HOW AND WHEN DO BRANDS RUB OFF ON CONSUMERS?

HOW AND WHEN DO BRANDS RUB OFF ON CONSUMERS?

An empirical examination of the rub-off effects of brands on consumers, and under what circumstances they do so.

Master thesis, Research Master in Economics and Business Profile: Business Research

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Submitted: the 11th of July, 2018

Author: First supervisor/University

JASPER HIDDING Prof. Dr. B.M. Fennis

Studentnumber: 2737035 University of Groningen

Akeleistraat 15

9945 VD Wagenborgen Second supervisor/University

Tel.: +31 (0)6 1011 4392 Dr. M. Moeini Jazani

e-mail: j.j.hidding@student.rug.nl University of Groningen

HOW AND WHEN DO BRANDS RUB OFF ON CONSUMERS?

An empirical examination of the rub-off effects of brands on consumers, and under what circumstances they do so.

ABSTRACT

This research examines how brands rub off on consumers by focusing on the question “How do brands rub off on consumers, and under what circumstances do they do so?”. Participants are allocated to two conditions: time pressure/no time pressure and brand/no brand. Life history strategy (LHS) is measured using the K-SF-42 and participants also fill in questionnaires on self-concept clarity, general self-efficacy, and future self continuity. Executive function is measured using a color-word Stroop task. Participants with a faster LHS are found to rate themselves lower on competence-related personality traits, as well as self-efficacy. No effects of LHS on executive function are found. Use of a competence brand shielded against the negative effects of time pressure on impulse control, with participants having fewer errors in the Stroop task and needing less time to override their dominant tendencies.

INTRODUCTION

It has long been established that brands can be endowed with human-like characteristics and personality traits, and that consumers prefer brands that align with their own personalities (Aaker, 1999). Brands are a vehicle for signalling the way one sees the self as well as what one aspires to be like (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010). Although the idea of brand associations and brand personality has been researched for a long time, to the best of the author’s knowledge there has been limited research on the way brands actually change consumers’ self-image and behaviour. A study by Park and Roedder John (2010) found that some consumers were positively affected by brand experiences, resulting in more positive perceptions of themselves on personality traits associated with the brands they used. Similarly, another study found that using certain brands actually influenced behaviour according to the brand’s associations, e.g., by making people exercise more (Park, & Roedder John, 2014). In addition, a study by Fennis and Wiebenga (2017) found that consumers have a tendency to be attracted to objects, events, and entities that are associated with their image. The extant literature shows that brands are capable of influencing consumers’ self-image and behaviour, or in other words that brands can “rub off” on consumers. I intend to extend this research by connecting the “rub-off” effect to an individual’s personality and examining the circumstances under which this effect takes place. The gap in the research I address is how salient brand associations influence the self, and more specifically under what circumstances they do so. This can be captured in the research question: ‘How do brands rub off on consumers, and under what circumstances do they do so?’.

CHAPTER 1 – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A lot of studies have examined the relation between a consumer’s self-image and the brands he/she purchases and consumes (c.f. Freling, Crosno, & Hernard, 2011; Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011), often focusing on how consumers prefer brands with associations that are in line with their perception of the self. These brand associations together are then also known as the brand personality, and mostly refer to human-like characteristics (Aaker, 1997). Although a plethora of studies has sought to explain the importance of brands to consumers, and how these two interact, there has hardly been any attention the influence of brands on consumers’ self-concept. We know that brands are an important vehicle for consumers to convey implicit values about themselves to others, and that brands thus have an important signalling function. But while most research has focused on the role of brands as instruments for consumers, research appears to be lacking on the reverse relation between brands and consumers. This study will focus on this reverse relation, or the way in which brands rub off on consumers and the conditions under which they do so.

By brands rubbing off on consumers, we refer to the idea of brands being able to influence consumers’ self-perception and behavior. Previous research has already shown that brands shape perceptions of the personality of the brand’s owner (Fennis, & Pruyn, 2007), but recent studies have also examined the effects on the self-image of brand users. Park and Roedder John (2010; 2014) found that the relation between brand personality and consumer personality is symbiotic, rather than one-directional. Some consumers seem to adopt preferable brand associations from brands they use. For example, in one study participants rated themselves to be more intelligent, hardworking, and more like a leader after using a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) pen for some weeks (Park, & Roedder John, 2010). In a subsequent study, the authors found that brands did not only change one’s self-perception, but could even change the user’s behavior. Participants showed better athletic performance when they drank water from a Gatorade cup during exercise and performed better at difficult exam questions when they took the test using an MIT pen (Park, & Roedder John, 2014). In a similar vein, Fennis, Pruyn, and Maasland (2005) predicted and found that brand personality dimensions can function as situational influences that influence the assessment of one’s self-image.

Personality

evolutionary theory called life history theory (LHT), which originated in the field of biology. According to this theory, individuals’ childhood experiences influence the ‘strategy’ he or she uses to cope with life. For example, individuals who grew up under adverse and unpredictable circumstances tend to focus more on ‘surviving’, whereas individuals who grew up in a stable and predictable environment focus more on developing themselves (Wenner et al., 2013). The interesting thing about LHS is that it does not only look at personality, but also takes into account health, socioeconomic status, and social- and health-related behaviors (Figueredo, Vásquez, Brumbach, & Schneider, 2004). LHS describes the trade-off individuals have to make between the allocation of limited resources in life (e.g., time, energy, effort) among fundamental life functions (i.e. growth, reproduction, and parenting). These strategies fall along a continuum from fast to slow (Mishra, Templeton, & Meadows, 2017).

