I Think I Can, I Think I Can - Brand Use, Self-Efficacy, and Performance

Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. LI (April 2014), 233247

*Ji Kyung Park is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Alfred Lerner Col-
lege of Business and Economics, University of Delaware (e-mail; jipark@
udel. edu). Deborah Roedder John is Curtis L. Carlson Chair and Professor
of Marketing, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota
(e-mail: djohn@umn.edu). Both authors contributed equally to this article.
The authors acknowledge many helpful suggestions from the anonymous
JMR reviewers. Gita Johar served as associate editor for this article.
JI KYUNG PARK and DEBORAH ROEDDER JOHN*
When consumers struggle with a difficult task, using a brand can help
them perform better. The authors report four studies showing that brand
use can enhance feelings of self-efficacy, which can lead to better task
performance. Students scored higher on difficult Graduate Records
Examination questions when they took the test using a Massachusetts
Institute of Technology pen (Study 1) and showed better athletic
performance when they drank water from a Gatorade cup during
strenuous athletic exercise (Studies 2 and 3). These increases in task
performance were mediated by feelings of self-efficacy (Studies 3 and 4).
Furthermore, the results show that not everyone experiences the
beneficial effect of brand use; it depends on the persons implicit self-
theory. Across studies, users adopting entity theories (entity theorists)
showed increased self-efficacy and better task performance, whereas
users adopting incremental theories (incremental theorists) were
unaffected by brand use.
Keywords: brands, self-efficacy, implicit self-theories
I Think I Can, I Think I Can: Brand Use,
Self-Efficacy, and Performance
2014, American Marketing Association
ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) 233
Consumers face a variety of challenges in their everyday
lives. Getting through a tough exercise routine, finishing a
difficult work assignment, and disciplining an obstinate
child are just a few examples of activities that present an
uphill battle for many people. In each case, consumers must
persist in the face of obstacles to complete the task. When
they fail, it is often because they lack confidence in their
abilities. This lack of confidence undermines their determi-
nation to work through the obstacles they face. Unfortu-
nately, many of us do not live up to the saying When the
going gets tough, the tough get going.
We propose that brands can help consumers with chal-
lenging situations in their lives. Specifically, we suggest that
using brands can increase consumers sense of self-efficacy,
which refers to the belief in ones capabilities to perform
well in a particular situation (Bandura 1995). Self-efficacy
is an important regulatory mechanism that governs the level
of challenge people are willing to undertake, and it thus
determines actual performance on challenging tasks (Bandura
1982; Wood and Bandura 1989). We posit that consumers
can feel more confident about their ability to perform well
(self-efficacy) and can actually perform better when they
use a brand that promises benefits helpful for performing
the task. For example, consumers engaged in a tough exer-
cise routine can feel more confident about their abilities
and actually perform betterif they exercise while using a
brand that promises better athletic performance, such as
Gatorade or Under Armour.
Furthermore, we show that there are individual differ-
ences in experiencing this self-efficacy effect. In particular,
we examine the implicit self-theory people hold as an
important moderating factor (Dweck 2000). We find that
people who believe that their personal qualities and abilities
cannot be improved by their own efforts (entity theorists)
experience a boost in self-efficacy and performance when
using a brand during a difficult task. In contrast, people who
believe that they can improve their personal qualities and
abilities through their own efforts (incremental theorists)
do not experience the self-efficacy boost from using brands
and do not exhibit better task performance.
We present four experiments to explore these effects. In
each, participants use a branded product while performing a
difficult task, such as taking a graduate school admissions
test (while using a Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[MIT] pen) or engaging in strenuous athletic exercise (while
drinking tap water from a Gatorade cup). The products, such
as a pen or water, do not have functional qualities that could
account for better task performance. For example, a pen
does not have functional qualities that could increase a test
takers intelligence level or ability to answer Graduate
Records Examination (GRE) questions. This aspect of our
study enables us to test the brands effects apart from func-
tional qualities that could be falsely attributed to the product
itself. It also distinguishes our research setting from tradi-
tional placebo studies, in which people have a basis for
developing false beliefs about inert substances such as a
sugar pill because pills usually have functional qualities that
cure medical ailments.
Our research opens a new area of inquiry in understand-
ing how consumers benefit from using brands. First, brands
can provide a sense of self-efficacy. Consumers often lack
the confidence to engage in challenges that could improve
their lives, such as exercising strenuously or making
healthy, home-cooked meals. Self-efficacy is critical for
success in these situations, and we find that brands can pro-
vide the boost necessary to help many consumers perform
well. We also identify the type of consumers (entity theo-
rists) who experience such benefits from using brands. For
example, we find that entity theorists score higher on a diffi-
cult graduate school admissions test when using an MIT pen
to take the test and show better athletic performance when
drinking tap water from a Gatorade cup during strenuous
athletic exercise.
Second, we identify a process whereby brands can influ-
ence behavior that differs from that detailed in prior
research. For example, previous studies have found that
incidental exposure to a brand (e.g., brand logos for Apple,
Disney) can activate goals and goal-consistent behavior
related to the brands image (e.g., being creative, behaving
honestly) (Chartrand et al. 2008; Fitzsimons, Chartrand, and
Fitzsimons 2008). These effects take place on a noncon-
scious level. Although brands can automatically activate
goals, when tasks are difficult and challenging, simply pos-
sessing a goal to perform well may not be sufficient. A cog-
nitive appraisal of personal efficacy is required both to
increase the level of challenge that people are willing to
undertake and to perform well on the task (Zimmerman,
Bandura, and Martinez-Pons 1992). By focusing our inquiry
on difficult tasks, we show that brands can affect behaviors
on a conscious level by driving feelings of self-efficacy.
This distinction is important on a managerial level because
it is difficult to communicate nonconscious benefits that
brands deliver to consumers, but firms can incorporate con-
sciously experienced brand benefits into brand messaging
and brand promotions.
Third, our research confirms the importance of implicit
self-theories in brand research. Prior work has found that
these beliefs influence how consumers form attitudes
toward branded products (Yorkston, Nunes, and Matta
2010). Research has also shown that the use of brands can
change peoples self-perceptions about their personality
traits, but this change only occurs for entity (not incremen-
tal) theorists (Park and John 2010). In this article, we show
that, for consumers who hold entity theory beliefs, brands
can raise their sense of self-efficacy and increase their level
of performance when facing challenging tasks. Thus, our
findings confirm the sensitivity of entity theorists to brand
cues and extend the realm of influence from self-perceptions
to self-efficacy and task performance. Self-perceptions (e.g.,
I am athletic) are broad evaluations of the self, whereas
self-efficacy (I am confident I can do well on this exercise)
is task specific and is a key determinant of performance on
specific tasks (Pajares and Schunk 2001).
Our article proceeds as follows. First, we provide an
overview of self-efficacy and implicit self-theories and dis-
cuss how brands can provide a self-efficacy boost and why
implicit self-theories moderate this effect. Next, we present
the results of four experiments that demonstrate the self-
efficacy effect, with brand usage resulting in heightened
self-efficacy and better task performance for entity theorists
only. Our findings also support the idea that self-efficacy
mediates better task performance and that the process takes
place on a conscious level. Finally, we discuss the contribu-
tions of our findings for branding research and the implica-
tions of our findings for marketing strategies and further
research.
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
In this section, we describe the concept of self-efficacy in
more detail. We then turn our attention to implicit self-
theories and propose that entity theorists draw on different
sources of self-efficacy than do incremental theorists. We
suggest that opportunities to learn and develop skills are a
potent source of self-efficacy for incremental theorists,
whereas entity theorists rely on assurances that they can be
successful as a source of self-efficacy. We argue that brands
can provide such assurances and thus can be a source of
self-efficacy, which contributes to better performance for
entity theorists.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to the belief in ones capabilities to
perform well in a particular situation (Bandura 1995).
Beyond this definition, Bandura and Wood have highlighted
three aspects of self-efficacy that are particularly important
(Bandura 1988; Bandura and Wood 1989; Wood and Ban-
dura 1989). First, self-efficacy involves a mobilization com-
ponent; thus, people who have the same skills may perform
differently because of their utilization and combination of
these skills. Second, self-efficacy is a dynamic construct;
therefore, self-efficacy beliefs can change over time as peo-
ple acquire new information and experiences during task
performance. Third, self-efficacy beliefs are linked to dis-
tinct realms of functioning (I can do well on this test) as
opposed to representing a global trait (I am smart).
According to social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is an
important self-regulatory mechanism that governs ongoing
motivation and performance (Bandura 1986). Self-efficacy
beliefs increase the level of challenge people are willing to
undertake, the amount of effort they expend in meeting
those challenges, and the level of perseverance in the face of
difficulties in completing the task, resulting in better per-
formance (Bandura 1982; Wood and Bandura 1989). For
example, research has shown that self-efficacy beliefs play
an important role in controlling eating disorders (Schneider
and Agras 1985), increasing strenuous physical activity
(Bandura and Cervone 1983), and improving academic per-
formance (Bandura 1993).
234 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, APRIL 2014
Brand Use, Self-Efficacy, and Performance 235
Self-Efficacy and Implicit Self-Theories
People develop lay theories regarding the nature of the
social world to interpret, predict, and control their social
worlds (Lickel, Hamilton, and Sherman 2001). Included in
this category are implicit self-theories, which are lay beliefs
regarding the malleability of personal qualities. Research
has identified two types of implicit self-theories: incremen-
tal and entity theories. People who endorse incremental
theory (incremental theorists) view their personal quali-
ties as malleable and believe they can improve on these
qualities by devoting effort to self-improvement. In con-
trast, people who endorse entity theory (entity theorists)
view their personal qualities as more fixed and do not
believe they can change these qualities by devoting effort to
self-improvement (Dweck 2000).
