8/12/2019 55831103

1/16

Gotto GetYou intoMyLife oBrandPersonaiities RubOffon Consumers?Jl KYU NG P RKDEBOR H ROEDDER JOHN

When consumers use brands with appealing personalities, does thebrand s per-sonality rub off' onthem? Theanswer is yes, butonly forconsumers whoholdcertain beliefs about their personality. Entity theorists perceive themselvesto bebetter looking, more feminine,andmore glamorous after using aVictoria s Secretshoppingbag(study )andmore intelligent, more of aleader,andharder wo rkingafter usingan MIT pen (study 2); incremental theorists are unaffected. In twosubsequent studies,we find that entity theorists use brands with appealing per-sonalities to signal their positive qualities, thereby enhancing self-perceptions inline withthe brand s p ersonality. These findings implicate implicit self-theories asakeyfactor in understanding how brand experiences affect consumers.

B rand personality is a keyelementof thebrand's imagefor many consumer brands. Brandscan bepositionedon the basisofhuman qua lities, suchassincerity (e.g., honest,down to earth), excitement (e.g., trendy, cool), competence(e.g., intelligent, hardworking), sophistication (e.g., good-looking, glamorous),andruggedness (e.g., tough, masculine;Aaker 1997). For example, Canier is associated withso-phistication, whereas Timex is associated with ruggedness.Brand personality often differentiates a brand from compet-itors,and it isappealingtoconsumerswhowishtoexpress,affirm, or enhance their senseof self.In this anicle,we ask thequestion: When consumersusebrands with appealing personalities, does thebrand'sper-sonality rub off onthem?In other words,doconsumersperceive themselvesashavingthe brand's personality aftertheyuse thebrand?If a consumer wears a Canier watch,which is associated with sophistication, will sheperceiveherself as more sophisticated? Research shows that consum-ers often prefer and choose brands with appealing person-alities in an attempt to affirm and enhance their senseofself (Escalas and Bettman 2003; Gao,Wheeler, and Shiv200 9; Swaminathan, Stilley,andA hluwalia 2009 ). However,

Ji Kyung Park (parkx312@umn.edu) is a PhDcandidate and DeborahRoedder John (djohn@umn.edu) isCurtisL. Carlson Chairandprofessorof marketing, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota,32 1 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis,MN55455.The authors acknowl-edge helpful comments received from theJCR editor, associate editor,andreviewers. Appreciation is also extended to the first author's dissertationcommittee: Rohini Ahluwalia, Marti Hope Gonzales,and Barbara Loken.John Deighton servedaseditorandDebbie Maclnnis served asassociateeditorfor this articleElectronically published July6 2010

these studiesdonot observe consum ers actually using brands,leaving unansweredthequestionofwhether these brandex-periences actually resultinmore positive self-perceptionsinline withthe brand's personality.We propose that experiences with brands that haveap-pealing personalities rub off onsome,but notall, consum -ers. Specifically, we identify implicit self-theories thatcon-sumers hold about their personalitiesas akey determinantofwhether consumers perceive themselves in a more positivelight after using brands with appealing personalities. We findthat only consumers whoendorsea panicular implicit self-theory view these typesofbrand experiences as opponunitiesto signaltothemselvesor others that they possessthesameappealing traitsas thebrand,and only these consumersac-tually perceive themselves in a more positive way after abrand experience.To focusoureffons, we examine brand experiences whereonlythesignaling valueofthe brandcan beexperienced.Forexample,in thefirst study, we provide consumers withanopponunity to use a shopping bag from Victoria's Secret.Carryingtheshoppingbagprovidesanopponunitytosignaldesirable personal qualities throughthebrand, suchasglam-orousandfeminine,but itdoesnotprovidean opponunityto experience functional aspectsof products marketed underthis brand. Restricting the brand experience in this way allow sustostudythesignaling valueofbrand personalities, whichhas beenthefocusofmost prior research, without confound-ingitwith the many factors that come into play whencon-sumersuseproducts.Our research opensa newareaofinquiryinunderstand-ing howconsumers respondtobrand personality. First,weextendthestudyofbrand personality intotheareaofactual

brand experience. Recent experimental work has studied65 5

8/12/2019 55831103

2/16

656 JOURN LO CONSUMER RESE RCHbrand personality as an instrument for building and re-pairingthe self, but itstops shortofexamining actual brandexperiences.Wefind that using brands with appealingper-sonalitiescan rub off on consumers, altering perceptionsof theirownpersonalities. Although these effectsmay notbe permanent in nature, we find that self-perceptions arealtered regardlessofwhether the brand experienceisshort-lived or repeated over time, in a public or privatecon-sumption context. Second, we introduce implicit self-the-ories as an important factor in understanding consumerresponse to brand personality. In doingso, we find thatconsumers' beliefs about their own personalities are keyto predicting how they will respond to using brands withappealing personalities.The role that implicit self-theoriesplayinconsumer behavioris anemerging areaofresearch,and we show that implicit self-theories are an importantaddition to understanding how brand expe riences affectthewayconsumers seethemselves.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUNDImplicit Self-Theories

Individuals developlaytheories,orknowledge stmctures,regardingthenatureofthe social worldinorder to interpret,predict, and control their social worids (Lickel, Hamilton,and Sherman 2001). Among the most studied lay theoriesare implicit self-theories, which are lay beliefs aboutthemalleabilityofour personalities. Researchers have identifiedtwo implicit self-theories; entity theory versus incrementaltheory. Individuals who endorse incremental theory ( in-cremental theorists ) view their personal qualities as mal-leable, which theycan improve through theirown efforts.In contrast, individuals who endorse entity theory ( entitytheorists ) believe that their personal qualities are fixed,which they cannot improve through theirown direct efforts(Dweck 2000; Dweckand Leggett 1988).

These contrasting views influencethe waythat individualsapproach self-enhancement (Dweck2000;Molden and Dweck2006).Because incremental theorists believe that their personalqualitiescan be improved if they exert effort to do so,theyseekoutwaystobecomeabetter person through opportunitiesfor leaming, self-improvement, and growth.Forexample,col-lege students with incremental theory beliefs are willingto take challenging classes that they believe will help themimprove abilitiesto become more competent, evenifthereisahigh riskofreceivinga lowgrade (Dw eckandLeggett1988;Elliottand Dweck 1988).Incontrast, entity theoristsview personal qualities as something they cannot changeby their direct efforts to learn, improve,orgrow.Inorderto enhance the self, they seek out opportunities to signaltheir positive qualities to the self or others. Collegestu-dents with entity theory beliefs seek out easier classeswhere theyaresuretoreceiveahigh grade, which signalstheir competence, even if these classes do not result inleaming or skill acquisition (Dweck and Leggett 1988;Elliott and Dweck 1988).