Whether or not someone develops a fast or a slow LHS depends for a great deal on childhood environmental contingencies, also called life history contingencies (LHC). The two primary influences on the development of a specific LHS are harshness and unpredictability. Harshness can be seen as relating to the risk of being killed by a conspecific, and unpredictability refers to a spatiotemporal variation in harshness (Reynolds, & McCrea, 2016). Childhood environments characterized by higher harshness and unpredictability speed up an individual’s physiological development and sexual maturation, which in turn leads to a younger age of menarche in women, as well as an early sexual debut, higher number of sexual partners, and having a first child at younger age in both men and women (Mittal, & Griskevicius, 2014; Hengartner, 2017).

Brands and Personality

One of the most important parts of a brand is its personality, which consists of the set of human-like traits and characteristics associated with the brand (Aaker, 1997). Previous research has shown that consumers prefer brands with personalities that are in line with their self-image (actual self), as well as how they aspire to be perceived (aspirational self) (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010). Consumers have a tendency to be attracted to objects, events, and entities that are associated with their self-image (Fennis, & Wiebenga, 2017), and brand personality dimensions can even function as situational influences that influence the assessment of one’s self-image (Fennis, Pruyn, & Maasland, 2005). Brands are therefore much more than mere tools to distinguish manufacturers of products. They are even related to the concept of the extended self, which suggests that brands that are more emotionally relevant to a person’s identity are more likely to become part of his or her self. This then helps them comprehend and communicate who they are as unique beings, as well as their relationships to other individuals (Mittal, & Silvera, 2018).

This is all relevant as it shows that the relation between consumers and brands is an important one that can actually influence consumers in the way they view themselves. Park and Roedder John (2010) demonstrate that brands can indeed influence consumers’ self-image. Across two studies they found that some individuals perceived themselves to be better looking, more feminine, and more glamorous after they used a Victoria’s Secret bag, and more intelligent, more of a leader, and harder working after using an MIT pen (Park, & Roedder John, 2010). In addition, Fennis, Pruyn, & Maasland (2005) found that certain brand characteristics change the way consumers assess their own characteristics accordingly (e.g., exposure to sincere brands led individuals to assess themselves as more agreeable). This leads to the first hypothesis:

H1: Individuals using a product with a salient brand personality will rate themselves higher on personality traits associated with this brand personality.

Susceptibility to Brands

environments are primarily linked to individuals adopting a fast LHS as compared to a slow LHS (Mittal, & Sundie, 2017; Reynolds, & McCrea, 2016). These effects of childhood experiences can carry forward throughout a person’s lifetime, even if he or she achieves socioeconomic stability in adulthood.

The relevance of this lies in the fact that these effects are also shown to cause a perceived lack of control in individuals. This causes these individuals to explain social outcomes in terms of contextual factors that are outside an individual’s control (Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009). Kay et al. (2009) add that “the motivation to perceive personal control is not an end in itself, but may be one means for meeting the more fundamental need to view the world as orderly and to preserve a sense of order”. Finally, individuals with a fast LHS perceive that they have a lower control over their life outcomes, as well as salient environmental (external) uncertainty (Mittal, & Sundie, 2017). The aforementioned need of individuals to restore a sense of control by attributing this control to externalities is an important notion underlying the reasoning in this paper, as will now be explained.

Because individuals with a fast LHS ‘live in the moment’ and grew up under uncertainty and adversity, they may have failed to establish a stable and continuous identity and sense of self. This unstable self-image would then make these individuals more susceptible to outside influences. Support for this is found in the work of Dunkel and Sefcek (2009), who integrated LHS with Eriksonian Lifespan Theory. They established that a fast LHS is linked to role confusion and an unstable identity, meaning that individuals with a fast LHS are more likely to borrow certain favorable associations from externalities and apply them to their self-image (Dunkel, & Sefcek, 2009). This leads to the second hypothesis:

H2: The relationship between brand personality and perceived own personality traits is stronger (weaker) for individuals with a fast LHS (slow LHS).

Personality, Brands, and Behavior

performance brand golf club needed significantly fewer strokes to putt a golf ball than individuals using weak performance brand golf clubs (Garvey, Germann, & Bolton, 2016). These findings are relevant as they show that brands are actually capable of influencing consumer behavior, indicating that the aforementioned effects could also spill over on actual behavior.

This means that consumers could adjust their behavior to be in line with specific (preferable) brand personalities. The brands used in this research are competence-related, we therefore expect any spillover effects to become visible on executive functioning tasks. Executive functions are a set of cognitive abilities including future planning, inhibiting or delaying responses, initiating behavior, setting goals, and shifting between activities (Figueredo et al., 2018). Executive functioning is mainly linked to the prefrontal cortex, and damage to this part of the brain leads to severe problems in executive tasks such as the Stroop task and the stop-signal task (Miyake et al., 2000). Although LHS is developed during childhood, the effects carry on throughout life. Even if individuals achieve socioeconomic stability in adulthood, they might still resort to fast LHS tendencies. This is because the behavioral tendencies associated with a fast LHS are especially likely to emerge in times of duress, while they may lie dormant when the conditions an individual is subjected to are benign (Mittal, & Griskevicius, 2014). Therefore, the difference between fast and slow LHS should become more pronounced when individuals are facing stress in their adult environment:

H3: The impact of brands for fast LHS individuals is more pronounced under stress than under neutral conditions.

which in turn can (partly) circumvent the negative effects of adverse and unpredictable childhood environments. In order to test this, the following hypothesis is introduced:

CHAPTER 2 – METHOD

Design and Sample

The hypotheses developed in the previous chapter can be visualized in the following conceptual models:

Figure 1: conceptual model visualizing the effect of brand personality on own personality traits.

