, 25 (3), 648-55.

Newman, George E., Gil Diesendruck, and Paul Bloom (2011), “Celebrity Contagion and the

Value of Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 215-28.

Paharia, Neeru, Anat Keinan, Jill Avery, and Juliet B. Schor (2010), “The Underdog Effect: The

Marketing of Disadvantage and Determination through Brand Biography,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 37 (5), 775-90.

Poehlman, Andrew T. and George E. Newman (2014), “Potential: The Valuation of Imagined

Future Achievement,” Cognition, 130 (1), 134-39.

Powers, Ann (2011), “Pop’s Punching Bag: Hating the Black Eyed Peas,” NPR Music, July 13.

Preissler, Melissa Allen, and Paul Bloom (2008), “Two-year-olds Use Artist Intention to

Understand Drawings,” Cognition, 106 (1), 512-18. Selling Out 48

Pronin, Emily, Jonah Berger, and Sarah Molouki (2007), “Alone in a Crowd of Sheep:

Asymmetric Perceptions of Conformity and Their Roots in an Introspection

Illusion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (4), 585-95.

Rozin, Paul, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff (1986), “Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic

Magic in Disgust and Other Domains,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50

(4), 703-12.

Ruvio, Ayalla, Aviv Shoham, and Maja Makovec Brencic (2008), “Consumers’ Need for

Uniqueness: Short-Form Scale Development and Cross-Cultural Validation,”

International Marketing Review, 25 (1), 33-53.

Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci (2000), “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation

of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,” American Psychologist,

55 (1), 68-78.

Schippers, David P., and Alan P. Henry (2000), Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's

Impeachment, Regnery Publishing.

Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (2011), “False-Positive Psychology:

Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as

Significant,” Psychological Science, 22 (11), 1359-66.

Sisario, Ben (2010), “A Hit Record, and an Indie-Rock Identity Crisis,” New York Times, August

14.

Tetlock, Philip E. (2002), “Social Functionalist Frameworks for Judgment and Choice: Intuitive

Politicians, Theologians, and Prosecutors,” Psychological Review, 109 (3), 451-71. Selling Out 49

Tian, Kelly T., William O. Bearden, and Gary L. Hunter (2001), “Consumers’ Need for

Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1),

50-66.

Tormala, Zakary L., Jayson S. Jia, and Michael I. Norton (2012), “The Preference for

Potential,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (4), 567-83.

Warhol, Andy (1977), The Philosophy of Andy Warhol: From A to B and Back Again, Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt.

Warren, Caleb and Margaret C. Campbell (2014), “What Makes Things Cool? How Autonomy

Influences Perceived Coolness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (August).

Wartenberg, Thomas E. (2006), The Nature of Art: An Anthology, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Wilcox, Keith, Anne L. Roggeveen, and Dhruv Grewal (2011), “Shall I Tell You Now or Later?

Assimilation and Contrast in the Evaluation of Experiential Products,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 38 (4), 763-73.

Woodhouse, Howard (2009), Selling Out: Academic Freedom and the Corporate Market,

McGill-Queen's University Press.

Yau, John (2014), “Julian Schnabel’s Formula for Greatness,” Hyperallergic, May 4.

Selling Out 50

FIGURE LEGENDS PAGE

FIGURE 1A

PRODUCER MOTIVES AFFECT PERCEIVED QUALITY AND INTEGRITY (STUDY 1A)

FIGURE 1B

MOTIVES INFERRED FROM PRODUCER FOCUS AFFECT PERCEIVED QUALITY AND INTEGRITY (STUDY 1B)

FIGURE 2

PERCEIVED QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCER FOCUS (STUDY 2)

FIGURE 3

SELLOUT JUDGMENTS AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCER FOCUS (STUDY 2)

FIGURE 4

RELATIVE QUALITY BY PRODUCER FOCUS ACROSS MARKET TYPES (STUDY 3)

FIGURE 5

PERCEIVED QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCER FOCUS AND PRODUCT USAGE (STUDY 4)

FIGURE 6

PERCEIVED QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF INTRINSIC VS. EXTRINSIC PRODUCER MOTIVES ACROSS MARKET TYPES (FOLLOW-UP STUDY)

Selling Out 51

FIGURE 1A

PRODUCER MOTIVES AFFECT PERCEIVED QUALITY AND INTEGRITY (STUDY 1A)

Satisfy Self Satisfy Consumers 9

8 7.28 7

6 5.63

5 4.43 4.44 4

3

2

1 Perceived Quality Perceived Integrity

FIGURE 1B

MOTIVES INFERRED FROM PRODUCER FOCUS AFFECT PERCEIVED QUALITY AND INTEGRITY (STUDY 1B)

Satisfy Self Satisfy Consumers 9

8 7.22 7

6 5.52

5 4.68 4.17 4

3

2

1 Perceived Quality Perceived Integrity

Selling Out 52

FIGURE 2

PERCEIVED QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCER FOCUS (STUDY 2)

9

8 6.69 7 6.26 5.68 6 5.31

5

4 Perceived Quality Perceived 3

2

1 Maintain for Self Change for Self Change for Consumers Change for Critics Producer Focus

Selling Out 53

FIGURE 3

SELLOUT JUDGMENTS AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCER FOCUS (STUDY 2)

100%

80% 69.0%

60% 56.1%

40%

20%

2.6%

Proportion of of Sellout Proportion Judgments 2.4% 0% Maintain for Self Change for Self Change for Consumers Change for Critics Producer Focus

Selling Out 54

FIGURE 4

RELATIVE QUALITY BY PRODUCER FOCUS ACROSS MARKET TYPES (STUDY 3)

Relative Product Quality

-1.01 Songwriter

-0.18 Filmmaker

-0.94 Painter

-0.67 Novelist

Event Planner 2.30

Brand Manager 1.99

Home Contractor 1.76

Software Developer 1.83

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Self-focused Producer Neutral Customer-focused Producer

Selling Out 55

FIGURE 5

PERCEIVED QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF PRODUCER FOCUS AND PRODUCT USAGE (STUDY 4)

Satisfy Self Satisfy Consumers 9

8

7 6.15 6.01 6 5.17 4.91 5

4

3 Perceived Quality Perceived 2

1 Artistic Commercial Product Usage

Selling Out 56

FIGURE 6

PERCEIVED QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF INTRINSIC VS. EXTRINSIC PRODUCER MOTIVES ACROSS MARKET TYPES (FOLLOW-UP STUDY)

Intrinsic Motives Extrinsic Motives 9

8 7.32

7 6.61 5.95 6 5 4.44 4 3 Perceived Quality Perceived 2 1 Artistic Commercial Market Type