When entity and incremental theorists engage in experiences

consistent with their preferred way to self-enhance, theseexperiences leadtomore positive self-perceptions.Forexampleina study with schoolchildren, ElliottandDweck(inDwecand Bempechat 1983)asked children when they felt smartischool. Children with incremental theory beliefs reported thathey felt smart after engaging in effortful leam ingand selfdevelopment ( whenIdon't know howto do it, and it'spretthard,and Ifigureit outwithout anyone telling me or whenI'm readinga hard book ).In contrast, children with entitytheory beliefs reported that they felt smart after signaling theircapability ( when I don't do mistakes or when I tum inmy papers first ). As this example illustrates, incrementatheorists perceive the self in a more positive way throughself-improvement opportunities, whereas entity theoristsperceivetheself in a more positiveway through opportunitieto signal positive q ualitiesto theselforothers (Dweck 2000Dweckand Bempechat 1983).

In documenting these differences, prior researchhasmosoften examined individuals whohavea chronic dispositionto favor either entity theory or incremental theory. Thatisbeliefs in entity versus incremental theoryaremeasuredaan individual difference factor. However, researchers havealso shown that beliefs in entity or incremental theorycanbe manipulated by exposing individuals to information advocating a particular theory. For example, studies have shownthat exposing individuals to an article presenting scientificevidence that personal qualities areenduringandcannotbeeasily changed (entity theory) or that personal qualitiesarmalleable and can be developed (incremental theory) leadsto thoughtsandbehaviors consistent withtheadvocatedtheory (Chiu, Hong,andDweck 1997; Hongetal. 1999; Yorkston, Nunes,andMatta 2010).

Prior research has also documented that differences between entityand incremental theoristsareapplicable acrosa wide range of personality traits. Although research onimplicit self-theories beganbystudying intelligence (Dweckand Leggett 1988; Erdleyetal. 1997; RobinandPals 200 2)subsequent research has expanded the scope to otherdomains, suchasmorality (Chiuet al.1997; Dweckand Leggett 1988) and shyness (Beer 2002). Furiher, implicit selftheories are applicabletooverall personality dom ains (LevyStroessner,andDweck 1998; Plak, Grant,andDweck 2005Plaket al.2001).Implicit Self-Theories andBrand Personalities

Brands offer awide arrayofopportunitiesforconsumersto express who they are and who they would like to beBrands with distinctive andappealing personalitiesare especially well suitedforthis purpose. Consum ers are attractedto brands with distinctive personalities when they wishtoexpre ss, affirm, orenhance their senseof self (Aaker1999Escalas andBettman 2003;Gao et al. 2009; Swaminathanetal.2009).We propose that implicit self-theories affect the way consumers respond to experiences with brands that haveap-pealing personalities. Recall fromourpreceding discussion

that entity theorists seek opportunitiestosignal their desired

8/12/2019 55831103

3/16

BRA ND EXPERIENCE AN D SELF PERCEPTIONS 657positive qualities, and when they engage in signalingbe-havior, they perceive themselves in a more positive light.Using a brand associated with appealing personality traitsprovides entity theorists withan opportunity to signal thatthey possess the same appealing personality traits as thebrand. Thus,we predict that entity theorists willusethesebrand experiences as a self-signal, and in doing so, willperceive themselves more positively in line with the ap-pealing personality traits associated withthebrand.For ex-ample, after experiencingabrand suchasVictoria's Secret,which is associated with personality traits suchasglamor-ous, good-looking, and feminine, entity theorists willper-ceive themselves as more glamorous, good-looking, andfeminine.

What about incremental theorists? Although incrementaltheorists use brands with appealing personalities,and mayeven prefer these brandstoothers, theyareunlikelytofeelmore positive about themselves just becausethebrandhasa desirable personality. Recall from our prior discussion thatincremental theorists seek opportunities for self-improve-ment through leaming, self-development, andgrowth,andtherefore they willbe more likelyto usebrandsfor a self-improvement purpose.For incremental theorists, brandex-periences that only provide an opportunity to signal one'spersonal qualities through appealing brand personalitiesdonot match their approach to self-enhancement. Therefore,they areunlikelyto usethese brand experiencesassignalsofthe self, andthey areunlikely to have their self-percep-tions affected by this typeof brand experience.

OverviewofEmpirical StudiesWe test our predictions with four studies.Thefirsttwostudies testourpredictionsinnatural field settings.The firststudywasconductedin ashopping m all, where femalecon-sumers were giventheopportunitytouseaVictoria's Secretshoppingbag; the second studywas conducted withMBAstudentswhowere giventheopportunityto use anMITpenfor aperiodof 6weeks. Across studies,wefind entitythe-orists were the most affected by their brand experiences.Entity theorists perceived themselvesto bemore feminine,glamorous, and good-looking after carrying the Victoria'sSecret shopping bag ru lmore intelligent, harder working,and moreof a leader after usingthe MIT pen.Incrementaltheorists were unaffected by these brand experiences.The nexttwostudies provide supportfor therationaleun-derlyingourpredictions.In study3, weprovide femaleun-dergraduate students withanoppo rtunityto use a Victoria'sSecret shopping bag, and wedirectly measuretheextenttowhich participantsuse the Victoria's Secret brandto signaltheself.Wefindhat useofthe brand asaself-signal mediatesthe relationship between implicit self-theories and self-per-ceptions after brand experience. Compared to incrementaltheorists, entity theorists make greateruse of thebrandex-perience as a signaling opp ortunity, which leadstoperceptionsthat they are more feminine, glamorous, and good-lookingafter carryingtheVictoria's Secret shopping bag.Instudy4,we manipulatethemotivationtoself-enhancebyintroducing

a threatto students' self-perceptions of competence (intelli-gent, hardworking, leader),and we then provide an oppor-tunitytouse an MIT pen. Only entity theorists recovered theirsenseof self throughtheMIT pen, indicating that entity the-orists used the MIT pen as an opportunity to signal theircompetence after a self-threat.

STUDY1Brand Pretests

Pretests confirmed Victoria's Secrettohaveanappealingbrand personality, makingitwell suitedforour study. Pretestmeasures were based on Aaker's (1997) brand personalityscale, consisting of 42 personality traits representing fivemajor dimensions of brand personality: sincerity, sophisti-cation, competence, excitement,andruggedness. Using thislistof 42items,we asked women aged 18-34{n 40) toselect five traits that they strongly associate with Victoria'sSecret. Results sho wed three traits out of 42 personality traitswere most frequently selected as strongly associated withthis brand: glamorous (72.5 of respondents), feminine(72.5 of respondents), and good-looking (62.5 of re-spondents).Theremaining39traits were mentionedbylessthan 50 of the respondents.We also asked womenhowinterested they wouldbe in anopportunitytoenhance them -selveson all 42personality traits(0 = not at allinterested;100 = extremely interested), which revealedahigh degreeof interest in the traits associated with Victoria's Secret:glamorous(M = 60.10), feminine(M = 62.63),andgood-looking(M = 69.23; meanfor alltraits = 49.78). Further,therewas nodifference between entityandincrementalthe-orists (measure described below) in their ratings of thesetraits(allp > .20).