Figure 2: conceptual model visualizing the effect of brand personality on actual behavior.

The study followed a 2 (competence brand versus neutral brand) x 2 (time pressure versus no time pressure) x continuous (LHS score) between subjects design. The above models were analyzed using linear regression in SPSS. The experiment was completed on a voluntary basis by 244 participants. They either participated for a monetary reward (€8.00) or course credit (4 points). Participants responded to an open message on the research lab website, and all parts of the experiment were administered in cubicles containing a computer. Of the total sample, 6 participants were dropped because their responses were incomplete on core measures, or because their paper part could not be linked to their electronically administered part. The final sample for this experiment therefore comprised 238 participants

Brand Personality Personality Traits

Life History Strategy

H1 H2

Brand Personality Executive

(102 male, 136 female, Mage = 21,61 years, SD = 2,842). These participants were subsequently randomly allocated to a brand condition (BIC = 120, Oxford = 118) and a time pressure condition (none = 122, time pressure = 116).

Brand Pretest

Procedure

Participants signed up for the experiment online in advance, and were welcomed to the lab in their allocated timeslots. They were first given a short instruction regarding the experiment and after signing off for consent, they were led to a cubicle. Upon entering the cubicle, the participants were either given an Oxford University aluminum pen or a blue plastic BIC pen. They were told that the university shop was looking to expand its assortment of pens, and that they were collaborating with the research lab to have participants evaluate possible new pens. Participants were first asked (on the computer) to fill in their participant number (which matched the number written on their paper surveys for linking purposes) and to indicate whether they consented to voluntarily participating in the experiment. If ‘No’ was selected here, participants were immediately referred to the end of the survey and thanked for their participation. If they selected ‘Yes’, they were asked to evaluate the pen they were given on 3 characteristics (materials, visibility of the logo, colors). This was done in order to focus their attention on the pen and to make the brand salient. After this, the participants were told to start out by completing two questionnaires (part A: K-SF-42 and part B: personality) before continuing on the digitally administered part. They were explicitly instructed to use the pen they were given for this task, and that they would later on be asked to provide an evaluation of this pen and its use. After completing both parts A and B of the paper questionnaires, participants were explicitly instructed to return to the digital part on screen. To make sure they filled in both parts of the paper questionnaire, they were asked to confirm that they had completed both parts, before moving on. If ‘No’ was selected here, participants were again instructed to first complete both paper questionnaires.

Participants then received a short instruction on how to do the Stroop task, and subsequently completed 8 test trials with feedback (i.e. they were given feedback as to whether their answer was correct or wrong). After the test trials, participants either saw the Stroop test with time pressure or without time pressure, and completed 60 trials. All Stroop tasks were completed on Philips 190B9CS 19” TFT monitors with a screen response time of 5.000 milliseconds. Given that this screen response time was the same for all respondents, and consistent throughout the Stroop task, this should not influence the response times of participants.

were included as control variables (i.e. Age, Sex, Nationality, Education, Religion). Finally, participants rated the pen they were given (either Oxford University or BIC) on writing pleasure, grip, and whether or not they would buy the pen if it were available in the university store. After completing these last questions, participants reached the end of the experiment and were instructed to return their pen and the completed questionnaires to the researchers. They were then given a debriefing and signed off on a checklist for their remuneration (either a monetary reward or course credit). After this, the participants were thanked for their participation and excused.

Independent Variables Life History Strategy

Personality Traits

Participants’ personality traits were measured using a 16-item survey that contained personality traits from Aaker’s dimensions of brand personality (Aaker, 1997). This way of measuring personality traits was adapted from Park and Roedder John (2010). The survey contained pre-tested brand associations related to competence (e.g., intelligent, successful, leader), which were linked to the focal brand in this study (Oxford University). Other personality traits in this survey (e.g., cheerful, sentimental, friendly) were not associated with the focal brand at all, and therefore included for contrast. Participants rated themselves on a 7-point Likert scale, anchored at 1 (“Not at all like me”) and 7 (“Very much like me”). In addition, participants also completed three scales related to self-concept and self-efficacy for control reasons.

First, future self continuity (Hershfield, 2011) was measured by asking participants to indicate to what degree they felt similar/connected (or dissimilar/disconnected) to their future self in six months time. They could indicate this using the following figure:

Of the seven figures, figure A represented total dissimilarity and figure G represented total similarity between the present and future self.

