I wonder how common it is for the opposite to be true. I think visible logos on clothig are phenomenally tacky and have a strong immediate negative reaction to the people wearing them when I see them. This isn't really a reaction to certain brands, but to the idea of advertising them.

On the other hand, I might assume that these people are wealthier.

When shown a picture of their purported partner wearing a designer shirt, volunteers transferred 36% more than when the same person was shown with no logo (95 cents, as opposed to 70 cents). But when told that the partner was wearing a shirt given by the experimenters, the logo had no effect on transfers. The shirt no longer represented an honest signal.

This is actually quite comforting - it suggests that people aren't simply having a Pavlovian reaction to heavily advertised labels, but rather they're instinctively using them as evidence towards an assessment of their wealth. Which is a perfectly rational thing to do, so I'm not sure I see what's making people frown in this thread.

Important quote:

This study confirms a wider phenomenon. A work of art’s value, for example, can change radically, depending on who is believed to have created it, even though the artwork itself is unchanged.

Wow, for real.