Based on this data, we selected Victoria's Secretas thebrand. Weused the three personality traits most stronglyassociated with this brand (good-looking, feminine, andglamorous)to measure self-perceptions in the main study.SampleandProcedure

Eighty-five women were recruited by a marketing re-search firm u sing m all intercepts:48women w ere recruitedforthebrand experience condition duringonesession,and37 women were recruitedfor the nobrand experiencecon-ditionin asecond session. Women were invited to participateif they were 18-34years of age,planning to shopin themallfor atleast 1hour,and liked Victoria's Secret. Thesecriteria reduced someof the inherent heterogeneity presentin a shopping mall population, makingit possibleto use asmallerand less costly sample. Seventy percentofshoppersapproached qualifiedfor thestudy, w ithage andlackoftimeto shop beingthe primary reasonsfor disqualification (85of disqualifications). Of those qualifying for thestudy, 88agreed to participate and w ere escorted to the research facilityinthemall.First, participants were given a survey to complete; thisconsisted of several pagesof questions about their attitudes

8/12/2019 55831103

4/16

658 JOURN LO CONSUMER RESE RCHand opinions. Embeddedin thesurvey were items measuringself-perceptionsonthe focal personality traits and the implicitself-theory measure. After comp leting the survey, participantswere told that the purposeofthestudy w as to obtain consum eropinions about shopping bags and that they would be selectinga shopping bag to use. In the brand experience condition,respondents were allowedtoselectaVictoria s Secret shop-pingbag or a less appealing bag (less sturdy bags from OldNavyandLimited Too). Although all of theparticipantsse-lectedtheVictoria s Secret bag, asintended,weasked themto make a choice to reduce suspicion about the study, suppressdemand effects, anddiscourage discounting ofthe brand ex-perienceifforcedto use aVictoria s Secret bag. Inpilot tests,there was little suspicion about the study when participantswere allowedtoselectthe Victoria s Secret bag 1out of69),whereas over 10% ofparticipants givenaVictoria s Secretbag expressed suspicion (7 out of59). These findings,andprior research suggesting that allowing a choice of bagwouldbeunlikelytoinfluence the ex tenttowhich the brandexperience would affect self-perceptions (Jonesetal. 1981),supported ourprocedure.In the no brand experiencecon-dition, respondents selected between either an attractiveplain pink shoppingbag (same coloras theVictoria Secretbag)or the same unappealing bags (OldNavy andLimitedToo bags).All participants chose the plain pink shoppingbag.

Participants were then instructed to carry their shoppingbagfor at least 1 hour before returning to the research fa-cility. Upon retuming, respondents com pletedasurvey ask-ing them to evaluate the shopping bag and to answer avariety of questions about themselves. Embedded in thesequestions were items askingfortheir self-perceptionson thefocal personality traits. Finally, participants were debriefed,thanked, andpaid 25 for their participation.

MeasuresSelf Perceptions. Participants were asked howwellasetof 12 personality traits described them on a 1 (not at alllikeme) to 7 (very much like me) scale.The three focalpersonality traits associated with Vic toria s Secret (good -looking, feminine, glamorous) were embeddedin thelistofother traits not related to V ictoria s Secret in our pretest

(sincere, friendly, cheerful, confident, sentimental, spirited,exciting, daring, successful). Ratingsforthe three focalper-sonality traits were averaged (a = .88). Self-perceptionswere measured priorto the shopping bag experience (usedasacontrol variableinanalyses)andafter the sho pping bagexperience(the keydependent variablein ouranalyses).Implicit Self Theory. Beliefin entity versus incremen-tal theories of personality was assessed using the ImplicitPersons Theory Measure (Levy et al. 1998). Participantsresponded to eight statements, four statements representativeof entity theory (E) and four representative of incrementaltheory (I),ona scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly

agree):

Everyone is a certain kind of person, and there not much that theycan do to really change that.(Ereverse coded) The kind of person someone is is something basiabout them,and itcan tbe changed very much.(E

reverse coded) Peoplecan do things differently, but the importanparts of who they are ca n t really be changed.(Ereverse coded) Asmuch as Ihatetoadmitit, youcan t teachan odog new tricks. People ca n t really change their deepest attributes.(E: reverse coded) People can change even their most basic qualities

(I) Everyone,nomatterwhothey are, can significantlychange their basic characteristics.(I) People can substantially change thekind of personwho theyare. (I) Nomatter what kind of person someone is,theycaalways change very much.(I)

Responses for all eight items were combined into a scale(a = .89), with higher scores indicating a stronger beliefin incremental theory.Shopping Bag Evaluation. Participants evaluated thshoppingbag they carried onseveral attributes (easy tocarrycomfortable handles) on a 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much)scale. Responsesto thesetwo items were combined into aevaluation measure(a = .85). Because consumers werealowedto use the shopping bag as they wished, it was im

possibletocontrolanynegative experiences they might have,suchasloadingtheshopping bag with bulky items (makingit hard to carry).To account for potentially unpleasantexperiences, shopping bag evaluations were used as a controlmeasurein themain analyses.

ResultsWe conducted a multiple regression analysis to testouprediction that carryingtheVictoria s Secret shoppingbawould resultinmore positive self-perceptions on personalitytraits associated with Vic toria s Secretfor entity theoristsbu t not incremental theorists. The analysis included self

perceptions after carrying the shopping bag as the dependentmeasure, with implicit self-theory (continuous variable),experimental condition (brand experience = 0, nobrandexperience = 1), and the interaction between implicit selftheoryand experimental condition asindependent variables(Fitzsimons 2008). Responses for the implicit self-theorymeasure were centered by subtracting the mean from eachperson s score to eliminate multicollinearity (Aiken andWest 1991). Self-perceptions priortoshoppingbag use anshoppingbag evaluation were included ascontrol variables.Supportfor ourpredictionwasexpectedtoemerge in thformof an interaction between implicit self-theory and experimental condition.Asexpected,theinteractionwas sig

nificant {= .23, ?(79) = 2.09,p .05),even aftercon

8/12/2019 55831103

5/16

BRA ND EXPERIENCE AN D SELF PERCEPTIONS 659trolling for shopping bag evaluation { = .01, 79) < 1,NS) and preexisting self-perceptions { = .99, 79) =22.91,p

8/12/2019 55831103

6/16

660 JOURNALOFCONSUMER RESEARCHWe conductedanadditional pretesttoensure that M ITwasan appealing brand for our student population. Weaskedasampleof MBA students (n = 43) howmuch they admiredstudents from their university and several other universities(including M IT)on ascale from-50 to H 5 0(tocaptureneg-

ative and positive percepfions). Results confirmed that studentsadmired MIT more than their own university(M = 80.19vs.69.14,i(42) = 4.44,p .25).

SampleandProcedureSeventy-four MB A students were recruited from two mar-keting classes: 39 students panicipated in the MITbrandexperience condition duringoneterm,and 35students fromanother class panicipated in the no MITbrand experiencecondition in another term. Panicipants were told that theuniversity bookstore wasgoing torevamp its selectionofpensand wasaskingforhelpinevaluating which pen s peo-ple like most. They were givenasurvey consistingofseveralpagesof filler questions about opinionsandactivities.Em-beddedin thesurvey were items m easuring self-perceptionsof personality traits; these were followedby animplicitself-theory measure.Next,in the MITbrand experience condition, participantswere givenanopponunitytoselect an attractive pen e ngravedwiththe MITname from a set ofthree pens, which includedtwo plain plastic pens from less prestigious universities.Intheno Mif brand experience condition, panicipants selecteda plain plastic pen from three options (two different Pilot pens

and one Uni-Ball pen). Participants were instructed to usetheir pensforthe next6weeks,andthey were rem inded eachweekto use the pen and to ask for a replacementifthepenhad stopped workingorwas lost.Sixweeks later, participantsfilled out a second survey, which included filler questionsalong with the following measures: evaluation of the MITpen, usageoftheMIT pen, and self-perceptions of personalitytraits. Students were then thanked, debriefed,andallowedtokeepthe pen as arewardfor participationin thestudy.