General self-efficacy was measured using a 10-item (α = 0.829) GSE-scale anchored at 1 (“Not true at all”) and 4 (“Exactly true”). Items included “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”, and “It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals” (Schwarzer, & Jerusalem, 1995). Participants’ score for general self-efficacy was calculated by finding the sum of their scores on all 10 items. The total score therefore ranged between 10 and 40, with a higher score indicating more self-efficacy.

myself often conflict with one another” and “Sometimes I feel that I am not really the person that I appear to be” (Campbell et al., 1996). Items 1 through 5, 7 through 10, and 12 were reverse coded. Participants’ total score on self-concept clarity was calculated as the mean of their scores on the 12 items. All these measures of personality traits, as well as the survey used (questionnaire part B of the paper questionnaire part) can be found in appendix B.

Time Pressure

Time pressure was included as a stressor as it has been shown to induce more pronounced responses in individuals with a fast LHS, leading to clearer behavioral outcomes (Mittal, & Griskevicius, 2014). Time pressure was included as a stimulus by providing the participants with false feedback in the Stroop task regarding their performance in the 8 test trials prior to the actual Stroop task. In the no time pressure condition, participants were explained that the Stroop task is predictive of how well and fast he/she can make decisions, which is an important component of intelligence. It was then stressed that participants had to answer as fast as possible in the subsequent trials. In the time pressure condition, participants then saw a ‘loading’ animation, and received a message that read:

“It seems like you were slow in the test trials; you performed slower than 80% of the participants who have thus far completed this study. In the actual task you need to perform faster”. Please not that in the actual task, you will only have 3 seconds to answer the questions and a timer will be visible on screen to show you much time you have left”.

In addition to this message, participants in the time pressure condition indeed saw a timer counting down from 3 to 0 in each trial. An image of this set up can be found in appendix C.

Dependent Variables Brand Personality

The focal brand used as the brand personality stimulus was Oxford University, because it has a strong competence related brand personality (see the pre-test) and is well known among most of the participant pool. This was important because the brand associations of Oxford University had to be salient to participants in order for them to have an effect. Participants in the brand treatment were given an Oxford University pen and participants in the neutral brand condition were given a simple plastic BIC pen (see appendix E). A pen was chosen because it is an unobtrusive object that participants would need anyway in order to fill in the paper survey part. Participants were instructed to fill in the paper part of the survey (the K-SF-42 and the personality questionnaires) with the pen they were given. By having to use the pen, they were confronted with the clearly visible brand, which increased the salience of the brand.

In order to control for any negative influences of the pen itself, three control questions measuring writing pleasure, grip, and whether participants would purchase the pen if available in the store (3 items; α = 0.764). In addition to the pen controls, we also controlled for participants’ attitudes toward Oxford University as a brand. Three control questions measured whether the participant knew Oxford University, whether they liked it (7-point Likert scale anchored at “Dislike a great deal” and “Like a great deal”), and whether they would want to spend a semester abroad at Oxford University if given the possibility (5-point Likert scale anchored at “Definitely will not” and “Definitely will”). An image of the actual control questions is included in appendix F.

Executive Functioning

Participants were asked to name the color in which the stimulus was written as quickly as possible.

Before the first stimulus was presented, participants in both conditions saw a message on screen that read ‘The task starts in 5 seconds (as indicated by the countdown timer)’ and below that a countdown timer indicated the seconds left until the first stimulus would be shown. In the no time pressure condition participants were presented with 20 neutral, 20 congruent, and 20 incongruent stimuli that were mixed to avoid adaptation to the sequence. Participants in the time pressure condition (due to an error) were presented with 21 neutral, 19 congruent, and 20 incongruent stimuli that were mixed as well. Thus, all participants completed a total of 60 trials. All color words and X strings were written in Times New Roman size 72. Color words were presented with three answer options (i.e. ‘Red’, ‘Green’, and ‘Yellow’) that participants could click. As soon as one answer was clicked, the screen automatically continued to the next stimulus. There was no need to confirm the input with a second click. If participants did not answer after 3.000 milliseconds had passed, the screen automatically moved to the next stimulus – which forced the participants to answer as quick as they could. An illustration of the Stroop task can be found in appendix C.

The outcome measure for executive function is the Stroop interference score (Van der Elst et al, 2006). This score was calculated for each participant by subtracting the average time it took to answer on the neutral task from the average time it to took answer on the incongruent task1_{. If participants did not click at all, thereby not selecting the right answer, for} this specific Stroop question they were assigned the maximum time possible for answering (3.000 milliseconds). Lower Stroop interference scores were indicative of greater ability to override dominant response tendencies (and thus greater inhibition).

Control Variables

In addition to these measures and stimuli, a number of control variables was included. Age was included as a continuous variable measuring participants’ age in years. Sex was measured as a categorical variable with the options ‘Male’, ‘Female’, and ‘Other, namely:’. Nationality was measured as a nominal variable to control for possible geographical influences and higher prevalence of harshness and unpredictability. Education was measured

1 _{The timing option in Qualtrics allows for the collection of several time measures. In this case, we used the}

CHAPTER 3 - RESULTS Manipulation Check

First, we assessed whether the manipulation of time pressure was successful. Given that the first item (“I had a lot of time to think about the correct answers”) reduced the internal reliability of the latent variable time pressure, it was not included. The mean score on the remaining three items (“I felt stressed during the task”, “I felt time pressure while doing the task”, and “During the task I felt like I had to rush”) was then calculated as a measure of experienced time pressure. The manipulation was successful, with participants in the time pressure condition experiencing more time pressure than those in the no time pressure condition (F(1, 236) = 16.252, p = .000). In addition, regressing the deleted item (“I had a lot of time to think about the correct answers”) on the stressor condition was also found to show a significant and negative effect (β = -1.121, p = .000). This shows that the manipulation was successful, and that participants in the stressor condition experienced more time pressure than those in the neutral condition.