We propose that these mindsets influence the way people
develop a sense of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs are
based on a persons assessment of whether he or she has the
ability to perform well on a specific task, and we suggest
that entity and incremental theorists develop confidence
about their abilities in different ways. Incremental theorists
are more confident about their abilities when they have
opportunities to learn and develop their skills. Because
incremental theorists believe they can improve their abilities
if they try, they welcome opportunities to learn and develop
their skills. Moreover, when they engage in these activities,
they gain confidence in their abilities (self-efficacy), which
increases performance for tasks requiring these abilities
(Dweck 2000; Martocchio 1994; Robins and Pals 2002;
Wood and Bandura 1989).
However, this is not the case for entity theorists. Entity
theorists believe that their abilities are fixed and cannot be
improved on through their own efforts, so they show help-
less and defensive reactions when given an opportunity to
learn and practice new skills. As a result, these opportunities
do not increase self-efficacy for entity theorists (Martocchio
1994; Rhodewalt 1994; Robins and Pals 2002).
Instead, we propose that entity theorists are more confi-
dent about their abilities when they receive assurances that
they can perform well on the task. Because entity theorists
believe that their abilities are fixed and cannot be improved
even if they try, they prefer situations in which they are
assured of doing well (Dweck and Leggett 1988; Elliott and
Dweck 1988). For example, college students who are entity
theorists prefer easier courses in which there is an assurance
of getting an A rather than more challenging courses in
which they could learn more but might receive a C. Incre-
mental theorists exhibit the opposite behavior, choosing
more challenging courses even though they may receive a
lower grade (Dweck and Leggett 1988; Elliott and Dweck
1988). Thus, entity theorists feel a lack of confidence about
their abilities (low self-efficacy) when they face a challeng-
ing taskand, unless they receive assurances that they can
perform well, entity theorists tend to do poorly in the task
(Robins and Pals 2002).
Brands as a Source of Assurance
Brands can provide assurances of success to consumers
through brand promises. A brand promise is a statement of
the benefits a brand offers to consumers. Many of these
benefits relate to better performance on a task, such as get-
ting rid of stubborn stains (Tide) or learning a foreign lan-
guage (Rosetta Stone). Gatorade, for example, promises
more endurance and better athletic performance, which
assures consumers that they can perform better when
engaged in a challenging workout routine or sport if they
use Gatorade.
We predict that entity theorists will use brand promises as
a source of self-efficacy. When engaged in a challenging
task and using a brand that promises better performance on
the task, entity theorists will rely on this promise to increase
their confidence about performing well on the task. This
increase in confidence will result in better task performance.
For example, entity theorists using the Gatorade brand dur-
ing a challenging workout routine can find assurance in the
brands promise of better athletic performance, which
increases their confidence about doing well on the routine
(self-efficacy) and enhances actual performance.
Incremental theorists will not be influenced by brand
promises. Incremental theorists derive a sense of self-efficacy
through opportunities to learn and develop their skills.
Thus, simply using a brand that promises they can perform
well will not be effective in enhancing self-efficacy and task
performance for incremental theorists. In contrast, incre-
mental theorists engaged in a challenging workout routine
can become more confident if they have engaged in oppor-
tunities to learn proper workout technique. Thus, engaging
in these self-development opportunities will enhance self-
efficacy and task performance.
Overview of Empirical Studies
We examine our predictions in four studies. The first two
studies demonstrate that brand use affects task performance
for entity theorists using different brands (MIT and
Gatorade), different tasks (GRE test and athletic exercise),
and different ways of examining implicit self-theories (mea-
sure vs. manipulation). Entity theorists performed better on
difficult GRE questions (Study 1) and a physically challeng-
ing athletic exercise (Study 2) when they used a brand
promising better performance on the task; incremental theo-
rists were unaffected by using these brands.
In Study 3, we show that brand use affects entity and incre-
mental theorists differently because they form self-efficacy
in different ways. We compare two ways of increasing self-
efficacy for athletic performance: using the Gatorade brand
(tap water in a Gatorade cup) versus receiving training tips
for better performance. Using the Gatorade brand increases
self-efficacy and task performance only for entity theorists,
whereas receiving training tips increases self-efficacy and
task performance only for incremental theorists. We also
find that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between
implicit self-theories and task performance.
In Study 4, we provide evidence that the beneficial
effects of brand use are due to the brands promise of better
performance. We manipulate the credibility of the Gatorade
brand by providing information that either confirms or dis-
confirms its promise of better athletic performance. Entity
theorists experience a boost in self-efficacy and task per-
formance only when the brand promise is confirmed,
whereas incremental theorists are unaffected by whether the
Gatorade brand promise is confirmed or disconfirmed.
These findings support our theorizing that a brands promise
of better performance is the source of self-efficacy (and bet-
ter performance) for entity theorists.
STUDY 1
Overview
Undergraduate students took a GRE math test using
either a pen engraved with the MIT name or a regular pen.
Using the MIT pen resulted in better performance on the
GRE test for entity theorists, particularly for more difficult
GRE questions. Test performance for incremental theorists
was unaffected by the pen they used. In addition, entity the-
orists using the MIT pen performed better on the GRE test
than did incremental theorists.
Stimuli Selection
We selected a GRE math test as the task for several rea-
sons. First, the test could be constructed with difficult and
easy questions, using data on the percentage of test takers
answering questions correctly supplied by Educational Test-
ing Services (which administers the GRE test). This feature
enabled us to examine the idea that brands serve as a source
of self-efficacy, which is required for difficult but not for
easy tasks. Second, students had little to no experience with
the GRE math test, which eliminated a potential confound
with performance on the test.
With this task in mind, we selected MIT as the brand for
the study. As with most colleges and universities, MITs pri-
mary mission is to increase the knowledge and skills of its
student body, and this is the promise offered to students who
attend. To confirm this notion, we asked a sample of under-
graduate students (n = 43) to agree or disagree with four
statements related to MITs brand promise, such as MIT
promises to help students enhance their intellectual capabil-
ities and MIT promises to help students succeed in chal-
lenging intellectual tasks (a = .81). For comparison pur-
poses, we asked students to respond to these same items for
the control brand (Pilot) used in the study (a = .95). Partici-
pants strongly agreed with the four statements about MIT,
and the level of agreement was significantly stronger than
for the Pilot brand (M
MIT
= 6.56 vs. M
Pilot
= 3.39; t(42) =
13.70, p < .001). Furthermore, these ratings did not differ
for participants identified as entity versus incremental theo-
rists (ps > .60).
Finally, we selected a pen as the branded item. Partici-
pants needed some type of writing instrument to take the
test, so using a pen was unobtrusive. In addition, a pen lacks
functional attributes that would help the user answer math
questions more accurately, which is important for two rea-
sons. First, it enables us to separate brand effects from the
functional qualities of a product. Second, it enables us to
rule out a placebo effect as an explanation for increases in
test performance for students using the MIT pen. Placebo
effects occur when people form false beliefs that an inert
substance (e.g., a sugar pill) has functional qualities (e.g.,
active chemical ingredients) that yield positive results (e.g.,
cure illness). These false beliefs are triggered by the fact
that pills typically do have active ingredients designed to
cure illnesses. In our study, we use a product category
(pens) that is not associated with functional qualities that
improve peoples ability to solve difficult math problems.
There is no reason to expect that a pen will improve peo-
ples math abilities, and thus, better performance from using
the MIT pen cannot be attributed to a placebo effect.
Sample and Procedure
Eighty undergraduate students (42 men and 38 women)
majoring in business, economics, or engineering at two
large public universities participated in exchange for course
credit. Participants who did not complete the study (n = 2)
or whose time data were lost (n = 2) were removed from the
final sample. Participants were told that they were going to
participate in several different studies to reduce suspicion
that measures and procedures administered at different
times were related to one another. The first study was a sur-
vey, which included items measuring implicit self-theory,
background questions, and demographics.
For the second study, participants were told that the uni-
versity bookstore was going to revamp its selection of pens
and was asking for help in evaluating which pens people
like most. Participants were randomly assigned to the MIT
pen condition (n = 40) or the non-MIT pen condition (n =
36). In the MIT pen condition, participants were asked to
select a pen from two options, a pen engraved with the MIT
name or a pen from a less prestigious university. As we
expected, all respondents chose the MIT pen. In the non-
MIT pen condition, participants selected a pen from two
options (a Pilot or Uni-Ball pen), and all choose the more
appealing Pilot pen. Then, they were asked to use the pen
while completing the next study and were told that they
would be asked their opinions about the pen at the end of
the next study.
In the third study, participants were told that the univer-
sity was interested in the readiness of undergraduate stu-
dents for future graduate work. To measure readiness, they
were asked to take a test consisting of 30 math questions
from the GRE practice test booklet, using the pen they had
selected earlier. The GRE test is a standardized test
designed to measure academic abilities, and students were
told that the test has been shown to correlate with intelli-
gence tests. Participants had 30 minutes to complete the test
and were told that they did not have to complete all the
questions and could stop taking the test whenever they
wanted. To enable participants to choose the level of diffi-
culty they wanted to try, we phrased each test question to
include information about the ease or difficulty of answer-
ing the question (percentage of test takers answering the
question correctly). Of the 30 questions, 15 were difficult
(answered correctly by less than 60% of GRE test takers),
and 15 were easy (answered correctly by more than 60% of
GRE test takers). After the test, participants evaluated the
pen they used for the test. Next, they were asked about the
purpose of the study, and none of the participants answered
correctly. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked. In
total, the study took approximately 50 minutes to complete.