M e a s u r e sSelf Perceptions. Panicipants were asked how wellseveral personality traits described them on a 1 (not at alllikeme) to 7(very much likeme)scale. Includedin thelistwerethe three focal personality traits associated withMIT(intelligent, hardworking,andleader); these were embeddedamong other personality traits not related to MIT in ourpretest (cheerful, confident, trendy, successful, good-look-ing, rugged). Ratings for the three focal personality traitswere averaged a = .87).Self-perceptions were m easuredbefore pen usage (used as a control measure in analyses)and after pen usage (the key dependent variableinanalyses).Implicit Self Theory. As in study 1, responses to theeight itemsin the Implicit Persons Theory Measure (Levyet

al. 1998)were combined intoa scale(a = .96).

Pen Evaluation. After using their pen, panicipan ts evaluatedthe pen on several attributes ( nice design and comfonable grip )on ascale from (not atall)to 7(very m uch)Responsestothesetwoitems were com bined a = .83).Wincluded this evaluation as a control measure in the maianalysis to account for unpleasant experiences in usingthpens, suchas poor design (pendoesnotretract)or writindiscotnfon.

Pen Usage. Wealso asked panicipantshow often theused the MIT pen during the 6-week time period to detecdifferences in usage patterns between entity andincrementatheorists. Participants indicatedhow often they used the peona 1(never)to 6(very frequently) scale.Results

We conducted a multiple regression analysis to testoupredictions.The analysis included self-perceptions after using the pen as the dependent measure, with implicit selftheory (continuous variable), experimental condition(MITbrand experience = 0, noMIT brand experience = 1),anthe interaction between implicit self-theory andexperimental condition as independent variables.Perstudy 1,scorefor the implicit self-theory measure were centeredby subtracting the mean from each pers on's sc ore. S elf-perceptionsprior topen use and penevaluation were includedascontrovariables. Five participantswho did notselectthe MIT peinthe brand experience condition werenotincluded in theanalysis.

Supponfor ourpredictionwasexpectedtoemergein thformof an interaction between implicit self-theoryand experimental condition.Asexpected,theinteractionwas significant { = .16, f(63) = 2.33,p

8/12/2019 55831103

7/16

BRA ND EXPERIENCE AN D SELF PERCEPTIONS 661substituting these values into the regression equation (Cohenand Cohen 1983). To explore this interaction, we testedsimple slopes at values one standard deviation aboveandbelow the mean of implicit self-theory (Aiken and West1991; CohenandCohen 1983). Simple slope tests revealeda significant negative relationship between experimentalcondition MITbrand experience = 0, no MITbrandex-perience = 1) and self-perceptions after usingtheMITpenfor entity theorists (-1SD; = - .33, 63) = 2.96,p .20).Discussion

Our findings replicate results from the Victoria's Secretstudy witha different brand, different personality traits,anda different brand experience. Entity theorists,but notincre-mental theorists, perceived themselves more positivelyontraits associated with MIT's brand personality (intelligent,leader,and hardworking) after usingan MIT pen.Inthenext study,weextend these findings. First,we ex-amine the underlying rationalefor whyentity theorists,butnot incremental the orists, have more positive self-perceptionsafter usingabrand withan appealing personality. Earlier,wereasoned that entity theo rists, who seek opportunities to signalpositive qualities to the self or others, will be more responsiveto the signaling value of a brand experience. To test thisreasoning,wemeasuretheextenttowhich entityandincre-mental theoristsuse thebrandas asignaling deviceand ex-amine whether itmediatesthe relationship between implicitself-theory and self-perceptions after branduse.Second, we provide further evidence for the role thatimplicit self-theories play.In thefirsttwostudies, beliefsin

entity theory versus incremental theory were measuredasan individual difference variable, consistent with priorre-search. However,it ispossible that individuals who endorseentity or incremental theories may also vary on otherdi-mensions, such as brand knowledge or usage. In study3,wemle out thepossibility thatourprior findingsaredrivenby extraneous factors by directly manipulating beliefs inentity versus incremental theory.Third, we examine an altemative m echanism for our results.One might argue that relativetoincremental theorists, entitytheoristsaremore likelytoexperience discrepancies betweentheir existing self-images and appeahng images associatedwith brands, producing feelingsof psychological discomfort(anxiety) that they attempttoalleviatebychanging theirself-perceptions in a positive direction (Rbodewalt andAgusts-dottir 1986). In study 3, we rule out this possibility bymeasuring psychological discomfort (anxiety) associatedwith using the brand and show that it does not explaindifferences in self-perceptions between entity and incre-mental theorists.

STUDY3Female students used a Victoria's Secret shoppingbag(brand experience) or a plain pink shoppingbag nobrandexperience)tocollect items duringatreasure hunt. This tasksimulated a shopping experience withouttheheightenedsa-lienceofbrandsandother shoppersin amall. Belief in entitytheory versus incremental theory was manipulated priortothe treasure hunt. Only entity theorists were affectedby car-rying the Victoria's Secret shopping bag, perceiving them-

selvesas more feminine, glamorous,andgood-looking.Fur-ther, entity theorists were more likely to view the brandexperience as anopportunity to signal the self, whichme-diatedtherelationship between implicit self-theory and self-perceptions after usingthe Victoria's Secretbag.Brand Pretests

The Victoria's Secret brandwaspretested w ith femaleun-dergraduate students n= 23), and results indicated that theystrongly associated this brand with the following traits: glam-orous, feminine,andgood-looking (95.7 , 73.9 , 65.2 ofrespondents, respectively).Andthey were very interestedinenhancing the self on these same traits: glamorous M 65.00), feminine M = 62.17), and good-looking M -76.74; mean for all traits = 54.09). Further, therewas noassociation between implicit self-theoryandratingsforthesetraits allp >.3O).Procedure

Eighty-four female undergraduate students participatedin a2 (implicit self-theory manipulation; entity, incremental) x 2(brand experience: brand experience, no brand experience) be-tween-subjects design.As acover story, participants were toldthat they were goingtoparticipateinseveral different studies.

8/12/2019 55831103

8/16

662 JOURN L OF CONSUMER RESE RCso as to reduce suspicion that measures and procedures ad-ministered at different points in time w ere related to each other.First, participants completed a survey, with questions re-garding self-perceptions of personality traits embedded amongseveralfillerquestions. A second surveywasthen administered,which contained the implicit self-theory manipulation (de-scribed below). Next, parficipants were given instructions forthe treasure hunt and were asked to select a shopping bag tocollect items. In the brand experience condition, respondentsselected a Victoria's Secret shopping bag or a less appealingbag. In the no brand experience condition, participants se-lected an attractive pink shopping bag or the less appealingbag. They were then given 20 minutes to find a list of itemsthat had been hidden on the top floors of the business schoolbuilding, which were quiet fioors with little traffic. After com-pleting this task, participants w ere given a brief survey, whichincluded a measure of psychological discomfort. By collectingthe measure at this time, we avoided the possibility that itwould influence other measures (such as self-perceptions) atthe end of the study. Participants were then given 15 minutesto find a second list of items, and after completing this task,they filled out a survey including an evaluation of the shop-ping bag, the self-perception measure, and the brand signalingmeasure (separated by filler questions).