Control Variables

The control variables were tested on their correlation with the competence-related personality traits for model 1. Age did not significantly correlate with the outcome variables. Sex correlated significantly with Reliable (r = .149, p = .022), Hard-working (r = .184, p = .004), and Confident (r = -.188, p = .004). Education correlated significantly with Hard-working (r = .183, p = .005), and Religion correlated significantly with Reliable (r = -.127, p = .051). Finally, a liking of Oxford University correlated marginally (r = 0.119, p = .066) with Intelligent. Willingness to spend time abroad at Oxford University correlated significantly with Leader (r = 0.153, p = .018) and marginally with Successful (r = .118, p = .070). Therefore, Sex, Education, Religion, liking of Oxford University, and willingness to study at Oxford University were included as control variables in model 1 (for the correlating outcome measures), measuring the effect of brand personality on own personality traits.

Analyses

Rub-off effect on personality traits

The effect of brand personality on self-perceived own personality traits was analyzed by regressing competence-related personality traits (i.e. reliable, hard-working, intelligent, successful, leader, and confident) on participants’ LHS, their brand condition (competence brand versus neutral brand), and the interaction between LHS and brand condition. The table below shows the outcomes of the multiple regression analysis and the variables included. The columns show the outcome variables (personality traits) and the rows show the betas and standard errors for the different variables.

Intelligent Reliable Successful Leader Hard-working Confident

(Constant) 5.076 (0.291)*** 5.757 (0.199)*** 4.544 (0.288)*** 3.674 (0.406)*** 4.222 (0.343)*** 5.749 (0.274)*** LHS 0.043 (0.201) 0.438 (0.180)** 0.407 (0.211)** 0.319 (0.297) 0.451 (0.255)* 0.497 (0.267)* Brand 0.006 (0.118) 0.061 (0.109) 0.104 (0.125) 0.344 (0.177)* 0.077 (0.153) 0.119 (0.161) LHS*Brand 0.187 (0.251) -0.247 (0.227) 0.250 (0.265) -0.018 (0.375) -0.183 (0.323) 0.192 (0.338) Sex 0.209 (0.111)* 0.354 (0.157)** -0.592 (0.165)*** Education 0.239 (0.102)** Religion -0.257 (0.113)** Oxford (liking) 0.090 (0.054)* Oxford (studying) 0.089 (0.067) 0.206 (0.094)**

Table 1: outcomes of regression analysis for model 1; p-values: 0.1 (*), 0.05 (**), 0.01 (***).

LHS), however, rated themselves significantly higher on the personality traits Reliable, Successful, Hard-working, and Confident. Although this was not hypothesized, it seems to indicate that individuals with a faster LHS rate themselves lower on a number of key competence-related personality traits. The control variable Sex had a positive significant effect on Reliable and Hard-working, and a negative significant effect on Confident. Education had a positive significant effect on Hard-working, and Religion had a negative significant effect on Reliable. Finally, liking Oxford University had a positive significant effect on Intelligent, and willingness to study at Oxford University had a positive significant effect on Successful and Leader. All of these analyses met the assumptions of multiple regression analysis (linear relationship, residuals were normally distributed, no multicollinearity, and variance of error terms was similar across values of the independent variable).

Rub-off effect on executive functioning

The effect of brand personality on executive functioning was analyzed by regressing the Stroop interference score on brand personality, LHS, time pressure, as well as the interaction between LHS and brand personality, and LHS and time pressure. Whether or not the participant is religious was included as a dichotomous control variable. First, we examined the outcomes of the Stroop task for the entire population to assess whether these show the specific Stroop effects of facilitation (contrast between congruent and neutral conditions) and interference (difference between incongruent and neutral condition). The average response time on neutral trials (M = .805, SD = .162) was lower than the average response time on incongruent tasks (M = .942, SD = .239), and a paired samples T-test showed that this difference was significant (t = 13.168, p = .000).

Variable Unstandardized Beta

Standard Error t value p value

(Constant) 0.090 0.022 4.056 .000 Brand 0.046 0.027 1.727 .086 LHS 0.038 0.038 0.129 .310 Time pressure 0.054 0.027 2.000 .047 LHS*Brand -0.042 0.040 -0.113 .297 LHS*Time pressure -0.043 0.039 -1.110 .268 Time pressure*Brand -0.089 0.038 -2.344 .020 Religious 0.021 0.020 1.064 .289

Table 2: results multiple regression with Stroop interference score as dependent variable.

These results show that there is a marginally significant effect of brand on the Stroop interference score (β = 0.046, p = .086), but that there is no significant effect of LHS (β = 0.038, p = .310) or the interaction between LHS and brand personality (β = -0.042, p = .297) on the Stroop interference score. In addition, there is a significant positive effect of time pressure (β = 0.054, p = .047) and a significant negative interaction of time pressure and brand (β = -0.089, p = .020). Whether or not the participant was religious did not have a significant effect on the outcome variable.