Measures
GRE test performance. The number of difficult questions
answered correctly (015) and the number of easy questions
answered correctly (015) was recorded. We also measured
the time spent taking the GRE test and included it as a con-
trol variable in the main analysis.
Implicit self-theory. We assessed belief in entity versus
incremental theories of personality using the Implicit Per-
sons Theory Measure (Levy, Stroessner, and Dweck 1998).
Participants responded to four statements representative of
entity theory (e.g., Everyone is a certain kind of person,
and there is not much that they can do to really change
that) and four representative of incremental theory (e.g.,
Everyone, no matter who they are, can significantly
change their basic characteristics), on a scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). We combined
responses for all eight items into a scale (a = .90) after
reversing responses for the entity theory items. Higher
scores indicate a stronger belief in incremental theory. Note
that scores for the implicit self-theory measure were not sig-
nificantly correlated with self-reported grade point average
(r = .17, p > .15), which could be associated with GRE test
performance.
Pen evaluation. After taking the GRE test, participants
evaluated the pen (nice design and comfortable grip) on
a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). We com-
bined responses to these two items (a = .72) and included
them as a control measure in the main analysis to account
for any unpleasant experiences using the pen.
Results
We used a mixed model analysis to test our prediction
that entity theorists would perform better on the GRE test
when using an MIT versus regular pen, but incremental the-
orists would not. Furthermore, we expected to observe the
beneficial effect of using the MIT pen for only the difficult
GRE questions, on which test takers tend to struggle the
most and for which the beneficial effects of using the MIT
pen should be most pronounced. Our model included
performance on the GRE test as the dependent measure,
with implicit self-theory (continuous variable) and pen con-
dition (non-MIT pen = 0, MIT pen = 1) as between-subjects
variables and GRE question type (difficult = 0, easy = 1) as
a within-subject variable. Following Singer (1998), we used
MIXED in SPSS, which enables us to test effects for the
between-subjects and within-subject variables simultane-
ously. We centered scores for the implicit self-theory meas-
ure to reduce potential issues stemming from multicollinear-
ity (Aiken and West 1991) and included pen evaluation and
time spent completing the GRE test as control variables.
As we expected, the three-way interaction, implicit self-
theory pen condition GRE question type, was signifi-
cant (b = 1.14, t(72) = 2.01, p < .05), even after controlling
for pen evaluations (b = .17, t(70) < 1, not significant
[n.s.]) and time spent completing the test (b = .18, t(70) =
4.13, p < .01). In the following subsections, we examine this
three-way interaction in more detail and report findings
within each GRE question type (difficult vs. easy) sepa-
rately to simplify presentation of results.
Difficult GRE questions. Support for our prediction
emerged in the form of a significant interaction between
implicit self-theory and pen condition (b = 1.4, t(70.37) =
2.23, p < .05). Figure 1 illustrates the effect, which is plotted
at one standard deviation below the mean (1 SD: entity
theorists) and one standard deviation above the mean (+1
SD: incremental theorists) of the implicit self-theory meas-
ure by substituting these values into the model (Cohen and
Cohen 1983). To explore this interaction in more detail, we
conducted simple slope tests at values one standard devia-
tion above and below the mean of implicit self-theory
(Aiken and West 1991; Cohen and Cohen 1983). We found
a significant, positive relationship between pen condition
(non-MIT pen = 0, MIT pen = 1) and performance on the
GRE test for entity theorists (1 SD; b = 1.95, t(69.45) =
2.33, p < .05) but not for incremental theorists (+1 SD; b =
.78, t(70.5) < 1, n.s.). As we predicted, only entity theorists
performed better on the test when using the MIT pen versus
a regular pen. Additional simple slope tests within each pen
condition (West, Aiken, and Krull 1996) revealed that in the
MIT pen condition, there was a significant, negative rela-
tionship between implicit self-theories and performance,
revealing that entity theorists performed better than incre-
mental theorists (b = 1.22, t(69.75) = 2.81, p < .01). How-
ever, in the non-MIT pen condition, there was no significant
difference in performance between entity theorists and
incremental theorists (b = .18, t(70.37) < 1, n.s.).
Easy GRE questions. As we anticipated, the interaction
between implicit self-theory and pen condition was not sig-
nificant (b = .25, t(70.94) < 1, n.s.). Here, on items for
which test takers do not struggle as much to answer the
questions, the effect of using the MIT pen we found previ-
ously with entity theorists was not evident.
Discussion
Our findings show that using an MIT pen increased test
scores for some, but not all, students. We found that entity
Figure 1
STUDY 1: PERFORMANCE ON THE GRE MATH TEST AS A
FUNCTION OF IMPLICIT SELF-THEORY, BRAND USE
CONDITION, AND QUESTION DIFFICULTY
A: Difficult Questions
B: Easy Questions
15
12
9
6
3
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Entity Theorists (1 SD) Incremental Theorists (+1 SD)
MIT pen
Regular pen
15
12
9
6
3
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
MIT pen
Regular pen
theorists performed better on difficult GRE math questions
when using an MIT versus regular pen, whereas the per-
formance of incremental theorists was unaffected by the pen
they used. These findings support our predictions about the
greater influence of brands on task performance for entity
versus incremental theorists.
In the next study, we switch to a different context to repli-
cate our findings. First, we examine a different task domain,
strenuous athletic exercise. Second, we use a task in which
the level of difficulty increases as performance increases.
We asked participants to press a handgrip, which is initially
easy to press but becomes more difficult (due to fatigue) as
the handgrip is pressed more times. Third, we used a differ-
ent brand, Gatorade, which offers a brand promise (better
athletic performance) related to the task domain.
We also manipulate implicit self-theories in the next
study. Because we measured implicit self-theory as an indi-
vidual difference factor in Study 1, one might question
whether preexisting differences between entity and incre-
mental theorists could have contributed to test performance
differences. Although researchers usually measure implicit
self-theory, others have shown that these beliefs can be
manipulated by exposing people to information advocating
a particular theory (Chiu, Hong, and Dweck 1997; Park and
John 2010; Yorkston, Nunes, and Matta 2010). We follow
their approach and expose participants to an article present-
ing scientific evidence either that personal qualities are
enduring and cannot be easily changed (to manipulate entity
theory) or that personal qualities are malleable and can be
developed (to manipulate incremental theory).
STUDY 2
One hundred seven undergraduate students (62 women and
45 men) participated in a 2 (implicit self-theory manipulation:
entity, incremental) 2 (brand use: Gatorade, Ice Mountain)
between-subjects experiment in exchange for extra credit.
Participants who had problems with the handgrip counter
(n = 4) were removed from the final sample. Participants
were told they were going to participate in several different
studies.
First, participants completed a survey that included per-
sonal background and demographic information. Next, a
second survey was administered that contained the implicit
self-theory manipulation (described subsequently). Finally,
in the third study, participants were told that Gatorade (Ice
Mountain) was interested in consumer opinions about a new
bottled water it was planning to introduce. In the Gatorade
(Ice Mountain) condition, participants were given a
Gatorade paper cup (plain paper cup) filled with tap water.
All participants were asked to sign a form if they agreed to
evaluate the water, which was intended to discourage them
from discounting their brand experience as something they
were forced to do, thus potentially decreasing feelings of
self-efficacy (for a similar approach, see Jones et al. 1981).
Next, participants were told that prior research had found
that consumers make more accurate evaluations about a
new product when they experience the product repeatedly.
Therefore, they were asked to hold the cup and continue
drinking water from it while they completed several tasks,
including copying line figures, circling a vowel in para-
graphs, and exercising with a handgrip. The first two tasks
were included as filler tasks to reduce suspicion about the
handgrip task. Participants were given 15 minutes to exer-
cise with the handgrip, but no specific goal was set (for a
similar approach, see Muraven, Tice, and Baumeister 1998).
After finishing the handgrip task, participants evaluated the
water they drank during the exercise and were asked about
the purpose of the experiment (which none correctly
guessed). Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked.
In total, the study took 30 minutes to complete.
Stimuli Selection
We asked participants to press a handgrip, which had a
counter to record the number of times the handgrip was
pressed. Although easy to press initially, the handgrip was
much more difficult to squeeze as it was pressed more times.
Similar handgrip tasks have been used in self-regulation
research (see Muraven, Tice, and Baumeister 1998).
We selected Gatorade as the focal brand for the study.
Gatorades brand promise is to enhance athletic performance,
which fits well with the handgrip task. To confirm awareness
of this promise, we asked undergraduate students (n = 42) to
agree or disagree with four statements about Gatorades
brand promise, such as Gatorade promises to help con-
sumers enhance their athletic capabilities and Gatorade
promises to help consumers succeed in strenuous athletic
exercise (a = .92). For comparison, students responded to
these same items for the other brand of water (Ice Moun-
tain) used as a control brand (a = .93). Participants strongly
agreed with the four statements about Gatorade, and the
level of agreement was significantly stronger than for Ice
Mountain (M
Gatorade
= 6.38 vs. M
Ice Mountain
= 4.52; t(41) =
9.67, p < .001). Furthermore, these ratings did not differ for
participants in the entity versus incremental theory condi-
tion (ps > .20).