Finally, participants were debriefed using a funneled ques-tionnaire protocol (Bargh and Chartrand 2 000; Chartrand andBargh 1996). They were asked questions about (1) what theythought the point of the experiment was; and (2) whether onepart of the experiment was connected with another part. Par-ticipants were also asked to guess how the treasure hunt mighthave been related to other studies. None of the participantsindicated any awareness or suspicion that the treasure huntwas related to the other studies, which manipulated implicitself-theory and measu red their self-perceptions. Finally, par-ticipants were debriefed, thanked, and paid $15 for their par-ticipation. In total, the study took approximately 60 minutesto complete.Implicit Self-Theory Manipulation

Following Chiu et al. (1997), implicit self-theories weremanipulated by having participants read an article presentingviews consistent with entity theory or incremental theory.Although individuals are predisposed to one of these the-ories, they can be persuaded to adopt a particular mind-setby communicating relevant information (Chiu et al. 1997).To introduce the article, participants were told that we wereinterested in their opinions about the articles (Chiu et al.1997). In addition, we asked participants to underline thethree most important sentences in the article that supportedthe author's viewpoint. Below is a sample from each article:

In his talk at the American Psychological Association's an-nual cotivention held at Washington D.C. in August, Dr.George Medin argued that in most ofus,by the age of ten,our characterhasset like plaster and will never soften again.ereported numerous large longitudinal studies showing that

people age and develop, but they do so on the foundatioof enduritig dispositions. (Entity theory)In his talk at the American Psychological Associationannual convention held at Washington D.C. in August, D

George Medin argued that tio one 's character is as 'hard a rock' so that it cannot be changed. Otily for some, greateffort and determination are needed to effect changes. Hreported numerous large longitudinal studies showing thpeople can mature and change their character. He also rported research findings showing that people's personalitcharacteristics can change, eveti in their late sixties. (Incrmental theory)We pretested this manipulation by asking female undegraduate students to read the entity theory article (n - 6or the incremental theory article n = 57). They were askefor their impressions of the articles on 7-point scales tensure that the articles were equally credible, persuasiveuseful, clear, and easy to understand. Responses to thesitems were summed {a = .74), and, as expected, this mesure did not differ by cond ition (M.,i,y = 4.8 v s. Mi, ,,= 4.9, (l, 117) = .59, NS). Second, to determine if tharticles induced the appropriate mind-set, participants werasked to make several predictions about a person's behavioin a particular situation. They were given a probability scal(.00-1.00) to register their predictions for several questionsuch as, Sandra is more helpful than Molly on averageWhat do you suppose is the probability that Sandra woulact more helpfully than Molly in a particular situation?Responses to five questions similar to this one were combined (a = .77). Chiu et al. (1997) found that, relative tincremental theorists, entity theorists make stronger behavioral predictions because they are more likely to believe thabehavior can be predicted from a person's traits. Thus, iour manipulation was successful, those reading the articladvocating entity (incremental) theory should m ake stronge(weaker) behavioral predictions from the trait informationTh is result w as confirmed in our data (M^ ,,y = .80 vs^incremental = -74 ; /(I , 117) - 2.14, p

8/12/2019 55831103

9/16

BRA ND EXPERIENCE AND SELF PERCEPTIONS 663experience measure: original, independent, westem, rugged,sincere, exciting, confident).

Psychological Discomfort. After com pleting thefirsttreasure hunt, participants were shown a list of emotions,including measures of discomfort (uneasy, uncomfortable,bothered),and they were asked how they were feeling "rightnow"on a 1(not at all) to 7 (very much) scale (ElliotandDevine 1994). Responses to these three items werecom-bined (o = .86).

Shopping Bag Evaluation. After com pleting the sec-ond treasure hunt, participants evaluated theshoppingbagthey carriedonseveral attributes (easytocarry, comfortablehandles)on a1(notatall)to7 (very m uch) scale. Responsesto thesetwo items were averaged (a = .77).Brand Signaling. Finally, participantsin thebrandex-perience cotidition were asked to respond from 0 (stronglydisagree)to 100(strongly agree)to statements indicativeofusing thebrandas asignalofone's self: I use thebrand,Victoria's Secret,toreflecton who I am, I use thebrand,Victoria's Secret, to communicate who I am to otherpeo-

ple," Iuse the brand, V ictoria's Secret, to feel more positiveabout myself, and I use the brand, Victoria's Secret, tomake a better impression on other people." Responses tothese items were averaged a .94).Results

Self Perceptions. Weperformed a 2 (implicit self-the-ory manipulation: entity, incremental) x 2 (brand expe-rience: brand experience,nobrand experience) ANCOV Aon self-perceptions measured after usingtheshoppingbag,with shopping bag evaluations and self-perceptions priortobagusage ascov ariates.Twoparticipants in thebrandexperience condition who did notselecttheVictoria'sSe-cret shopping bag were deleted from thisand subsequentanalyses.The results revealed a significant interactionbe-tween implicit self-theory and brand experience condition(F ( l , 76) = 4.82,p

8/12/2019 55831103

10/16

664 JOURN LO CONSUMER RESE RCusing abrand to reduce psychological discomfort (anxiety)experienced after usingabrand withanappealing personality.Discussion

We replicate findings from prior studies using amanip-ulationof implicit self-theory. Participantswhoreadan ar-ticle promoting entity theory perceived themselves to bebetter-looking, more feminine, and more glamorous afterusing a Victoria's Secret shopping bag than after usingaplain shopping bag. Conversely, participants whoreadanarticle promoting incremental theory werenotinfluencedbyusingthe bagthey used. Further,ourresults show that thesedifferences are mediated by the dispositionofentity theoriststo view brand experiencesas an opportunity to signaltheself. Entity theorists use the Victoria's Secret brand as asignaling device, which precipitates more positive self-per-ceptions in line with the brand's personality.

In the next study, we pursue additional support for thisline of reasoning by manipulating the motivation to self-enhance.Weintroduce a threat to students' perceptionsofthemselves in the competence domain (intelligent, hard-working, leader)andprovideanopportunityto use an MITpenas a waytheycan signal positive qualitiesandrecovertheir senseof self. Ifour reasoningiscorrect, entity theoristsshould welcometheopportunity tosignaltheselfbyusingtheMITpen, resultingin self-perceptions moreinline withMIT's brand personality (intelligent, hardworking, leader).Thus,we predict that, faced withaself-threat, en tity theoristscan recover a threatened self through a brand associatedwith an appealing personality relatedto thedomain of thethreat. Incremental theorists, in contrast, shouldnot be af-fected byusingthe MIT pen.We alsoadd to our findingsby examining brand expe-riences in a more private setting. In the firsttwostudies,brand experiences took place in a public shopping mall(study 1) and in consumers' daily lives (study2). Instudy3, brand experiences took placein a less public setting.Instudy4, wemove thecontext to a private setting and ex-amine whether entity theorists respond to the signaling valueof brands with appealing personalities w hen they experiencebrands privately. Entity theorists embrace opportunities tosignal their positive qualitiesto theself or o thers,andthere-

fore, we expect brand experiencesto beconsequential forentity theorists, regardless of whether the signaling takesplacein publicor private settings.