Because the nature of the stressor (time pressure) logically elicited faster responses by participants, we also assessed the number of errors they made. When we used the number of wrong answers on the Stroop task (on all categories and on the incongruent category) instead of the Stroop interference score of timing, we obtained the following results:

Variable DV: total number of errors on incongruent Stroop questions

DV: total number of errors on Stroop task (Constant) 0.275 (0.191) 0.452 (0.277) Brand 0.132 (0.272) 0.196 (0.549) LHS -0.261 (0.377) -0.150 (0.549) Time pressure 0.671 (0.274)** 1.098 (0.399)*** LHS*Brand 0.083 (0.411) -0.224 (0.598) LHS*Time pressure -0.023 (0.400) 0.042 (0.582) Time pressure*Brand -0.755 (0.390)* -1.240 (0.567)**

These results show a significant positive effect of time pressure on the number of errors (both on the total errors and the errors on the incongruent trials) and a significant interaction of time pressure and brand. Again, no significant interaction of LHS and brand was found, and no main effect of LHS was found either.

LHS, self-efficacy, and self-concept clarity

In addition to the hypothesized effects, we also analyzed the relation between LHS and both self-efficacy and self-concept clarity. A linear regression of general self-efficacy on K-SF-42 showed LHS to have a significant positive effect on general self-efficacy (β = 1.668, p = .002). In addition, a linear regression of self-concept clarity on K-SF-42 showed a significant positive effect of LHS on self-concept clarity (β = 0.300, p = .002).

CHAPTER 4 - DISCUSSION

In this study, we set out to examine how brands rub off on consumers, and under what conditions they do so. We were interested in the effects of brands on both the self-concept and the behavioral outcomes of participants, as well as the role of personality in these relations. Of the 6 competence-related personality traits included in this study (Intelligent, Reliable, Successful, Leader, Hard-working, Confident), we only found support for hypothesis 1 in the effect of brand condition on Leader. This means that participants who were given an Oxford pen (as compared to a BIC pen) rated themselves significantly higher on the personality trait Leader. In other words, it appears that using an Oxford pen rubbed off on individuals by increasing their perceptions of being a leader. No significant effect of brand on the other competence-related personality traits was found. There was no evidence for the hypothesized influence of, and interaction with Life History Strategy (LHS). However, we did find evidence of a positive effect of LHS on the personality traits Reliable, Successful, Hard-working, and Confident. This means that individuals with a slower strategy perceive themselves to be more reliable, successful, hard-working, and confident than individuals with a faster strategy. In addition, results showed a positive effect of LHS on self-efficacy, with slow LHS individuals scoring much higher on self-efficacy than individuals with a faster LHS. This seems to indicate that individuals with a faster LHS feel less competent and have diminished beliefs in their own capabilities to perform well in particular situations (Park, & Roedder John, 2014).

hypothesis 3. We did find support for a main effect of time pressure and a marginal effect of brand, however. This means that under time pressure, participants had more difficulty overriding their dominant tendencies (i.e. they found it more difficult to control their impulses). Similarly, participants using an Oxford pen also had greater difficulty of impulse control. In addition, we found a significant negative interaction between time pressure and brand. This is in line with our hypothesis 4 in that the Oxford pen seemed to buffer against the negative effects of time pressure, lending partial support for this hypothesis. Participants who used the Oxford pen and were in the time pressure condition actually performed better in controlling their impulses than individuals under time pressure who used the BIC pen.

When the outcome variable was the number of errors on the Stroop task instead of the Stroop interference score, we found a significant effect of brands under time pressure. Although there was no interaction with LHS, individuals in the time pressure condition performed worse on the Stroop task in that they had more errors in selecting the right word color. This held for both the total number of errors, as well as the number of errors on incongruent color words specifically. The negative effect of time pressure on the number of errors in Stroop tasks is corroborated by previous studies (Hochman, 1967; Sharma, & McKenna, 2001). More interestingly, there was a significant interaction between the brand condition and time pressure. This means that individuals in the time pressure condition made significantly less mistakes in the Stroop task if they were exposed to the Oxford pen earlier as compared to the BIC pen. These findings seems to indicate that using a brand with a strong competence-related personality might be able to alleviate the negative effect of a stressor (time pressure). This is in line with earlier findings of Garvey et al. (2015), who showed that using a strong performance brand (Nike) improved self-esteem, subsequently reducing stress-induced anxiety and enhancing performance in a golf task.

Limitations and Future Research

The reason why no interaction effects were found for brand and LHS is possibly due to the absence of a stressor in the first part of the experiment. Given that LHS tendencies usually arise under stress and pressure, this could have caused a lack of effect. Future research could replicate this first part of the experiment, but in addition include a clear stressor (e.g., time pressure or a reminder of harsh economic times). This setup would then make it possible to test for the effects of stress in eliciting LHS related tendencies.

Another limitation with respect to the personality traits is that we only included a selected number of traits. Due to this, we could not compare the effects on different personality dimensions, and we also could not assess the direct effect of LHS on each of these personality dimensions. Future research could include all personality traits identified by Aaker (1997) for example, or it could focus on additional brand personality measures such as the Brands as Intentional Agents Framework (Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012).