Finally, we chose bottled water as the focal product. Bot-
tled water lacks functional attributes that would help users
increase their handgrip strength, which is important for two
reasons. First, it enables us to separate brand effects from
the functional qualities of the product that participants con-
sumed. Second, as described previously, the absence of
functional qualities also differentiates our experimental con-
text from placebo effect studies. For example, in placebo
studies using energy drink brands (Irmak, Block, and Fitzsi-
mons 2005), participants have been told that the beverage is
an energy drink, which facilitates the formation of false
beliefs about the functional qualities of the drink. In our
study, participants were told they were drinking bottled
water, and subsequent testing confirmed that they perceived
it as regular water.
Implicit Self-Theory Manipulation
We manipulated implicit self-theories by having partici-
pants read an article presenting views consistent with entity
or incremental theory (Chiu, Hong, and Dweck 1997). We
told participants that we were interested in their opinions
about the articles. In addition, we asked them to write a
short essay supporting the authors viewpoint. The follow-
ing is a sample from each article:
In his talk at the American Psychological Associations
annual convention held at Washington D.C. in August,
Dr. George Medin argued that in most of us, by the age
of ten, our character has set like plaster and will never
soften again. He reported numerous large longitudinal
studies showing that people age and develop, but they
do so on the foundation of enduring dispositions.
(Entity Theory)
In his talk at the American Psychological Associations
annual convention held at Washington D.C. in August,
Dr. George Medin argued that no ones character is as
hard as a rock so that it cannot be changed. Only for
some, greater effort and determination are needed to
effect changes. He reported numerous large longitudi-
nal studies showing that people can mature and change
their character. He also reported research findings
showing that peoples personality characteristics can
change, even in their late sixties. (Incremental Theory)
We conducted a pilot test of the manipulation with under-
graduate students (n = 56). Participants read either the entity
theory article or the incremental theory article and then
completed a survey that included a measure of implicit self-
theory beliefs (Implicit Persons Theory Measure described
in Study 1; a = .95). The results confirmed that participants
who read the entity theory article were more likely to agree
with entity theory beliefs than those who read the incremen-
tal theory article (t(54) = 1.85, p < .05).
Measures
Handgrip performance. We measured performance by the
number of times the handgrip was pressed, which was auto-
matically recorded by a counter incorporated into the hand-
grip. We also measured the total time participants spent
pressing the handgrip and included it as a control variable in
the main analysis.
Water evaluation. Participants evaluated the water they
drank on two attributes (crisp and fresh) on a 1 (not at
all) to 7 (very much) scale. We combined responses to
these two items (a = .87) and included the resulting meas-
ure as a control variable in the main analysis to account for
any unpleasant experiences drinking the water.
Results
We predicted that participants in the entity theory condi-
tion would perform better when drinking Gatorade versus
Ice Mountain but that participants in the incremental theory
condition would be unaffected by the brand of water con-
sumed. We performed a 2 (implicit self-theory manipula-
tion: entity, incremental) 2 (brand use: Gatorade, Ice
Mountain) analysis of covariance on handgrip performance,
with water evaluation and time spent on the handgrip task as
covariates. As we expected, a significant interaction
between implicit self-theory and brand use condition
emerged (F(1, 97) = 3.82, p < .05; see Figure 2), even after
controlling for water evaluation (F(1, 97) < 1, n.s.) and time
spent on the handgrip task (F(1, 97) = 102.29, p < .01).
Planned comparisons showed that participants in the
entity theory condition performed better on the handgrip
task when drinking Gatorade water (tap water in a Gatorade
cup) than Ice Mountain water (tap water in a plain cup)
(F(1, 97) = 6.92, p < .05). However, participants in the
incremental theory condition were not affected by the brand
of water consumed (F(1, 97) < 1, n.s.). Additional planned
comparisons showed that, among participants who drank
Gatorade water, those in the entity theory condition per-
formed better on the handgrip task than those in the incre-
mental theory condition (F(1, 97) = 5.69, p < .05). However,
we did not find such a difference among participants drink-
ing Ice Mountain water (F(1, 97) < 1, n.s.).
Finally, we examined several background factors. Partici-
pants were randomly assigned to the entity versus incre-
mental theory conditions, which should rule out individual
differences that could affect performance. We did, however,
ask participants about their attitudes toward Gatorade (1 =
do not like it at all, and 7 = like it very much) and exer-
cise frequency (1 = every day, and 7 = once very year)
at the beginning of the study. We found no significant differ-
ences for participants in the entity and incremental theory
conditions on these factors (ps > .60).
Discussion
Our findings replicate results from the first study with a
different brand, different brand promise, and different task.
Furthermore, our results, obtained using a manipulation of
implicit self-theory, replicate findings from Study 1, in
which we measured implicit self-theory as an individual dif-
ference variable. Participants who read an article espousing
entity theory beliefs performed the handgrip task better
when consuming Gatorade versus Ice Mountain water,
whereas participants in the incremental theory condition
were unaffected by the brand of water consumed.
These findings support our prediction that entity theorists
perform better when using a brand that promises better per-
formance on the task. We did wonder, however, whether we
could obtain the same effect if participants were simply
exposed to the brand (priming) rather than using it during
the handgrip task. To explore this possibility, we ran an
additional condition in which participants (n = 65) were
exposed to the Gatorade cup (which was placed on their
desk with some other study materials) but actually drank
water from a cup with a fictitious brand name (HydroPhase)
not associated with any particular benefit or promise related
to athletic performance in our pretests. If priming is a viable
mechanism, we should observe better handgrip performance
among entity (vs. incremental) theorists. However, there
was no significant difference in handgrip performance
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Entity Theory
Manipulation
Incremental Theory
Manipulation
Figure 2
STUDY 2: PERFORMANCE ON THE HANDGRIP TASK AS A
FUNCTION OF IMPLICIT SELF-THEORY MANIPULATION AND
BRAND USE CONDITION
Gatorade
Ice Mountain
between entity and incremental theorists (F(1, 61) = 1.24,
p > .25). Thus, simply being exposed to the brand (brand
priming) did not increase handgrip performance for entity
theorists.
We also entertained the possibility that mood effects
might be at play. Perhaps using brands makes entity theo-
rists (vs. incremental theorists) feel more positive, and this
facilitates better performance on the handgrip task. To
examine this possibility, we ran a condition in which partici-
pants (n = 58) were asked to drink water in a cup with the
Gatorade name or a fictitious brand name (HydroPhase).
The procedure followed that of Study 2, except that partici-
pants completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
mood measure (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988) and the
implicit self-theory measure. We conducted a multiple
regression analysis with positive mood as the dependent
measure and implicit self-theory, brand use condition, and
their interaction as independent variables. We conducted the
same analysis on negative mood. Results of both analyses
revealed no significant main effects or interactions (ps >
.20), confirming that mood is not the factor responsible for
better performance among entity theorists.
In the next study, we delve deeper into the process. First,
we measure self-efficacy and show that using the Gatorade
brand increases self-efficacy (and handgrip performance)
for only entity theorists. Second, we show why incremental
theorists are not affected by brand use. Previously, we rea-
soned that incremental theorists form self-efficacy by
engaging in opportunities to learn and develop their skills in
a domain. In our prior studies, no such opportunity was pro-
vided, and thus, their handgrip performance did not show
improvement. In Study 3, we provide a learning opportunity
by offering training tips to improve skills on the handgrip
task and find that self-efficacy increases (and handgrip per-
formance increases) for incremental theorists. As we
expected, training tips do not affect entity theorists.
Overall, we show that self-efficacy mediates performance
on the handgrip task. We find that handgrip performance is
better for entity theorists who drink Gatorade water versus
receiving training tips, and this difference is mediated by
self-efficacy. Similarly, we show that handgrip performance
is better for incremental theorists who receive training tips
versus drinking Gatorade water, and this difference is also
mediated by self-efficacy.
STUDY 3
One hundred nine undergraduate students (37 women and
72 men) participated for extra course credit and were ran-
domly assigned to one of the experimental conditions: (1)
Gatorade (n = 38), (2) HydroPure (control brand) (n = 34),
and (3) HydroPure + training tips (n = 37). Participants who
were unable to press the handgrip (n = 1) or had problems
with the handgrip counter (n = 1) were removed from the
final sample. As in our prior studies, participants were told
that they were going to participate in several different studies.
First, participants completed a survey, with the Implicit
Person Theory Measure embedded among other questions.
Next, participants in the Gatorade (HydroPure) condition were
told that Gatorade (a national manufacturer) was interested in
consumer opinions about a new bottled water the company
was planning to introduce and were asked to drink water in a
cup with the Gatorade (HydroPure) name while performing
several tasks, including the handgrip task, using the same
procedure as Study 2. Participants in the HydroPure + train-
ing tips condition read a one-page article offering tips useful
for the handgrip exercise before doing the handgrip task.
After finishing the handgrip task, participants completed the
self-efficacy measure (described subsequently) and evalu-
ated the water they had consumed. Then, participants were
asked about the purpose of the study, and none correctly
guessed the purpose. Finally, participants were debriefed
and thanked. The study took 30 minutes to complete.
Stimuli
Brands. We used HydroPure, a fictitious brand of bottled
water, as the control brand for the study. To check percep-
tions of this brand, we asked undergraduate students (n = 42)
to agree or disagree with four statements about HydroPure,
such as HydroPure promises to help consumers enhance
their athletic capabilities and HydroPure promises to help
consumers succeed in strenuous athletic exercise (a = .91).
Comparing their responses with the same statements for
Gatorade, we confirmed that participants rated Gatorade
higher than HydroPure in terms of promising better athletic
performance (M
Gatorade
= 6.38 vs. M
HydroPure
= 4.48; t(41) =
11.67, p < .001). Furthermore, these ratings did not differ
for entity versus incremental theorists (p > .20).
