The Name Game: How Naming Products Increases Psychological Ownership and Subsequent Consumer Evaluations

Naming products is quite prevalent in American culture; however, we are not aware of any consumer research that explores the effects of this phenomenon. Across three studies, we demonstrate that when consumers name products, their evaluations of those products increase (e.g., attitudes, purchase intentions, and willingness to accept). We find that name fit and creativity as well as subsequent psychological ownership drive this effect. We also demonstrate that the naming effect is quite robust—replicating across multiple products, presentation formats, and populations as well as persisting over time. These results contribute to consumer research by opening up a new substantive line of inquiry into the effects of naming products.     

Can Everyday Brands Be Threatening? Responses to Brand Primes Depend on Childhood Socioeconomic Status

The current work investigates whether childhood socioeconomic status influences how people respond to brands. Results from two experiments show that, perhaps counterintuitively, everyday brands—and not luxury brands—can threaten the self‐esteem of people who had poor childhoods. Supported by the results of our pilot study, we argue this is because everyday brands represent a material norm that can be difficult for low‐income consumers to achieve. Furthermore, our findings suggest that consumers from poor backgrounds may cope with this threat by becoming morse self‐interested, as indicated by decreased volunteer intentions.     

Did They Earn It? Observing Unearned Luxury Consumption Decreases Brand Attitude When Observers Value Fairness

People frequently observe others’ consumption, making inferences about both the consumer and the consumed brands. Although these observations are often beneficial for brands, this research demonstrates that observing luxury brand consumers whose consumption arose from unearned (vs. earned) financial resources reduces observers’ brand attitudes when observers place a high value on fairness. When fairness values are high, observers do not perceive luxury brand consumers who use unearned (vs. earned) consumption resources as prestigious, and in turn, lower prestige perceptions adversely affect observers’ brand evaluations for luxury brands. Consistent with our theorizing regarding the signaling of prestige, the joint effect of consumers’ consumption resources and observers’ fairness values on observers’ brand attitudes does not hold for nonluxury brands, which are not associated with prestige and thereby are not denigrated when the consumer is not perceived as prestigious. This research sheds light on the role of moral values in marketplace judgments of luxury consumption and brand attitude by considering the influence of consumption resources on observers’ judgments.     

Everyday creative activity as a path to flourishing

Recent experience sampling and diary studies have shown that spending time on creative goals during a day is associated with higher activated positive affect (PA) on that day. Based on models of creativity as a tool for promoting well-being, the present study examined cross-day relationships between creative activity, affect, and flourishing. A large sample of young adults (n = 658) took part in a 13-day daily diary study. Each day, they reported how much time they spent on creative activities, daily positive and negative affect, and daily flourishing. Lagged multilevel models revealed that people felt higher activated PA and flourishing following days when they reported more creative activity than usual. The other direction – PA predicting next-day creative activity – was not supported, suggesting that the cross-day effect was specific to creative activity predicting well-being. Overall, these findings support the emerging emphasis on everyday creativity as a means of cultivating positive psychological functioning.     

Behavioural Consistency Within the Prisoner's Dilemma Game: The Role of Personality and Situation

Mixed‐motive games represent situations that confront people with a conflict between cooperative and non‐cooperative alternatives. Despite this common basis, recent research has shown that the consistency of people's choices across different mixed‐motive games is rather low. The present research examined behavioural consistency within the same mixed‐motive game, by presenting participants with a series of one‐shot Prisoner's Dilemma Games. Across this set of games, payoffs were manipulated in order to intensify or weaken the conflict between self and the other party while maintaining the game's underlying structure. Our findings indicate that significant differences in choice behaviour are observed as a function of both situational (i.e. manipulations of the Prisoner's Dilemma Game's payoff structure) and personality differences (i.e. individual differences in personality and motivational traits). Moreover, our included situational variables and personality features did not interact with each other and were about equally impactful in shaping cooperation. Crucially, however, despite the significant behavioural differences across game variants, considerable consistency in choices was found as well, which suggests that the game's motivational basis reliably impacts choice behaviour in spite of situational and personality variations. We discuss implications for theorizing on mixed‐motive situations and elaborate on the question how cooperation can be promoted. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology     

The relations between cognitive ability and personality: Convergent results across measures

Several studies have investigated the relations between cognitive ability and Big Five personality constructs. The present study extended previous research by (a) examining these relationships in large samples (total N = 120,014), (b) including several measures of cognitive ability and personality, (c) examining both domain and facet-level personality scores, (d) expanding the personality domains studied to include Machiavellianism, and (e) correcting the observed correlations for range restriction and reliability to provide a better statistical estimate of the relations between the cognitive and personality scores and constructs. Results were consistent with prior research showing a positive relationship between cognitive ability and Openness and negative relationships between cognitive ability and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Negative relations between cognitive ability and Extraversion and Agreeableness also were observed. Machiavellianism, not part of the Big Five was found to have a positive correlation with cognitive ability. Of particular interest was the finding that the relations between cognitive ability and personality were affected by the specific content of the cognitive and personality measures. Cognitive measures with verbal content were more strongly correlated with personality than were cognitive measures with math or nonverbal content for all of the samples. Also, there was considerable variability in the cognitive-personality correlations for the facets underlying each personality domain. The variability in correlations at the facet-level implies that cognitive-personality relationships at the domain-level will vary as a function of the specific content of the cognitive and personality measures. Overall, the results provide support for cognitive-personality association at the measurement level.