STUDY4Undergraduate students solved a set of math problemsand received negative feedback on their performance (self-threat). They were then givenanopportunityto use an MITpen or a regular pen for a subsequent task. Only entitytheorists were affected by using the MIT pen,perceivingthemselvesas to be more intelligent, harder working,andmoreof a leader (traits associated with MIT).In fact, their

self-perceptions after usingthe MIT pen were as positive

as thoseof acontrol group. Incremental theorists wereuaffected byusingthe MIT pen.Brand Pretests

Undergraduate students n - 44)selected the followintraitsas strongly associated withthe MITbrand: technicaintelligent, leader, and hardworking (81.8%,75%, 63.6and 63.6% of respondents, respectively). Further, studenwere very interestedinenhancing theselfonthreeofthetraits: intelligent (M = 81.45), leader (M = 74.64),anhardworking M - 77.02; meanfor all 42traits = 54.90There was no difference between entity and incrementtheoristsonratingsof these traits p> .20). Thus,weusethree personality traits highly associated with MIT(inteligent, hardworking, leader) to measure self-perceptionsthe main study.We conducted an additional pretest to ensure thatMI

wasanappealing brandbyasking undergraduates(n = 158how much they admired students from their universityanseveral other universities (includingMIT) on a scale fro- 5 0 to +50 (to capture negativeandpositive p erceptionsResults confirmed that students admired M IT more than theiown university(M = 76.36 vs.M = 69.63, (157) = 3.2p.20).SampleandProcedure

One hundredandfifty-seven undergraduate students fromthe University of Minnesota were assigned to one of tbthree conditions:(1) MITbrand e xperienc e after self-thren 57); (2) no MITbrand experienc e after self-threat 55); and (3)control group n = 45). Participants weseated in individual cubicles with dividers forprivacy.Tmasktheconnection between theself-threat andbrandexperience conditions, participants were told that they wouldparticipatein several studies.Thefirst study re quired fillinout a survey about their opinions and activities, includina measureofimplicit self-theory that was embedded amonfiller items.

For the second study, participantsin theself-threatconditions were told that the university was interested in threadiness of undergraduate students for graduate work.Tassess their readiness, participants were asked to completseven GRE math questions, administeredon acomputer onquestion every minute. After this task, participants wertold: You had 2 correct answersout of 7 questions.Yoare in the lowest 30% of college students who took thitest (for a similar manipulation,seeLowery, Knowles,anUnzueta [2007]).Next,allrespondents completedathird study, whichwaa survey that included a self-perception measure thatwaembedded among other items. Then participants were toldthattheuniversity bookstorewasrevampingitsselectionopensand wasasking forhelp in evaluating different pensIn the MIT brand experience condition, participants werallowed to selecta pen engraved withthe MITnameor

8/12/2019 55831103

11/16

BRA ND EXPERIENCE AN D SELF PERCEPTIONS 665plain plastic pen (Uni-Ball brand). In the no MITbrandexperience condition and control condition, panicipantswere allowedtoselectaplain plasticpenfrom twooptions(Pilot, Uni-Ball). Students were asked to complete severaltasks, such as copying line figuresand circling vowelsinparagraphs,to use the pen. These tasks were unrelated tomath ability, whichwas thefocusof the feedback studentshad received earlier. Afterward, they filledoutanothersur-vey, which included self-perceptions and a penevaluation.Finally, panicipants were debriefed, thanked,andpaid$10for their panicipa tion.Intotal,thestudy took approximately30 minutes tocomplete.Measures

Self Perceptions. Panicipants were askedhowwellthethree personality traits associated with MIT (intelligent,hardworking, leader) described themon a 1 (not at alllikeme) to 7 (very much like me)scale,andratings for thesetraits w ere averaged{a = .76). Self-perceptions weremea-sured before penusage (usedas acheckforself-threatma-nipulation)andafterpenusage(the keydependent variablein analyses). As before, the focal personality traits wereembedded in a largerset of traits unrelated to MIT in ourpretest (beforepen usemeasure: creative, upper-class,con-fident, rugged, exciting, sincere; afterpen usemeasure:sin-cere, rugged, successful, confident, exciting, upper-class).

Implicit Self Theory. Responses to the eight itemsinthe Implicit Persons Theory Measure (Levy etal. 1998) werecombined intoa scale(a = .93).Pen Evaluation. Pens were evaluatedontwo attributes(nice design and comfortable grip)on a scale from 1 (notatall) to 7 (very much). Responses to these items werecombined (a = .87).Brand Signaling. Finally, we asked panicipantswhoused the MIT pen to respond from 0 (strongly disagree)to100 (strongly agree) to two statements reflecting whetherthey used thebrandas a signalof their identity: I use theMITpen to feel more positive about myself ; I use theMITpen toreflecton who Iam. Responsestothese items,whicharemost relevant to signalingin theprivate contextof the study, were combined (a = .96).Debriefing Question. Per study 3, panicipants an-swered questions about (1) what they thought thepointofthe experiment was and (2) whether they thoughtone panof the experiment (e.g.,GREmath test)wasrelatedtootherparts (e.g., surveys). None of the panicipants indicatedawareness or suspicion of a connection between the GREmath testandother measures.

ResultsPreliminary Analyses. Prior to this and also subsequ entanalyses, four panicipan tsinthe MIT brand experience con-

dition were removed because theydid not select the MIT

pen. First,wechecked theadequacyof theself-threatma-nipulation, comparing self-perceptions measured right afterpanicipants received negative feedback in the self-threatcondition to self-perceptions in the control condition.Weconducted a multiple regression analysis with self-percep-tions (focal traits)as thedependent variableand self-threatcondition (control = 0,self-threat = 1), implicit self-theory(continuous variable), and the interaction between self-threatconditionandimplicit self-theory asindependent variables.Scores for the implicit self-theory measure were centeredby subtracting the mean from each person's score.As ex-pected,the main effect of the self-threat conditionwas sig-nificant i = - . 3 5 , (149) = 2.38,p

8/12/2019 55831103

12/16

666 JOURNALOFCONSUMER RESEARCIGUR

STUDY : SELF-PERCEPTIONSFORPERSONALITYTRAITS ASSOCIATED WITHMIT

HSelf-Threat RegularPen Self-ThreatsM ITPeno Control

Entity Theorists -1SD) Incremen tal Theorists +t SD )pen. This predictionwassupportedby a significant negativerelationship between the first dummy variable (self-threatand MIT brand experience = 0, self-threat and no MITbrand experience = 1) and self-perceptions after using apen i - -.45, (146) = 2 .1,p

8/12/2019 55831103

13/16

BR AND EXPERIENCE AND SELF PERCEPTIONS 667itative analyses of consumer behavior (Belk 1988;Sirgy1982 ; Solomon 19 83),our research provides evidence thatbrand experiences leadto self-enhancement in acontrolledexperimental setting.Second,our findings demonstrate that using brands withappealing brand personalities can have an impact on howconsumers see themselve s, evenif the experiences are short-lived and limited in nature. Mostof our studies involvedshort-term brand experiences that were restrictedto the sig-naling valueofthe brand personality.For example, womenin the Victoria s Secret studies (studies 1 and 3 only carriedabagwith theVictoria s Secret brand name and did not usebranded products such as lingerie or cosmetics thatmayhave increased self-perceptionsofbeing good-looking,fem-inine,orglamorous. Similarly, participantsinthe MIT stud-ies (studies 2 and 4 useda pen with the MITbrand em-bossedon it,instead ofbeing exposed to actual experienceswithMIT classes, faculty, or students. Although more ex-tended experiences with brands could leadtomore enduringself-perceptions, our results attestto thepowerful influencethat brand personalitiescanhave even inbrief encounters.

