Imagine this: You're interviewing two people for a job. They're equally competent, capable, and qualified—but you can see that one is wearing an outfit from H&M and the other's clothes are clearly from Louis Vuitton. Which candidate will you hire?
想象一下，你正在面試兩個(gè)能力、資歷相當(dāng)且都非常適合這項(xiàng)工作的人，但是一個(gè)人穿著H&M的服裝，另一個(gè)穿了路易·威登（Louis Vuitton）的服裝。你會(huì)雇傭哪一個(gè)呢？

A new study in the Journal of Business Research suggests you're more likely to choose the latter. Surveying students at a large urban university in Seoul, South Korea, researchers from Yonsei University and Coastal Carolina University examined how we react to others depending on the brands they're wearing. To do so, they tested several scenarios of someone wearing a luxury brand logo, a logo from a non-luxury brand, or no logo. They found that in nearly every situation, people gave preferential treatment to the person wearing the luxury logo.
《商業(yè)研究雜志》（The Journal of Business Research）近期一項(xiàng)新研究表明，你更可能會(huì)選擇后者。來(lái)自韓國(guó)延世大學(xué)（Yonsei University）和卡羅萊納海岸大學(xué)（Coastal Carolina University）的研究者們，對(duì)韓國(guó)首爾市區(qū)大學(xué)學(xué)生進(jìn)行了“我們對(duì)他人所穿著的不同品牌服裝有何不同反應(yīng)”的調(diào)查。為了做這項(xiàng)研究，他們測(cè)試了幾種方案，觀察人們對(duì)著名牌、著普通品牌和著無(wú)牌服飾的人的反應(yīng)。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)幾乎在所有情況下，人們都會(huì)對(duì)穿著名牌服飾的人給予特殊照顧。

The researchers call this effect an example of costly signaling theory, which says that people show off to “signal” to others that they can afford to do so. In the case of luxury brands, the theory predicts that people wear expensive clothing to flaunt that they can afford it, thereby increasing their status in the eyes of others.
研究者把這種效應(yīng)稱(chēng)作高成本信號(hào)理論（costly signaling theory），也就是說(shuō)人們通過(guò)炫耀自己的外表將“自己有錢(qián)這樣做”的信號(hào)傳遞給他人。在名牌的影響下，這個(gè)理論預(yù)測(cè)人們穿著昂貴的服飾是為了炫耀自己買(mǎi)得起奢侈品，從而能夠提高他們?cè)趧e人眼中的地位。

In the study's first scenario, 180 observers were shown a picture of a woman wearing a white polo shirt and asked to rate her wealth, status, attractiveness, trustworthiness, and other characteristics. Three versions of the picture were used, identical except for the shirt's visible brand logo (luxury, non-luxury, or none). The observers of the luxury logo rated the woman significantly higher on wealth and status than did the observers of the non-luxury logo or no logo.
在第一種方案中，180名觀察者的面前放了一張一位女士穿著白色POLO衫的照片，根據(jù)圖片，他們要評(píng)價(jià)其財(cái)富程度、社會(huì)地位、吸引力、可信度和其他品質(zhì)。總共使用了三個(gè)版本的照片，除了T恤衫上的品牌商標(biāo)（奢侈品、普通品牌、無(wú)牌）不同之外，其他均相同。調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示，觀察者認(rèn)為穿著奢侈品牌服飾的她在財(cái)富程度和社會(huì)地位上明顯高于著另外兩種服飾的她。

In the second scenario, 150 observers watched a video of a woman being interviewed for an internship. Three versions of the video were used, again identical except for the logo on the woman's shirt. The observers rated the woman on a number of characteristics, but this time they also judged her suitability for the job and the pay she should receive. Observers of the luxury logo rated the woman most suitable for the job, again with significantly higher status and wealth ratings. The luxury observers also thought she deserved the highest compensation. Asked to choose her hourly pay from five ranges, over half of luxury observers chose one of the top two ranges—far greater than the 12% of non-luxury observers and 10% of no-logo observers who did the same.
第二個(gè)方案中，有150個(gè)人觀看了一位女士應(yīng)聘實(shí)習(xí)崗位的視頻。同樣有三種版本，同樣是除T恤衫商標(biāo)不同之外其他均相同。這次，觀察者要對(duì)她的個(gè)人品質(zhì)進(jìn)行排序，還要判斷她是否適合這項(xiàng)工作和她應(yīng)得的薪資。觀察者再一次認(rèn)為著奢侈品牌服飾的她更適合這項(xiàng)工作，且社會(huì)地位和財(cái)富值更高。他們還認(rèn)為她應(yīng)得到最高的薪資待遇。之后，他們?cè)?個(gè)范圍內(nèi)選擇她的時(shí)薪，超過(guò)一半的奢侈品觀察者選擇了最高的兩種時(shí)薪，而普通品牌觀察者選擇最高時(shí)薪的只有12%， 無(wú)牌觀察者只有10%做出了同樣的選擇。

But this doesn't necessarily mean you should rush out and splurge on Gucci shoes before your next job interview. The researchers caution that several additional factors are at work.
但這并不意味著在下次面試前沖到商場(chǎng)隨意揮霍，買(mǎi)一雙Gucci的鞋子。研究人員提到說(shuō)還有其他的因素在起作用。

For one, the observer must recognize the brand logo without assistance. If the wearer has to point out what she's wearing, the effect is destroyed. And, of course, the observer must know the brand to recognize it in the first place.
第一，觀察者必須在沒(méi)有提示的情況下認(rèn)出此品牌。如果穿戴者自己指出穿的是什么，這個(gè)效應(yīng)就不成立了。當(dāng)然，觀察者一定要知道這個(gè)品牌才會(huì)在第一時(shí)間認(rèn)出來(lái)。

For another, how someone wears the brand matters. The researchers say that a gaudy outfit will probably backfire with wealthy observers. Wealthy people tend to value subtlety in showing one's social standing, viewing “l(fā)oud” displays of clothing as being in bad taste. Cheaper designer items cater to the opposite impulse, often featuring large logos that allow their purchasers to conspicuously show off the brand.
另外，如何穿才最重要。研究人員說(shuō)，本身很富有的觀察者若看到俗麗的服裝效果反而會(huì)適得其反。有錢(qián)人更喜歡他人用微妙的方式來(lái)炫耀社會(huì)地位，而浮夸的服裝則被視作低級(jí)趣味不能入眼。這時(shí)，廉價(jià)設(shè)計(jì)師的服裝正好迎合相反的品味，衣服經(jīng)常帶有大大的品牌標(biāo)志以便讓其購(gòu)買(mǎi)者大肆炫耀自己的品牌。

The hiring process is known to be fraught with biases—now it seems we can add fashion to the list too.
應(yīng)聘是一個(gè)含有偏見(jiàn)與歧視的過(guò)程，現(xiàn)在我們可以將時(shí)尚納入其中了。

Vocabulary
splurge: 揮霍
gaudy: 俗麗的
backfire: 產(chǎn)生出乎意料及事與愿違的結(jié)果

（譯者：bistu楊諾1204 編輯：陳丹妮）