Training tips. We developed an article with tips for several
types of exercise, including handgrips. The article offered the
following tip for handgrips: (1) press the grip for as long as
comfortable (2) take a very short break for 23 seconds, and
(3) try another round of hand-gripping with gradually
increased speed. This tip is helpful because pressing
the handgrip too rapidly in the beginning can result in get-
ting tired too quickly and giving up pressing the handgrip.
We asked undergraduate students (n = 56) to read the article
and rate it on several dimensions (bad/good, unfavor-
able/ favorable, negative/ positive, unreliable/ reliable,
untrustworthy/ trustworthy, incredible/ credible, unin-
formative/ informative, not at all useful/ useful) on seven-
point scales. We combined the responses to these items (a =
.90), and the mean of the combined items (M = 4.79) was
greater than the scale midpoint (t(55) = 9.02, p < .001), indi-
cating that participants positively evaluated the information
in the article. Moreover, these ratings did not differ for
entity versus incremental theorists (p > .70).
Pilot test. To confirm that entity (incremental) theorists
view using the Gatorade brand (training tips) as a source of
self-efficacy, we conducted a pilot study with undergraduate
students (n = 56). We used the same procedure as in the
main study but interrupted participants several minutes into
the handgrip task to ask them questions. In the Gatorade
condition, participants were asked to rate their agreement on
the following items: Thinking about how Gatorade affects
peoples athletic capabilities will make me more confident
about doing better in the handgrip exercise, and Thinking
about how Gatorade affects peoples athletic capabilities will
make me feel more confident in my own abilities during the
handgrip exercise (0 = strongly disagree, and 100 =
strongly agree; a = .99). As we expected, a regression
analysis revealed that entity theorists (vs. incremental theo-
rists) were more likely to agree with these statements (b =
.35, t(25) = 2.11, p < .05), even after controlling for water
evaluation (b = .41, t(25) = 2.47, p < .05).
In the HydroPure + training tips condition, participants
agreed or disagreed (using the same 100-point scale) with
the following items: Thinking about how the training tips
affect peoples athletic capabilities will make me more con-
fident about doing better in the hand-grip exercise, and
Thinking about how the training tips affects peoples ath-
letic capabilities will make me feel more confident in my
own abilities during the hand-grip exercise (a = .95). As
we anticipated, incremental theorists (vs. entity theorists)
were more likely to agree with these statements (b = .39,
t(25) = 2.11, p < .05), even after controlling for water
evaluation (b = .11, t(25) < 1, n.s.). These findings confirm
that incremental theorists viewed the training tips as a
source of self-efficacy, whereas entity theorists viewed the
Gatorade brand as a source of self-efficacy.
Measures
Implicit self-theory. We used the same Implicit Persons
Theory Measure (Levy, Stroessner, and Dweck 1998) as in
Study 1. We combined responses for all items into a scale
(a = .91).
Handgrip performance. We measured performance by the
number of times the handgrip was pressed. We also meas-
ured the total time participants spent pressing the handgrip
and included it as a control variable in the main analysis.
Self-efficacy. After the handgrip task, participants rated
how confident they were during the exercise with the state-
ments I was confident that I would do well in the exercise,
and I was confident in my ability to perform well in the
exercise (1 = strongly disagree, and 7 = strongly
agree; a = .90). Note that this measure is task specific, as
opposed to measuring a general sense of self-efficacy, in
line with guidelines for self-efficacy research (Bandura
2006).
Water evaluation. Participants evaluated the water using
the same scale described in Study 2 (a = .78). We included
this evaluation as a control variable in the main analysis.
Results
We conducted a multiple regression analysis to test our
predictions. The analysis included performance on the
handgrip task as the dependent measure, with implicit self-
theory (continuous variable), experimental condition (two
dummy variables to represent the three conditions), and
their interaction as the independent variables. As in the pre-
vious studies, we centered scores for the implicit self-theory
measure and included water evaluation and time spent on
the handgrip task as control variables.
As we expected, two significant interactions emerged (see
Figure 3). One was a significant interaction between implicit
self-theory and the first dummy variable (Gatorade = 0,
HydroPure = 1) (b = .21, t(99) = 1.98, p = .05). The second
was a significant interaction between implicit self-theory and
the second dummy variable (Gatorade = 0, HydroPure +
training tips = 1) (b = .38, t(99) = 3.75, p < .001). Next, we
examine these interactions in more detail and report find-
ings for entity and incremental theorists separately to sim-
plify presentation of results.
Incremental theorists. As we expected, we found that
incremental theorists performed best on the handgrip task
when they received training tips before the task. First, incre-
mental theorists performed better when they received train-
ing tips versus drinking Gatorade water, confirmed by a sig-
nificant positive relationship between the dummy variable
(Gatorade = 0, HydroPure + training tips = 1) and handgrip
performance (b = .26, t(99) = 2.02, p < .05). Second, incre-
mental theorists who drank HydroPure water performed
better when they received training tips than when they did
not, as shown by a significant positive relationship between
the dummy variable (HydroPure = 0, HydroPure + training
tips = 1) and handgrip performance (b = .37, t(99) = 2.69,
p < .01). Also of note, and consistent with Study 2, incre-
mental theorists did not perform better when drinking
Gatorade versus HydroPure water, as confirmed by a non-
significant relationship between the dummy variable
(Gatorade = 0, HydroPure = 1) and handgrip performance
(b = .11, t(99) = 1.03, p > .30).
Entity theorists. As we expected, entity theorists per-
formed best on the handgrip task when drinking Gatorade
water. First, entity theorists performed better in the
Gatorade versus HydroPure condition, confirmed by a sig-
nificant negative relationship between the dummy variable
(Gatorade = 0, HydroPure = 1) and handgrip performance
(b = .44, t(99) = 3.44, p < .01). Second, entity theorists
performed better when drinking Gatorade versus receiving
training tips before the task, as shown by a significant nega-
tive relationship between the dummy variable (Gatorade =
0, HydroPure + training tips = 1) and handgrip performance
(b = .43, t(99) = 3.34, p < .01).
Mediation analysis. We conducted a mediation analysis
to test whether performance differences between entity and
incremental theorists were mediated by feelings of self-
efficacy. We expected entity theorists to feel a heightened
sense of self-efficacy when using the Gatorade brand (vs.
learning the training tips), thus resulting in better performance.
In contrast, we expected incremental theorists to feel a
heightened sense of self-efficacy when learning the training
tips (vs. using the Gatorade brand), thus resulting in better
performance.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Gatorade HydroPure HydroPure use+ training tips
Figure 3
FUNCTION OF IMPLICIT SELF-THEORY AND SELF-EFFICACY
APPROACH CONDITION
For this analysis, we focused on the Gatorade condition
and the HydroPure + training tips condition. A bootstrap
analysis using the INDIRECT SPSS macro (Preacher and
Hayes 2008) confirmed a significant mediating pathway
from the implicit self-theories condition interaction to per-
formance on the handgrip task through self-efficacy (95%
confidence interval [CI]: 5.82, 39.47). As we predicted,
these results indicate that entity and incremental theorists
rely on different approaches to enhance self-efficacy, which
affects their performance on the handgrip task.
Discussion
In this study, we provide evidence that entity and incremen-
tal theorists derive feelings of self-efficacy through different
routes. Entity theorists enhance feelings of self-efficacy by
using the Gatorade brand, which promises to help con-
sumers achieve better athletic performance. Incremental
theorists enhance feelings of self-efficacy by receiving
training tips, which promise to improve athletic perform-
ance. These differences in self-efficacy drive better task per-
formance, as the mediation analyses show.
In the next study, we provide further evidence pertaining
to the source of self-efficacy for entity theorists. Previously,
we reasoned that entity theorists use brands as a source of
self-efficacy because brands offer promises that consumers
can perform better. Thus far, we have shown that brand use
increases self-efficacy and task performance; however, we
have not isolated the effect to brand promises in particular.
To do so, we manipulate the credibility of the Gatorade
brand promise in Study 4. We asked participants to drink
Gatorade water while performing the handgrip task but
manipulated the credibility of the Gatorade brand promise
(improved athletic performance) before the task. Participants
read an article that summarized scientific evidence and expert
opinion concluding that (1) Gatorade enhances athletic per-
formance (promise confirmation) or (2) Gatorade does not
enhance athletic performance (promise disconfirmation).
We posit that entity theorists should benefit from using the
Gatorade brand for the handgrip task only in the confirma-
tion condition. In the disconfirmation condition, there is no
longer an assurance that using the Gatorade brand will result
in better athletic performance, which will result in entity
theorists no longer viewing the brand as a valuable source
of self-efficacy. In contrast, we expect incremental theorists
to remain unaffected by this manipulation because they do
not rely on brand promises as a source of self-efficacy.
Through this manipulation, we also shed light on the con-
scious versus nonconscious nature of the process whereby
brand use affects task performance for entity theorists. In
the confirmation condition, for example, we make the posi-
tive link between the Gatorade brand and better athletic per-
formance salient to participants. If brand use affects task
performance nonconsciously, performance should not be
enhanced when entity theorists are consciously aware of the
positive effects of the Gatorade brand on athletic behavior
(Kramer and Block 2008; Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely 2005).
If brand use affects task performance consciously, however,
performance should be enhanced when entity theorists are
consciously aware of the positive effects of the Gatorade
brand on athletic behavior.
STUDY 4
One hundred fifty-one undergraduate students (88
women and 63 men) participated for extra course credit.