Third,weintroduce the idea that brand personalities arenot experienced in avacuum,but are filtered by the con-sumers beliefs about theirownpersonalities. Whether thesignaling value of a bra nd s personality is consequentialtohow you feel about yourself is due, in large part, toyour views about your own personality. If you feel thatyour personal qualitiescan be improved through your ownefforts at learning and self-improvement, using a brandwith an appealing personality is unlikely to be conse-quentialif it only providesa signaling opportunity.If youfeel that your personal qualities cannotbe improved uponby yourown efforts, using a brand with anappealing per-sonality can serve as a powerful signal that you possesspositive qualities. Thus,acon sum er s imp licit self-theoryabouthis or her personality is an important determinantof how that consumer responds to brand personalities.Contributionsto Implicit Self-Theory Research

Our findings also contributeto research on implicit self-theory, which focuseson howbeliefs aboutthemalleabilityof one s traits influence goals, cognition, affect, andbehav-ioral pattems , especiallyinthe face ofchallenges or failures.By examining implicit self-theories in thecontextof con-sumption behavior, we show that entity and incrementaltheories have much broader influence thantheleaming andperformance settings typically studiedbypsychologists.More importantly, we find that consumption behaviorscan exertapositive influence when entity theorists are facedwith failuresandthreatstotheir se nse ofself.The consistentfinding in psychological research is that incremental theo-rists take positive stepsto overcome their failures and rem-edy problems (Dweck 2000; Dweck and Leggett 1988),whereas entity theorists engage in defensive and helplessbehaviors (Elliot and Dweck 1988;R hodewalt 1994 andfeel upset about failures (Robins and Pals 2002). Thus,itis believed that holding entity theory beliefs isdetrimental

to recovering self-threats. Ourfindings suggest an entirelynew rangeof behaviors open to entity theorists for copingwith self-threatsusing brands with personality traits thatcanbeused to signal positive aspects of the self.

Limitationsand Future ResearchOur findings suggest several directionsforfuture research .First,one might examine whether the positive self-percep-tions obtained after brand experiencesareshort-lived orcanbe permanent. Our research shows a positive shift in self-perceptions as a result of relatively short-term brand ex-periences,and therefore this effect may not be permanent.However,it ispossible that multiple episodes of brand useover time will result in more lasting positive self-views.Prior researchhassuggested that multiple processes operateto maintain self-perceptions (Swann 1987). Thus,it may bepossible that positive self-perceptions after a brand expe-rience, however small or momentary they may be, couldbecome more permanentasconsumers accumulate repeatedexperiences with thebrand.Second, examining variables that may moderate our resultswouldbeimportant.Our set of studies includes different con-texts, such asfield/lab experiments andpublic/private brandexperiences,but we do not explicitly examine moderatingfactors.A promising starting point would be toexamine themoderating role of consumer brand knowledge, usage, orcommitment. These factors mayshape thebrand experiencein important ways,andthey maymoderate theresponse thatentity and incremental theorists have to the signaling valueof brand experiences.Toexamine these factors,alargerand

more diverse set of respondents than those included in ourstudies would be necessary. The modest sample sizes weinclude in our studiesdo not allow for an examination ofmoderating factors. Further, with exceptionofstudy 1, whichwas conducted in a shopping mall,our studies involve theuseofstudent participants, which mayconstricttherange ofbrand knowledge, usage,orcomm itment.Third,one could examine when brand personalities in-fluence theway incremental theorists perceive themselves.In this article,wefocused onbrand experiences where onlythe signaling valueof the brand can beexperienced,butother aspects of brand experiences may be very conse-quential for incremental theorists. Given that incrementaltheorists pursue opportunities for self-improvement to en-hance their senseof self, they might be affected bybrandexperiences that provide a way to enhance their perfor-mance or to learn new skills. For example, they mightperceive themselvesasmore g ood-looking, feminine,andglamorous if they were able to useVictoria s Secretcos-metics to improve the look of their skin. Or, they mightfeel more athletic after using Nike shoes that offermax-imum comfort and cushioning, allowing one to run fasterand further. Exploring brand experiences that provide ef-fortful self-improvement opportunities will provideacom-plete pictureof how brands influence consumers,notonlyentity theoristsbut also incremental theorists.

Finally, future research could incorporate different ways

8/12/2019 55831103

14/16

668 JOURN LO CONSUMER RESE RCto capture differences in self-perceptions between entity andincremental theorists. In our studies, we used paper andpencil measures that asked respondents to evaluate theirself-perceptions on a set of personality traits before and afterusing (or not using) the brand. To reduce their salience, thefocal personality traits were embedded in a list of personalitytraits, which were then embedded in several pages of ad-ditional survey materials. In study 2, the premeasures wereeven less salient as they were taken 6 weeks prior to thepostmeasure. Our debriefing procedures did not detect anyinfluence of the self-perception measurement. However, itwould be interesting to incorporate new measures, such asreaction time measures, that would be even less prominentin the experimental procedure.

Pursuing these lines of inquiry could provide further insightsinto the role that lay theories of personality play in how con-sumers respond to brands. For example, because entity theoristsare more responsive to the signaling value of brand person-alities, they might be less forgiving of brands that are the subjectof negative pubhcity, perhaps relatedtoethical scandals or poor-quality products. Recently, researchers have started to examinehow implicit self-theories influence goal-directed behavior(Mukhopadhyay and Johar 2005), affect regulation (Labroo andMukhopadhyay 2009), and brand extension evaluations (York-ston et al. 2010). Bringing implicit self-theories more fully intoconsumer research will provide a new conceptual frame forunderstanding how consumer beliefs shape, and are shaped by,consumption experiences.

