Is brand name tags, signs, and various "tags" in their daily lives that make people lose their self-selves?Try to tear down the labels and try not to care about the labels. I believe you will be able to live more freely!

"Clothing can build one person, but the label is the most affected."(Sibling: An independent list of Zhang Tie-chih: Just a signed understanding of the world, lazy )

Fashion designers want customers to believe that the clothes they design can help to show wealth, upbringing, and status.It's true, but perhaps not as the designers believe-it is the result of their creativity and the design of the talent.

A new study confirms long skepticism of many people, especially the market research arm of the apparel brand, that valuable may not be designed, but rather a label for clothing.

Nelissen and Marijn Meijers of the University of Tielburg in the Netherlands have seen the reaction of people in experimental personnel wearing Lacoste and Tommy Hilfiger (two famous brands that are willing to be treated as designer clothes).

A paper published by two researchers in the upcoming says that brand name clothing does bring benefits: getting people's cooperation, work recommendations, and even fundraising money when philanthropic fundraising.But the premise is that the source of these clothes must be obvious.

Picture | Source

In the first experiment, the volunteers will see a few pictures in which the men in the picture wear the clothing that does not have brand names, the designer brand logo (Lacoste or Tommy Hilfiger), or the Polo shirt, which is usually regarded as the priced brand of Slaazenger.

When the designer's logo appears, men tend to be considered more socially (5 points), Lacoste gets 3.5 points, Tommy Hilfiger receives 3.47 points, and no sign of 2.91, Slazenger gets 2.84 points, and 2.78 and Tommy Hilfiger receive 2.78 and Slazenger, respectively, 2.78 and 2.78.

In order to see whether people's perception of brand logos will affect their actual behavior, researchers have experimentation with several experiments.For example, let a woman assistant stop at a shopping mall to stop and do a questionnaire for her.The first day, she wore a sweater with designer branded logo, and the next day wore a sweater that was very similar but without a brand mark.When she wore a sweater with Tommy Hilfiger logo, 52 % of the people were willing to give her a questionnaire; while wearing unmarked clothes, only 13 % of the respondents had taken the questionnaire.

Picture | Source

In another experiment, the subject sees one of the two movies of a man's job interview.The two films are different in that one of the men is wearing a designer branded shirt and another film with no logo shirt.

Results show that the brand mark makes it more appropriate for a person to think that a man is better suited to this job, or even earn 9 % more than his brand mark.

The charity drive has also been affected.For four consecutive nights, the two teams had to take turns wearing designer and non-designer clothes to fundraising. When they found clothing with designer label marks, they could raise nearly twice as much money-an average of only 19 euros for each household who responded with 34 cents, while wearing clothes without a brand mark.So it seems that the labels are important.But why?

Dr. Nelissen and Dr. Meijers think that this is the same reason why the peacock with the most beautiful feathers can receive the favor of all females.People's response to designer label labels is that this is the status message.Only the best will bear the burden.

To confirm this idea, they test what happens when people know that a person wears a brand of clothing, but doesn't have to spend a cent on it.They let the subjects play a social-dilemma game in which the two sides can benefit from cooperation, but they also have the risk of being cheaply taken advantage of.

Each subject gets 2 euros (20 10 cents), and they can transfer some or all of the money to the unseen partner, and the transfer becomes twice as much as it was in the past.If both partners transfer their own money to each other, the two sides will eventually have four euros.But because a missing partner is not guaranteed to transfer a cent of the money to you, the subject usually reserves a portion of the money as a hedge.

Picture | Source

When the subject sees the legendary partner in the designer's brand clothing, it is more than 36 % more than the one who sees the same person wearing a logo that does not have a sign.But when they were told that their partner's clothes were being prepared by the experimenter, the brand had no impact on the subjects.This dress is no longer representative of honest news.

This study confirms a widespread phenomenon.The value of art will change as people think of who it is, even if the art itself does not change.In addition, people will be willing to buy famous brand names as long as their labels are printed.

Interestingly, the brand is persuasive.The peacock's tail is not fake, so it can do its function, and the unhealthy bird will not have feathers full of gloss.But humans often fail to see the other side of the surface, and the human-like assessment mechanism seems to have gone wrong.(Recommended reading: [To the lost person to the lost] Miao Bao: I can't tear off the label, but you can choose not to understand the world with a label )

The probable cause is the evolution of the bioevolution, which is not intended to be used to deal with industrial products.If the beauty of the tail is the only thing that you need to evaluate, biological evolution will make you pretty good at it.

However, artificial products are so diverse that people will create a convenient way to measure it.That is, if everyone agrees that something has a high ground level, then it has.But this type of identity is often transferred from east to west to the brand. Perhaps millions of years later, the evolution of this kind of evaluation can eliminate the mishandling of such evaluations.At the same time, however, market researchers could open the champagne to celebrate.