Regarding the focal brand, participants only used the branded pen for the duration of the experiment and this exposure might have been too short. Future studies could have participants use the pens for a week or even longer, before welcoming them back to the lab and measuring the effects on their personality traits and behavioral outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The main focus of this research has been on the effects of brands on individuals’ self-concept, and the way in which brands affect behavior. Although we did not find statistical support for all hypothesized relations, the study did produce some interesting results. First, individuals using an Oxford pen thought of themselves as more of a leader compared to individuals using a neutral (BIC) pen. Interestingly, this did not depend on whether the participant had a faster or a slower life history strategy (LHS). In addition, this same Oxford pen seemed to shield individuals from the negative effects of time pressure. Participants who used the Oxford pen made fewer mistakes in the Stroop task under time pressure than participants who used the neutral pen. They also had less difficulty in controlling their impulses when confronted with incongruent stimuli. Again, this did not depend on whether or not participants had a faster or slower LHS.

REFERENCES

Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.

Aaker, J.L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 45-57.

Bjekić, J., Živanović, M., Purić, D., Oosterman, J.M., & Filipović, S.R. (2018). Pain and executive functions: A unique relationship between Stroop task and experimentally induced pain. Psychological Research, 82, 580-589.

Campbell, J., Trapnell, P.D., Heine, S.J., Katz, I.M., Lavallee, L.F., & Lehman, D.R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141-156.

Dunkel, C.S., & Sefcek, J.A. (2009). Eriksonian lifespan theory and life history theory: An integration using the example of identity formation. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 13-23.

Fennis, B.M., Pruyn, A.T.H., & Maasland, M. (2005). Revisiting the malleable self: Brand effects on consumer self-perceptions of personality traits. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 371-377.

Fennis, B.M., & Pruyn, A.T.H. (2007). You are what you wear: Brand personality influences on consumer impression formation. Journal of Business Research, 60, 634-639. Fennis, B.M., & Wiebenga, J.H. (2017). Me, myself, and IKEA: Qualifying generic self-

referencing effects in brand judgment. Journal of Business Research, 72, 69-79. Figueredo, A.J. (n.d.). The Arizona Life History Battery (ALHB). Retrieved from

https://sites.google.com/email.arizona.edu/ajf/

Figueredo, A.J., Jacobs, W.J., Gladden, P.R., Bianchi, J-M., Patch, E.A., Kavanagh, P.S., Beck, C.J.A., Sotomayor-Peterson, M., Jiang, Y., & Li, N.P. (2018). Intimate partner violence, interpersonal aggression, and life history strategy. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 1-31.

Figueredo, A.J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B.H., & Schneider, S.M.R. (2004). The heritability of life history strategy: The K-factor, covitality, and personality. Social Biology, 51(3/4), 121-143.

Figueredo, A.J., Wolf, P.S.A., Olderbak, S.G., Gladden, P.R., Fernandes, H.B.F., Wenner, C., Hill, D., Andrzejczak, D.J., Sisco, M.M., Jacobs, W.J., Hohman, Z.J., Sefcek, J.A., Kruger, D., Howrigan, D.P., MacDonald, K., & Rushton, J.P. (2014). The

validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 148-185.

Freling, T.H., Crosno, J.L., & Henard, D.H. (2011). Brand personality appeal:

conceptualization and empirical validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(3), 392-406.

Garvey, A.M., Germann, F., & Bolton, L.E. (2016). Performance brand placebos: How brands improve performance and consumers take the credit. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 931-951.

Glass, D.J. (2014). Life history theory as a powerful framework for clinical psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 334-336.

Han, Y.J., Nunes, J.C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74, 15-30.

Hengartner, M.P. (2017). The evolutionary life history model of externalizing personality: Bridging human and animal personality science to connect ultimate and proximate mechanisms underlying aggressive dominance, hostility, and impulsive sensation seeking. Review of General Psychology, 24(4), 330-353.

Hershfield, H.E. (2011). Future self-continuity: How conceptions of the future self transform intertemporal choice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235, 30-43. Hochman, S.H. (1967). The effects of stress on Stroop color-word performance. Psychonomic

Science, 9(8), 475-476.

Kay, A.C., Whitson, J.A., Gaucher, D., & Galinksy, A.D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, out institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264-268.

Kervyn, N., Fiske, S.T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 166-176.

Kraus, M.W., Piff, P.K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992-1004.

Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75, 35-52.

Manson, J.H. (2015). Life history strategy and the HEXACO personality dimensions. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1), 48-66.

outcomes, and gambling? Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 242-248. Mittal, C., & Griskevicius, V. (2014). Sense of control under uncertainty depends on people’s

childhood environment: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 621-637.

Mittal, S., & Silvera, D.H. (2018). Never truly alone, we always have our purchases:

Loneliness and sex as predictors of purchase attachment and future purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 17, 67-77.

Mittal, S., & Sundie, J. (2017). Not worth the risk? Applying life history theory to understand rejection of the experiential recommendation. Journal of Marketing Management, 33, 1003-1034.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T.D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49- 100.

Park, J.K., & Roedder John, D. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brand personalities rub off on consumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 655-669.

Park, J.K., & Roedder John, D. (2014). I think I can, I think I can: Brand use, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2), 233-247.

Reynolds, J.J., & McCrea, S.M. (2016). Life history theory and exploitative strategies. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(3), 1-16.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J.Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.

Sharma, D., & McKenna, F.P. (2001). The role of time pressure on the emotional Stroop task. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 471-481.

Strouts, P.H., Brase, G.L., & Dillon, H.M. (2017). Personality and evolutionary strategies: The relationships between HEXACO traits, mate value, life history strategy, and sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 128-132.