REFERENCESAaker, Jennifer L. (1997), Dimen sions of Brand Personality,JournalofMarketing Research 34 (August), 347-56.(1999), The MalleableSelf:The RoleofSelf-Expressionin Persuasion, Journal of Marketing Research 36 (Febru-ary), 45-57.Aiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regression:Testingand Interpreting Interactions Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage.Bargh, John A. and Tanya L. Chartrand (2000), Studying the Mindin the Middle:APractical Guide to Priming and AutomaticityResearch, inHandbook of Research MethodsinSocial Psy-chology ed.HarryT ReisandCharlesM.Judd,New York:Cambridge University Press, 253-85.Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social PsychologicalRe-search: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Consider-ations, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 51(6), 1173-82.Beer, JenniferS.(2002), Implicit Self-TheoriesofShyness, Jour-na lofPersonalityandSocial Psychology 83 (4), 1009-24.Belk, Russell W. (1988), Possessions and the Extended Self,JournalofConsumer Research 15(September), 139-6 8.Chartrand, TanyaL. andJohnA.Bargh (1996), AutomaticAc-tivation of Impression Formation and Memorization Goals:Nonconscious Goal Priming Reproduces Effects of ExplicitTask Instructions, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 71(3), 464-78.Chiu, Chi-yue, Ying-yi Hong,andCarolS. Dweck (1997), Lay

Dispositionism and Implicit TheoriesofPersonality, Journof PersonalityandSocial Psychology 73 (1),19-30.Cohen, JacobandPatricia Cohen (1983), Applied MultipleRgression/Correlation Analyses for the Behavioral Sences Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.Dweck, Carol S. (2000), Self-Theories: Their Role in Movation Personality and Development Philadelphia:Pchology Press.Dweck, CarolS.and Janine Bempecha t (1983), Child ren's Tories of Intelligence, in Learning and Motivation in tClassroom ed.ScottG. Paris, GaryM.Olson,andHarW. Stevenson, Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum, 239-56.Dweck, Carol S. and Ellen L. Leggett (1988), A Social-Conitive Approach to Motivation and Personality, Psychlogical Review 95 (2),256-73 .Elliot, AndrewJ. andPatricia G. Devine (1994), On theMovational Natureof Cognitive Dissonance: DissonanceasPchological Discomfort, Journal of Personality and SocPsychology 67 (3),382-94.Elliott, Elaine S. and Carol S. Dw eck (1988), Goa ls: An Approato MotivationandAchievement, Journal of Personality aSocial Psychology 54 (1), 5-12.Erdley, Cynthia A., Kathleen M. Cain, Catherine C. LoomErances Dumas-Hines,andCarol S.Dweck (1997), Retions among Children's Social Goals, Implicit PersonaliTheories,andResponses toSocial Eailure, DevelopmentPsychology 33 (2),263-72.Escalas, Jennifer E. and JamesR.Bettman (2003), You Are WhThey Eat: The InfluenceofReference GroupsonConsumeConnections to Brands, Journal of Consumer Psycholog13(3),339-48.Eitzsimons, GavanJ. (2008), Death toDichotomizing, Journof Consumer Research 35(June),5-8.Gao, Leilei, S. Christian Wheeler, and Baba Shiv (2009), T'ShakenSelf: Product Choicesas aMeansofRestoringSeView Confidence, Journal of Consumer Research 36 (Jun29-38.Hong, Ying-yi, Chi-yue Chiu, CarolS.Dweck, Derrick M.S. Land Wendy Wan (1999), Implicit Theories, Attributions, anCoping:A Meaning System Approach, JournalofPersoalityandSocial Psychology 11(3),588-99.Jones, Edward E., Erededck R hodewalt, Steven Berglas, and JamA. Skelton (1981), Effects ofStrategie Self-PresentationoSubsequent Self-Esteem, JournalofPersonalityandSociPsychology 41(3), 407-21.Labroo, Apama A . and Anirban Mukhopadhyay (2009), Lay Thoriesof Emotion Transienceand theSearch forHappinesA Eresh Perspectiveon Affect Regulation, JournalofCosumer Research 36 (August), 242-54.Levy, SheriR.,StevenJ.Stroessner,andCarolS.Dweek (1998 Stereotype Eormation and Endorsem ent: The Role of ImpliTheories, Journal of PersonalityandSocial Psychology 7(6), 1421-36.Lickel, Brian, DavidL.H amilton,andStevenJ. Sherman (2001 Elements of a Lay Theory of Groups: Types of GroupRelational Styles,and thePerception of Group EntitativityPersonalityandSocial Psychology R eview 5 (2),129-40.Lowery, Brian S., Eric D. Knowles, and Miguel M. Unzue(2007), Eraming Inequity Safely: Wh ites' MotivatedPeceptions of Racial Privilege, Personality and SocialPschology Bulletin 33 (9), 1237-50.Molden, Daniel C. and Carol S. Dweck (2006), Finding 'Me aningin Psychology: A LayTheory Approach to Self-Regulatio

8/12/2019 55831103

15/16

BR AND EXPERIENCE AN D SELF PERCEPTIONS 66 9Social Perception,andSocial Development, AmericanPsychologist 61 (3),192-203.Mukhopadhyay, Anirban and Gita Venkataramani Johar (2005), Where There Is a Will, Is There a Way? Effects of LayTheories of Self-Control on Setting and Keeping Resolu-tions, JournalofConsumer Research 31(March), 779-8 6.Plaks, Jason E., Heidi Grant, and Carol S. Dweck (2005), Vio-lationsof Implicit Theoriesand the SenseofPredictionandControl: ImplicationsforMotivated Person Perception, Jour-na lof PersonalityandSocial Psychology 88 (2),245-62.Plaks, JasonE.,StevenJ.Stroessner, CarolS.Dweck,and JeffreyW. Sherman (2001), Person Theories and Attention Allo-cation: Preferences for Stereotypie versus CounterstereotypicInformation, Journal of PersonalityandSocial Psychology80(6),876-93.

Rhodewalt, Frederick (1994), Conceptions of Ability, Achieve-ment Goals,andIndividual Differences in Self-HandicappingBehavior:On theApplication of Implicit Theories, Journalof Personality 62 (1),67 -85 .Rhodewalt, Frederick and Sjofn Agu stsdottir (1986), Effects ofSelf-Presentation on thePhenomenal Self, Journal ofPer-sonalityandSocial Psychology 50 (1),47 -55 .

Robins, Richard W. andJennifer L. Pals (2002), Implicit Self-Theoriesin theAcademic D omain: ImplicationsforGoal Ori-entation, Attributions, Affect, andSelf-Esteem Change, Selfand Identity 1, 313-36.Sirgy,M.Joseph (1982), Self-Concept inConsumer Behavior:ACritical Review, JournalofConsumer Research 9(Decem-ber), 287-300.

Solomon, Michael R. (1983), The Role of Products as SocialStimuli:A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective, JournalofConsumer Research 10 (December), 319-29.Swaminathan, Vanitha, Karen M. Stilley, and Rohini Ahluwalia(2009), Whe n Brand Personality Ma tters: The ModeratingRoleofAttachment Styles, JournalofConsumer Research35 (April), 985-1002.Swann, William B. (1987), Identity Negotiation: Where TwoRoads Meet, Journal of PersonalityandSocial Psychology53(6), 1038-51.Yorkston, Eric A., Joseph C. Nunes, and Shashi Matta (2010), The Malleable Brand:TheRoleofImplicit TheoriesinEval-

uating Brand Extensions, Journal ofMarketing 74 (Janu-ary), 80-93.

8/12/2019 55831103

16/16

Copyright of Journal of Consumer Research is the property of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.