They were randomly assigned to one of the experimental
conditions: (1) Gatorade promise disconfirmation + Gatorade
use (n = 47), (2) Gatorade promise confirmation + Gatorade
use (n = 49), or (3) Gatorade promise confirmation +
HydroPure (control brand) use (n = 55). Participants who
were unable to press the handgrip (n = 1), did not follow
instructions (n = 2), or ran out of time to complete the study
(n = 6) were removed from the final sample. As in previous
studies, participants were told they were going to participate
in several different studies.
First, participants completed a survey that included back-
ground and demographic questions. Embedded in the sur-
vey was the Implicit Self Theory Measure. Next, a second
survey was administered that asked participants to read and
give opinions about several articles on various consumer
topics, including an article about Gatorade that either con-
firmed or disconfirmed the brands promise of enhancing
athletic performance. They were then asked to drink water
from a Gatorade or HydroPure cup while performing sev-
eral tasks, including the handgrip task. The same procedure
from prior studies was used, with one exception. We pro-
vided a difficult goal for the handgrip task (The top 2% of
college students can press the handgrip for 600 times or
more in 15 minutes) and instructed participants to try their
best, enabling us to examine whether our prior results are
robust when a challenging goal is made explicit before the
task.
After finishing the handgrip task, participants completed
the same measures as in Study 3. Next, participants were
asked about the purpose of the study, and none correctly
guessed the purpose. Finally, participants were debriefed
and thanked. In total, the study took 30 minutes.
Brand Promise Manipulation
We developed two versions of the Gatorade article. For
the promise confirmation condition, the article cited evi-
dence that Gatorade helps consumers enhance athletic per-
formance (e.g., The Texas Medical Association reports that
Gatorade can reduce elevated heart rates in athletes, which
allows them to continue their activities) and concluded
with a statement confirming Gatorades promise (Can
Gatorade make you more athletic? The resounding answer
is YES). For the promise disconfirmation condition, the
article cited evidence that Gatorade does not help con-
sumers enhance athletic performance (e.g., The Texas
Medical Association reports that Gatorade can cause ele-
vated heart rates in athletes, which causes them to cut back
on their activities) and concluded with a statement discon-
firming Gatorades promise (Can Gatorade make you more
athletic? The resounding answer is NO).
We conducted a pilot test of the manipulation with under-
graduate students (n = 58) similar to those in the main study.
Participants read one of the Gatorade articles and were then
asked to agree or disagree (1 = strongly agree, and 7 =
strongly disagree) with eight statements (e.g., I think that
the article confirms Gatorades promise of better athletic
performance). We combined responses to these items (a =
.98), and as we expected, participants agreed more with
these statements after reading the confirmation versus dis-
confirmation article (M
confirmation
= 2.84 vs. M
disconfirmation
=
5.78; t(56) = 10.18, p < .001). Furthermore, we conducted a
regression analysis using responses to these items as the
dependent variable, including brand promise manipulation
condition, implicit self-theories (a = .92), and their inter-
action as independent variables. The results confirm that
entity and incremental theorists did not differ in their agree-
ment with the statements after reading the confirmation ver-
sus disconfirmation article, as indicated by the lack of a sig-
nificant interaction effect (b = .04, t(54) < 1, n.s.).
Measures
We used the same measures as in Study 3: implicit self-
theory (a = .87), handgrip performance, self-efficacy (a =
.98), and water evaluation (a = .87). We also asked partici-
pants to agree or disagree with two statements (a = .88)
comparing the water they drank with regular water (e.g.,
The Gatorade water I drank today is similar to regular bot-
tled water) to examine whether the confirmation (discon-
firmation) article influenced perceptions of the water as
having (not having) unique ingredients to enhance athletic
performance.
Results
We conducted a multiple regression analysis to test the
prediction that entity theorists would perform better when
drinking Gatorade water if they read the article confirming
Gatorades brand promise but not if they read the article dis-
confirming Gatorades brand promise. Incremental theo-
rists, who do not rely on brand promises as a source of self-
efficacy, would not be affected by the brand promise
manipulation. The analysis included performance on the
handgrip task as the dependent measure, with implicit self-
theory (continuous variable), experimental condition (two
dummy variables to represent the three conditions), and the
interaction between implicit self-theory and experimental
condition as the independent variables. We centered scores
for the implicit self-theory measure and included water
evaluation and time spent on the handgrip task as control
variables.
As we expected, there was a significant interaction
between implicit self-theory and the first dummy variable
(promise disconfirmation + Gatorade use = 0, promise con-
firmation + Gatorade use = 1) (b = .14, t(134) = 2.08, p <
.05; see Figure 4). This finding confirmed that the brand
promise manipulation affected entity and incremental theo-
rists differently. In contrast, the interaction between implicit
self-theory and the second dummy variable (promise dis-
confirmation + Gatorade use = 0, promise confirmation +
HydroPure use = 1) was not significant (b = .01, t(134) <
1, n.s.). This result shows that when the Gatorade brand
promise was disconfirmed, using the Gatorade brand did not
affect entity and incremental theorists differently; indeed,
using the Gatorade brand (vs. HydroPure) did not result in
better performance for entity theorists. In the following sub-
sections, we examine the interactions in more detail and
report findings for entity and incremental theorists sepa-
rately to simplify presentation of results.
Entity theorists. As we predicted, entity theorists per-
formed better on the handgrip task when using the Gatorade
brand and reading the article confirming (vs. disconfirming)
Gatorades brand promise, as shown by a significant posi-
tive relationship between the dummy variable (promise dis-
confirmation + Gatorade use = 0, promise confirmation +
Gatorade use = 1) and performance on the handgrip task (b =
.32, t(134) = 3.65, p < .001). Furthermore, reading the arti-
cle confirming Gatorades brand promise, without using the
Gatorade brand, did not enhance performance on the hand-
grip task; that is, brand use was required. We observe evi-
dence to this effect in the significant negative relationship
between the dummy variable (promise confirmation +
Gatorade use = 0, promise confirmation + HydroPure use =
1) and performance on the handgrip task (b = .20, t(134) =
2.22, p < .05). Finally, reading the article disconfirming
Gatorades brand promise did not harm performance among
entity theorists using the Gatorade brand, as shown by a
nonsignificant relationship between the dummy variable
(promise disconfirmation + Gatorade use = 0, promise con-
firmation+ HydroPure use = 1) and performance on the
handgrip task (b = .13, t(134) = 1.43, p > .15).
Incremental theorists. Incremental theorists using the
Gatorade brand were not affected by the brand promise
manipulation, indicated by a nonsignificant relationship
between the dummy variable (promise disconfirmation +
Gatorade use = 0, promise confirmation + Gatorade use = 1)
and performance on the handgrip task (b = .06, t(134) < 1,
n.s.). In addition, consistent with prior studies, drinking
Gatorade (vs. HydroPure) water did not improve handgrip
performance for incremental theorists, even when brand use
was preceded by the article confirming Gatorades promise
of better athletic performance. This result is indicated by a
nonsignificant relationship between the dummy variable
(promise confirmation + Gatorade use = 0, promise confir-
mation + HydroPure use = 1) and handgrip performance
(b = .05, t(134) < 1, n.s.).
Mediation analysis. We conducted a meditation analysis to
test whether the effect of the brand promise manipulation on
performance was mediated by feelings of self-efficacy.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Gatorade promise disconfirmation + Gatorade use
Gatorade promise confirmation + Gatorade use
Gatorade promise confirmation + HydroPure use
Figure 4
FUNCTION OF IMPLICIT SELF-THEORY AND EXPERIMENTAL
CONDITION
Entity theorists should feel a heightened sense of self-efficacy
when using the Gatorade brand in the brand promise confir-
mation (vs. disconfirmation) condition, thus resulting in
better performance. In contrast, incremental theorists should
not be affected by the brand promise manipulation.
To test this mediating process, we focused on participants
who used the Gatorade brand: (1) those in the Gatorade
promise disconfirmation + Gatorade use condition and (2)
those in the Gatorade promise confirmation + Gatorade use
condition. A bootstrap analysis using the INDIRECT SPSS
macro (Preacher and Hayes 2008) confirmed a significant
mediating pathway from the interaction between implicit
self-theories and experimental condition to performance on
the handgrip task through self-efficacy (95% CI: 19.96,
.06). Thus, self-efficacy mediates the interaction effect of
implicit self-theory and experimental condition on task per-
formance. Entity theorists are more likely to rely on brand
use to enhance feelings of self-efficacy if the brand promise
is confirmed (vs. disconfirmed), which results in better hand-
grip performance. In contrast, incremental theorists, who do
not use brands to enhance self-efficacy, are not affected by
whether the brand promise is confirmed or disconfirmed.
Supplementary findings. To rule out an alternative expla-
nation for our results, we examined whether perceptions of
the Gatorade water were equivalent for the brand promise
confirmation and disconfirmation conditions. Although par-
ticipants drank regular water, those in the promise confir-
mation (vs. disconfirmation) condition may have thought
the Gatorade water was produced to enhance athletic per-
formance. We asked participants to rate how similar the
Gatorade water was to regular bottled water, using the
measure described previously. We found no significant dif-
ference in these evaluations for the promise confirmation
versus disconfirmation condition (M
confirmation
= 81.57 vs.
M
discomfirmation
= 75.30; t(89) = 1.24, p > .20). Furthermore,
entity and incremental theorists did not differ in their per-
ceptions of the water, as indicated by a nonsignificant inter-
action between implicit self-theory and brand promise con-
dition (b = .05, t(86) < 1, n.s.). Thus, even though entity
theorists viewed Gatorade water as similar to regular water,
using the Gatorade brand enhanced their self-efficacy as
long as its brand promise was confirmed.