Van der Elst, W., Van Boxtel, M.P.J., Van Breukelen, G.J.P., & Jolles, J. (2006). The Stroop color-word test. Influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment, 13(1), 62-79.

APPENDIX A K-SF-42

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. Use the scale below and write your answers in the spaces provided. For any item that does not apply to you, please enter “0”.

Disagree Disagree Disagree Don’t know/ Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Slightly Not applicable Slightly Somewhat Strongly -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

1._____When faced with a bad situation, I do what I can to change it for the better. 2._____When I encounter problems, I don’t give up until I solve them.

3._____I find I usually learn something meaningful from a difficult situation.

4._____When I am faced with a bad situation, it helps to find a different way of looking at things. 5._____Even when everything seems to be going wrong, I can usually find a bright side to the situation.

6._____I can find something positive even in the worst situations.

7._____I spend a great deal of time per month giving informal emotional support to my blood relatives.

8._____I contribute a great deal to the welfare and well-being of my blood relatives in the present. 9._____I spend a great deal of time per month giving informal emotional support to casual

acquaintances (such as neighbors or people at church).

10._____I contribute a great deal to the welfare and well-being of my friends these days.

11._____I spend a great deal of time per month doing formal volunteer work at school or other youth-related institution.

12._____I often contribute to any other organizations, causes, or charities (including donations made through monthly payroll deductions).

13._____I’m a very religious person. 14._____Religion is important in my life. 15._____Spirituality is important in my life.

16._____I closely identify with being a member of my religious group. 17._____I frequently attend religious or spiritual services.

19._____I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them. 20._____I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.

21._____I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back.

22._____I often want to merge completely with romantic partners, and this sometimes scares them away.

23._____I am nervous when partners get too close to me.

24._____I find that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close as I would like.

The following are some questions about means of help that people offer each other. Use the scale below and write your answers in the spaces provided, indicating about how often any parent, family member, or friend has helped you in each of the following ways. For any item that does not apply to you, please enter “0”.

Not At All A Little Some A Lot

0 1 2 3

While you were growing up…

25._____How much time and attention did your biological mother give you when you needed it? 26._____How much effort did your biological mother put into watching over you and making sure you had a good upbringing?

27._____ How much did your biological mother teach you about life?

28._____How much love and affection did your biological father give you while you were growing up?

29._____How much time and attention did your biological father give you when you needed it? 30._____How much did your biological father teach you about life?

During the last month…

31._____How much have your relatives helped you get worries off your mind? 32._____How much have your relatives told you that you had done something well? 33._____How much have your relatives told you that they liked the way you are? 34._____How much have your relatives shown you affection?

36._____How much have your relatives shown interest and concern for your well-being? 37._____How much have your friends helped you get worries off your mind?

38._____How much have your friends told you that you had done something well? 39._____How much have your friends told you that they liked the way you are? 40._____How much have your friends shown you affection?

41._____How much have your friends offered to take you somewhere?

42._____How much have your friends shown interest and concern for your well-being?

Appendix B

Personality questionnaire 1.

Please indicate for the following personality traits to what extent they describe you on a scale from 1 (“Not at all like me”) to 7 (“Very much like me”).

Not at all Very much

2.

Based on the continuum above, please indicate to what degree you feel similar/connected (or dissimilar/disconnected) to your future self in 6 months (Figure A represents total

dissimilarity and figure G represents maximum overlap between your present and future self in 6 months.

3.

Please indicate to what extent the following statements describe you on a 1 (“Not at all true”) to 4 (“Exactly true”) scale.

1 2 3 4

Not at all Hardly Moderately Exactly true true true true 1. I can always manage to solve ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ difficult problems if I try hard enough.

2. If someone opposes me, I can find ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ the means and ways to get what I want.

3. It is easy for me to stick to my ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ aims and accomplish my goals.

4. I am confident that I could deal ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ efficiently with unexpected events.

5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ know how to handle unforeseen

situations.

6. I can solve most problems if I invest ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ the necessary effort.

7. I can remain calm when facing ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ difficulties because I can rely on my

coping abilities.

8. When I am confronted with a ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ problem, I can usually find several

solutions.

9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ of a solution.

4.

Please indicate to what extent the following statements describe you on a 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”) scale.

Strongly Strongly disagree agree 1 2 3 4 5 1. My beliefs about myself often conflict ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ with one another.

2. On one day I might have one opinion of ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ myself and on another day I might have a

different opinion.

3. I spend a lot of time wondering about ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ what kind of person I really am.

4. Sometimes I feel that I am not really ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ the person that I appear to be.

5. When I think about the kind of person I ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ have been in the past, I’m not sure what I

was really like.

6. I seldom experience conflict between ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ the different aspects of my personality.

7. Sometimes I think I know other people ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ better than I know myself.

8. My beliefs about myself seem to change ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ very frequently.

9. If I were asked to describe my personality, ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ my description might end up being different

from one day to another day.

10. Even if I wanted to, I don’t think I could ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ tell someone what I’m really like.

11. In general, I have a clear sense of who I ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ am and what I am.

12. It is often hard for me to make up my ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ mind about things because I don’t really

Appendix C

Illustration showing the Stroop task (in this case a neutral trial) as participants saw it.

Appendix D

Appendix E

Brand and neutral stimuli

Brand condition: Oxford University pen.

Appendix F

Control questions regarding the pen.