sat suite question viewer
In a series of experiments, Julio Sevilla and Claudia Townsend showed that manipulating the space between products in store displays can influence consumers’ views of those products. Participants in several of the experiments regarded the same products in the same (generic) retail settings as significantly more valuable when the product-to-space ratio was low than when it was high. But in one of the experiments, Sevilla and Townsend arranged the same jewelry with different levels of intervening space at an upscale retailer (Tiffany & Co.) and a relatively inexpensive retailer (Forever 21). The result of this experiment suggests that a store context associated with inexpensive products may moderate the effect Sevilla and Townsend observed in their other experiments.
Which finding from the experiment with Tiffany & Co. and Forever 21, if true, would most directly support the conclusion presented in the text?
Explanation
Choice A is the best answer because it presents a finding that, if true, would support the text’s conclusion about the results of the experiment with Tiffany & Co. and Forever 21. According to the text, Sevilla and Townsend found in several experiments that when products in a generic retail setting are displayed with a low product-to-space ratio (that is, with lots of space between them), consumers view those products as significantly more valuable than when the same products are displayed with a higher product-to-space ratio (less space between them). The text then states that the results of an experiment specifically using the contexts of an inexpensive store (Forever 21) and an upscale one (Tiffany & Co.) suggest that an inexpensive store context may moderate, or lessen, that effect. If Sevilla and Townsend found that participants in the experiment with Tiffany & Co. and Forever 21 judged the same jewelry items as substantially more valuable when there was lots of space between them than when there was little space between them in the upscale store (Tiffany & Co.) but judged the same jewelry items as only slightly more valuable when there was lots of space between them than when there was little space between them in the inexpensive store (Forever 21), that finding would demonstrate that increased space between products was associated with less of an increase in those products’ perceived value at the inexpensive store than at the upscale store. Thus, the finding would support the text’s conclusion that a store context associated with inexpensive goods moderates the effect Sevilla and Townsend observed in their earlier experiments.
Choice B is incorrect because if Sevilla and Townsend found that at both upscale and inexpensive stores, participants judged jewelry spaced far apart to be less valuable than jewelry spaced close together, that would show the opposite of the effect the researchers observed in their earlier experiments, not show that an inexpensive store context merely moderates, or lessens, that effect. Choice C is incorrect because this finding wouldn’t show that the effect Sevilla and Townsend observed in their initial experiments (that products spaced far apart were perceived as more valuable than the same products spaced close together) is present but lessened in inexpensive retail contexts, as the text suggests. The conclusion in the text rests on determining the difference in jewelry items’ perceived value between two spacing conditions within each store and then comparing the difference for the inexpensive store (Forever 21) to the difference for the upscale store (Tiffany & Co.); a finding that compares perceptions of the jewelry items’ value between the two stores but for only one type of spacing condition at a time wouldn’t provide information about the degree of difference between spacing conditions within each type of store context. Choice D is incorrect because this finding wouldn’t show that the effect Sevilla and Townsend observed in their initial experiments (that products spaced far apart were perceived as more valuable than the same products spaced close together) is present but lessened in inexpensive retail contexts, as the text suggests. The conclusion in the text rests on determining the difference in jewelry items’ perceived value between two spacing conditions within each store and then comparing the difference for the inexpensive store (Forever 21) to the difference for the upscale store (Tiffany & Co.); a finding that compares perceptions of the relative value of jewelry items between the two stores and for only one type of spacing condition at a time wouldn’t provide information about the degree of difference between spacing conditions within each type of store context.