Discussion
We found further evidence that entity theorists use brand
promises as a source of self-efficacy, which results in better
task performance. Entity theorists benefited from using the
Gatorade brand when the brand promise was confirmed but
not when it was disconfirmed. When the brand promise was
confirmed, entity theorists used it to assure themselves of
better athletic performance. However, when the brand
promise was disconfirmed, it could no longer provide a
sense of assurance, and therefore, using the Gatorade brand
failed to boost self-efficacy (and athletic performance) for
entity theorists. Note that self-efficacy and performance did
not decline for entity theorists when the brand promise was
disconfirmed. Consistent with our theorizing, this finding
suggests that entity theorists seek out brands as a source of
self-efficacy when facing challenging tasks, and when a brand
no longer helps or can hurt their feelings of self-efficacy,
they stop relying on the brand as a source of self-efficacy to
drive better performance.
These findings also suggest that brand use affects task
performance for entity theorists through a conscious
process. Our manipulations of Gatorades brand promise
made the effect of the brand on athletic performance salient
to participants. If brand use affects task performance on a
nonconscious basis, performance should not be enhanced
when entity theorists are consciously aware of the Gatorade
brands positive effects on athletic behavior (Kramer and
Block 2008; Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely 2005). Yet we found
that entity theorists who used the Gatorade brand after read-
ing that Gatorade enhances performance (confirmation con-
dition) improved their handgrip performance. Furthermore,
entity theorists who used the Gatorade brand after reading
that Gatorade harms performance (disconfirmation condi-
tion) did not perform worse than entity theorists who read
the confirmation article but used the HydroPure brand. If
the Gatorade article unconsciously affected entity theorists,
they should have performed worse in the disconfirmation
condition. Thus, taken together, these results support the
idea that entity theorists consciously benefit from brand use.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
When a person struggles with a difficult task, can brand
use increase his or her level of performance? The answer is
yes. Across four studies, we found that consumers with cer-
tain implicit self-theories (entity theorists) benefit from
using brands that promise better performance. Using a brand
such as Gatorade increased their sense of self-efficacy in
performing a challenging athletic task, and as a result, entity
theorists increased their performance in the task. In contrast,
incremental theorists did not benefit from brand usage,
either in terms of self-efficacy or task performance. Further
results supported the view that self-efficacy mediates the
relationship between brand usage and task performance and
that the process is conscious in nature.
Contributions to Branding Research
Our findings add to an increasing body of research show-
ing that brands deliver self-related benefits. Consumers use
brands to express and enhance their self-images, and using
these brands can actually enhance self-perceptions about
their personality traits (Park and John 2010). Beyond these
purely perceptual effects, we show that using brands can
also enhance self-efficacy, which is an important regulatory
mechanism that governs the level of challenge people are
willing to undertake, resulting in better task performance.
To illustrate the difference between self-perceptions and
self-efficacy, consider research showing that using a brand
with a strong personality (Victorias Secret) can enhance
consumers self-perceptions about brand-related personality
traits (feminine and glamorous), if they are entity theorists
(Park and John 2010). Could this self-perception effect be
the key determinant of better handgrip performance for
entity theorists drinking Gatorade water? We explored this
question by measuring self-perceptions of athleticism
(along with self-efficacy) in Study 3 and included both
measures in a mediation analysis similar to the one
described in Study 3. When we included self-perceptions of
athleticism and self-efficacy as mediating factors simultane-
ously, a bootstrap analysis using the INDIRECT SPSS
macro (Preacher and Hayes 2008) confirmed self-efficacy
as the mediating factor (95% CI: 3.25, 34.89) but not self-
perceptions (95% CI: 1.96, 18.21). Thus, although self-
perceptions may have changed by drinking Gatorade water,
these self-perceptions were not as effective as self-efficacy
in driving the improvement in handgrip performance for
entity theorists.
Our results also complement prior research on noncon-
scious brand priming, which shows that incidental exposure
to brands can automatically elicit goals and behaviors
(Chartrand et al. 2008; Fitzsimons, Chartrand, and Fitzsi-
mons 2008). Here, we show that brands can affect behavior
through a conscious route. In Study 2, we ruled out the pos-
sibility that our results were due to a nonconscious process
by running a separate condition in which participants were
exposed to the Gatorade cup but did not drink water from it.
Merely being exposed to the Gatorade name/logo did not
enhance task performance for entity theorists. Additional
evidence emerged in Study 4, in which entity theorists who
drank water from a Gatorade cup increased their handgrip
performance even when they were made consciously aware
that the Gatorade brand positively affects athletic perform-
ance. If Gatorade affected handgrip performance through a
nonconscious process, performance should not have been
enhanced when the link between Gatorade and athletic per-
formance was made salient (Kramer and Block 2008; Shiv,
Carmon, and Ariely 2005).
Moreover, our findings provide evidence that self-efficacy
beliefs, which are formed through a deliberative process
(Gist and Mitchell 1992), mediate the effect of brand use on
behavior (task performance). In Studies 3 and 4, we provide
evidence of mediation using a measure of self-efficacy
administered after completion of the handgrip task, which
avoided the problem that administering the measure before
or during the task could affect subsequent task performance
(Feldman and Lynch 1988). To provide further evidence
that (1) brand use increases self-efficacy (for entity theo-
rists) and (2) increases in self-efficacy are accompanied by
greater effort being expended on the task, we conducted a
small study in which self-efficacy and effort were measured
before the task. To provide a sense of the task, we gave
undergraduate students (n = 31) five minutes to solve a sam-
ple GRE math test with five difficult questions while using
the MIT pen. Then, participants were asked how confident
they would be (two items; 0 to 100 scale; a = .92) and how
much effort they would expend (four items, 0 to 100 scale;
a = .95) if they were asked to take a GRE test with 30 math
questions for 30 minutes. As we expected, a regression
analysis revealed that entity theorists (vs. incremental theo-
rists) reported a higher level of self-efficacy (b = .39, t(28) =
2.12, p < .05) and intention to exert more effort (b = .43,
t(28) = 2.47, p < .05). More importantly, a bootstrap analy-
sis using the INDIRECT SPSS macro (Preacher and Hayes
2008) confirmed a significant mediating pathway from
implicit self-theories to intended effort on the next GRE test
through self-efficacy (95% CI: 1.03, .03). These findings
provide added support for the view that brand use can
enhance self-efficacy for entity (but not incremental) theo-
rists and that increases in self-efficacy lead to greater effort
being expended to perform well in a challenging task.
Finally, we contribute to an understanding of individual
differences in the way brands influence behavior. Prior
research on placebo effects and nonconscious brand priming
(two major lines of research providing evidence that brands
can affect behavior) has shown that brands influence some
consumers more than others. For example, brand priming
research has reported that incidental exposure to brand
logos unconsciously elicits goal-directed behavior, but the
effect is stronger for consumers with a stronger motivation
to achieve the goals that brands activate (Fitzsimons, Char-
trand, and Fitzsimons 2008). In addition, placebo studies
reveal that brands affect behavior on a nonconscious level,
but the effect is most evident for consumers who are moti-
vated to experience the benefits of using the branded prod-
uct (Irmak, Block, and Fitzsimons 2005). Our research also
indicates individual differences, showing that brand use
affects subsequent behavior for entity, but not incremental,
theorists. Entity theorists rely on brands as a source of self-
efficacy, which can be interpreted as being more motivated
to depend on and experience the benefits the brand promise
offers, as opposed to incremental theorists, who are more
motivated to develop their own skills and abilities as a way
to develop self-efficacy. Thus, a consistent theme across all
three lines of research is that individual differences exist in
the degree to which brands influence behavior.
Managerial Implications
Our findings suggest that different promotional strategies
may be effective for entity versus incremental theorists.
Most firms promote the functional, emotional, or self-
expressive aspects of their brands. For entity theorists, these
brand elements should be cast as assuring consumers that
they can achieve, perform better at, or succeed at challeng-
ing tasks relevant to the brand. Advertising copy, consumer
testimonials, or even brand slogans could contain these sen-
timents. Examples of this execution strategy can be found in
slogans such as You can do it. We can help (Home Depot)
and Be all that you can be (U.S. Army). These slogans
should appeal to entity theorists, although entity theorists
would need to actually use the brand to receive the prom-
ised benefits (as Study 2 shows). In contrast, for incremen-
tal theorists, the emphasis should be on providing informa-
tion that affords a learning opportunity. Examples of this
strategy would be tips and videos for getting the best per-
formance from products. Although these types of tips are
often included with products, our findings suggest that
incremental theorists (who believe they can develop their
abilities) are most likely to find these tips appealing.
Firms could target these different promotional strategies
to entity and incremental theorists in several ways. First, a
customer database or online customer profile could include
measures of implicit self-theories. Then, advertising appeals
could be tailored for entity versus incremental theorists and
delivered through e-mail, website links, or pop-up windows.
Another option would be to prime consumers to be entity
theorists through ad copy and images consistent with entity
theory beliefs, in line with our manipulation of implicit self-
theories in Study 2. Then, the firm could deliver communi-
cations appealing to an entity or incremental theory orienta-
tion to the entire customer base.
Future Research Directions
Our findings suggest several directions for further
research. First, our article focuses on general implicit self-
theories that are applicable to overall personality domains
(Levy, Stroessner, and Dweck 1998; Plaks, Grant, and
Dweck 2005). Further research could examine whether con-
sumer brand use is also affected by holding domain-specific
implicit self-theories such as intelligence (Erdley et al.
1997; Robins and Pals 2002), morality (Chiu, Hong, and
Dweck 1997; Dweck and Leggett 1988), shyness (Beer
2002), self-control (Mukhopadhyay and Johar 2005), and
relationships (Knee 1998). For example, research has found
that self-control lay theories, which refer to the amount of
self-control people believe they have (unlimited vs. limited)
and whether it can be changed over time (malleable vs.
fixed), moderate the effect of self-efficacy on performance
(Mukhopadhyay and Johar 2005). When people hold the
belief that self-control is limited but malleable, self-efficacy
beliefs predict performance well. Extending this line of
research to our context, it would be worthwhile to examine
whether self-control lay theories moderate the effect of
brand use on task performance for entity theorists.
Second, we might ask whether entity theorists become less
reliant on brand use to heighten their sense of self-efficacy
as they accumulate experiences with challenging tasks.
Prior research has shown that entity theorists exhibit
decreasing patterns of self-efficacy as they are exposed to
difficult situations repeatedly (Robins and Pals 2002). We
speculate that if entity theorists are able to use brands as a
crutch to enhance their sense of self-efficacy, this inter-
vention will interrupt a recursive process of worsening self-
efficacy and performance and may result in a more stable
set of self-efficacy beliefs and performance over time. Fur-
thermore, as entity theorists develop self-efficacy beliefs
over time, they may adopt more incremental theory beliefs.
Thus, entity theorists may become less reliant on brand use.
Third, researchers might examine other variables that
increase the self-efficacy effect. In our studies, the branded
items we used were designed to strip away functional bene-
fits associated with the brand. For example, recall that the
Gatorade water was tap water poured into a Gatorade logo
cup. What would happen if participants used a branded item
with which they could also experience the brands func-
tional aspects that can improve their abilities? We would
expect that self-efficacy effects might be the same or a bit
stronger for entity theorists. However, the real difference
could emerge for incremental theorists, who might experi-
ence feelings of self-efficacy from observing actual
improvement in their abilities from the functional aspects of
the brand. An intriguing possibility is that all consumers
derive a sense of self-efficacy from using brands, but entity
theorists respond to the assurance of better performance
they receive from brand use, whereas incremental theorists
respond to functional aspects of the brand.
The pursuit of these lines of inquiry holds the promise of
delivering insights into the way consumers interact with
brands and how this interaction influences their own behav-
ior. Studies that incorporate actual brand use, similar to our
research, can be an important addition to prior work that has
typically stopped short of brand use. Including actual prod-
uct use in more consumer research will provide a new con-
ceptual frame for understanding how consumer beliefs and
behaviors shape, and are shaped by, their consumption
experiences.
REFERENCES
Aiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regression:
Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bandura, Albert (1982), Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human
Agency, American Psychologist, 37 (2), 12247.
(1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(1988), Reflection on Nonability Determinants of Compe-
tence, in Competence Considered: Perceptions of Competence
and Incompetence Across the Lifespan, Robert J. Sternberg and
John Kolligian Jr., eds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
31562.
(1993), Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development
and Functioning, Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 11748.
(1995), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York:
Freeman.
(2006), Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales, in
Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Vol. 5, Frank Pajares and
Tim Urdan, eds. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing,
307337.
and Daniel Cervone (1983), Self-Evaluative and Self-
Efficacy Mechanisms Governing the Motivational Effects of
Goal Systems, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45 (5), 101728.
and Robert E. Wood (1989), Effect of Perceived Controlla-
bility and Performance Standards on Self-Regulation of Com-
plex Decision Making, Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 56 (5), 805814.
Beer, Jennifer S. (2002), Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (4), 1009
1024.
Chartrand, Tanya L., Joel Huber, Baba Shiv, and Robin J. Tanner
(2008), Nonconscious Goals and Consumer Choice, Journal
of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 189201.
Chiu, Chi-Yue, Ying-Yi Hong, and Carol S. Dweck (1997), Lay
Dispositionism and Implicit Theories of Personality, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (1), 1930.
Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen (1983), Applied Multiple Regres-
sion/ Correlation Analyses for the Behavioral Sciences. Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dweck, Carol S. (2000), Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation,
Personality and Development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
and Ellen L. Leggett (1988), A Social-Cognitive Approach
to Motivation and Personality, Psychological Review, 95 (2),
25673.
Elliott, Elaine S. and Carol S. Dweck (1988), Goals: An
Approach to Motivation and Achievement, Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 54 (1), 512.
Erdley, Cynthia A., Kathleen M. Cain, Catherine C. Loomis,
Frances Dumas-Hines, and Carol S. Dweck (1997), Relations
Among Childrens Social Goals, Implicit Personality Theories,
and Responses to Social Failure, Developmental Psychology,
33 (2), 26372.
Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch Jr. (1988), Self-Generated
Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude,
Intention, and Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73
(3), 42135.
Fitzsimons, Grainne M., Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsi-
mons (2008), Automatic Effects of Brand Exposure on Moti-
vated Behavior: How Apple Makes You Think Different, Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 2135.
Gist, Marilyn E. and Terence R. Mitchell (1992), Self-Efficacy: A
Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability,
Academy of Management Review, 17 (2), 183211.
Irmak, Caglar, Lauren G. Block, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2005),
The Placebo Effect in Marketing: Sometimes You Just Have to
Want It to Work, Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (Novem-
ber), 406409.
Jones, Edward E., Frederick Rhodewalt, Steven Berglas, and
James A. Skelton (1981), Effects of Strategic Self-Presentation
on Subsequent Self-Esteem, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41 (3), 407421.
Kramer, Thomas and Lauren Block (2008), Conscious and Non-
Conscious Components of Superstitious Beliefs in Judgment
and Decision-Making, Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6),
78393.
Levy, Sheri R., Steven J. Stroessner, and Carol S. Dweck (1998),
Stereotype Formation and Endorsement: The Role of Implicit
Theories, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74
(6), 142136.
Lickel, Brian, David L. Hamilton, and Steven J. Sherman (2001),
Elements of a Lay Theory of Groups: Types of Groups, Rela-
tional Styles, and the Perception of Group Entitativity, Person-
ality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (2), 12940.
Martocchio, Joseph J. (1994), Effects of Conceptions of Ability
on Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, and Learning in Training, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79 (6), 81925.
Mukhopadhyay, Anirban and Gita Venkataramani Johar (2005),
Where There Is a Will, Is There a Way? The Effects of Con-
sumers Lay Theories of Self-Control on Setting and Keeping
Resolutions, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 77986.
Muraven, Mark, Dianne M. Tice, and Roy F. Baumeister (1998),
Self-Control as Limited Resource: Regulatory Depletion Pat-
terns, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (3),
77489.
Pajares, Frank and Dale H. Schunk (2001), Self-Beliefs and
School Success: Self-Efficacy, Self-Concept, and School
Achievement, in International Perspectives on Individual Dif-
ferences: Self-Perception, Vol. 2, Richard J. Riding and Stephen
Rayner, eds. Westport, CT: Ablex, 23965.
Park, Ji Kyung and Deborah Roedder John (2010), Got to Get
You into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub Off on Con-
sumers? Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 65569.
Plaks, Jason E., Heidi Grant, and Carol S. Dweck (2005), Viola-
tions of Implicit Theories and the Sense of Prediction and Con-
trol: Implications for Motivated Person Perception, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (2), 24562.
Preacher, Kristopher and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), Asymptotic
and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indi-
rect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models, Behavior Research
Methods, 40 (3), 87991.
Rhodewalt, Frederick (1994), Conceptions of Ability, Achieve-
ment Goals, and Individual Differences in Self-Handicapping
Behavior: On the Application of Implicit Theories, Journal of
Personality, 62 (1), 6785.
Robins, Richard W. and Jennifer L. Pals (2002), Implicit Self-
Theories in the Academic Domain: Implications for Goal Orien-
tation, Attributions, Affect, and Self-Esteem Change, Self and
Identity, 1, 31336.
Schneider, John A. and W. Stewart Agras (1985), A Cognitive
Behavioural Group Treatment of Bulimia, British Journal of
Psychiatry, 146 (1), 6669.
Shiv, Baba, Ziv Carmon, and Dan Ariely (2005), Placebo Effects
of Marketing Actions: Consumers May Get What They Pay
For, Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (November), 38393.
Singer, Judith D. (1998), Using SAS Proc Mixed to Fit Multilevel
Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models,
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24 (4), 323
55.
Watson, David, Lee A. Clark, and Auke Tellegen (1988), Devel-
opment and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Nega-
tive Affect: The PANAS Scales, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54 (6), 106370.
West, Stephen G., Leona S. Aiken, and Jennifer L. Krull (1996),
Experimental Personality Designs: Analyzing Categorical by
Continuous Variable Interactions, Journal of Personality, 64
(1), 148.
Wood, Robert E. and Albert Bandura (1989), Social Cognitive
Theory of Organizational Management, Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 14 (3), 36184.
Yorkston, Eric A., Joseph C. Nunes, and Sashi Matta (2010), The
Malleable Brand: The Role of Implicit Theories in Evaluating
Brand Extensions, Journal of Marketing, 74 (January), 8093.
Zimmerman, Barry J., Albert Bandura, and Manuel Martinez-Pons
(1992), Self-Motivation for Academic Attainment: The Role of
Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal Setting, American
Educational Research, 29 (3), 66376.

I Think I Can, I Think I Can - Brand Use, Self-Efficacy, and Performance

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

I Think I Can, I Think I Can - Brand Use, Self-Efficacy, and Performance

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. LI (April 2014), 233247

Você também pode gostar