Whats in a Name Persuasion Perhaps GARNER NAME SIMILARITY AND PERSUASION Randy G - PDF document

RequestsforreprintsshouldbesenttoRandyGarner,SamHoustonStateUniversity,BehavioralSciences,CollegeofCriminalJustice,Huntsville, TX77340–2296. E-mail: rgarner@shsu.edu pactofnamesimilarityorfamiliarityonovertbehavior.Rather,itmayonlyreflectaninfluenceofthesefactorsonpreferencesthatwerereportedinavotingboothratherthanOverview and PredictionsInStudy1,Ideterminedwhethermerenamesimilaritycaninfluencelikingandthewillingnesstoperformafavor.Participantsreadascenarioinwhichthenameofthecentralcharacterwaseithersimilarordissimilartotheirown.Iexpectedthatthosepersonswhoreadthescenariocontainingthename-similarcharacterwouldreportthatthecharacterwassimilartothemselves,wouldevaluatethecharactermorefavorably,andwouldreportgreaterwillingnesstoperformafavor for that person.Study2wassimilartothefirstexperimentexceptthatthecontrolgroupnameswerehighlyfamiliar,thuspermittingtheeffectsofnamesimilarityandnamefamiliaritytobedistinguished.Inaddition,Iexaminedthelengthoftimethatindividualsineachname-similarityconditionrequiredtocompletethetaskandtheamountofinformationinthescenariothattheywereabletorecall.Thesedataprovidedfurtherin-sightintotheamountofcognitiveprocessingthatpartici-InStudies3and4,participantsreceivedamailedques-tionnairealongwithacoverletterexplainingtheimportanceofthesurvey.Thecoverletterinonegroupwassignedwithanamesimilartotherecipients,whereasthecoverletterinthesecondgroupwassignedbyoneofseveralactualresearchas-sistantswhosenamesaredissimilarfromtherecipient.TheparticipantsinStudy3weredrawnfromundergraduatepsy-chologystudents,whereasthesurveymaterialsinstudy4weredistributedtoUniversityprofessorsthroughinterofficemail.Inbothcases,Ihypothesizedthatmoresurveyswouldbereturnedbyrecipientswhoreceivedthequestionnairefrom someone whose name was similar to their own.STUDY 1Participants.Inthisstudy,52femaleand30maleundergraduatepsychologystudentsparticipatedtofulfillaclassrequirement.Fromaclassrosterof91names,40personswererandomlyselectedtoreadascenarioinwhichtheprotagonist’snamewassimilartotheirown.Theremainingstudentsreadascenarioinwhichtheprotagonist’snamewasunfamiliar.Materials.Eachparticipantreceivedatwo-pagepacketpurportedtobeapartofareadingcomprehensionstudyfortheCommunicationDepartment.Thefirstpagecontainedabriefscenariothatprovidedadescriptionofafictitiouspersonincludingphysicalandpersonalitycharacteristicsaswellascertainlikesanddislikes.Thenarrativealsoincludedcommentsaboutthescenariosfictitiouscharacter,whichwerereportedtocomefromthecharacters’friends.Thedescriptionswerekeptneutralsothattheywouldbeapplicabletobothconditionswithoutregardtogender.Thesescenarioswereidenticalineverywaywiththeexceptionofthenameofthecentralfigure.Thoseinthename-similarconditionreceivedascenarioinwhichthenameofthecentralcharacterwassimilartotheparticipant.Theparticipantsinthecontrolconditionreceivedascenarioinwhichthecentralcharacterwasalwaysnamed“KerryStanlin.”Aseriesofpretestssuggestedthatthisnamewasbothgenderneutralandwasratedasmoderatelypositivewhencomparedtoamorecomprehensivelist.Forthename-similarcondition,agroupofresearchjudgescreatednamesthatweresimilarbutnotidenticaltothe40participantswhowererandomlyselectedfromtheclassroll.Earlyinthesemester,eachclassmemberhadbeenaskedtofillouta3×5in.indexcardthatincludedtheirnameandotherpertinentdata.Thisinformationwasusedtoinsurethenamepreferredbythestudent(e.g.,BobinsteadofRobert)wasutilizedincreatingthename-similarconditions.Ineachcase,thefirstnameofthecharacterwassimilaroriden-ticaltotheparticipantandthelastnamewasmodifiedtocre-ateasimilarappearingsurname.Forexample,anameap-pearingontheclassrollsuchasRobertGreermightbecomeBobGregarandCynthiaJohnstonmaybecomeCindyJohanson.Severalnamesposedparticularchallengesforthejudges; however, in each case, agreement was reached.Thesecondpageofthepacketwascompletedaftertheparticipantshadreadthescenario.Eachparticipantwasaskedtoratethelikabilityofthecentralcharacter,howwillingheorshewouldbetoperformafavorforthischaracterifasked,andhowsimilarheorshebelievedthecharacterwastothemselves.Allmeasureswererecordedon13-pointscalesrangingfrom1(notatall)to13(extremely).Severalotherquestionsdealtwiththecontentofthestoryinkeepingwiththepurportedintentionoftheresearcheffort.Anopennarrativesectionwasalsoincludedinwhichparticipantscouldindicatethereasonsfortheratingdecisionstheymade.Design and procedure.Ofthe82studentswhoparticipatedintheexperiment,40receivedname-similarpacketsandtheremaining42weregivencontrolpackets.Participantsreceivedamanilaenvelopethatcontainedtheirrandomlyassignedscenarioandquestionnaire.ThepacketsTheparticipantsweretoldthattheenclosedmaterialsinvolvedaveryshortreadingcomprehensionexercisethatwasbeingconductedattherequestoftheCommunicationDepartment.Theywereinstructedtoopenthepacketandweregiven2mintoreadthescenario.Oncetheyhadfinished,theyweretoldtoturnthepageandanswerallofthequestionswithoutreturningtothescenario.Finally,afterrespondingto storyyourread?”and“Whattypesofactivitiesdidtheindividualreportthattheyenjoyed?”wasscoredintermsoftheDesign and procedure.Inthisstudy,112participantswerepresentandreceivedeitheraname-similarscenario(56)oraname-familiar(=56)scenariopacketbasedonpreviousrandomassignment.Becauseoftherequirementsimposedbythismethodology,thematerialswerepreparedinadvance,andprecautionsweretakentoensureequivalenceingroups.Participantsinthename-similarconditionwereprovidedpacketssimilartothoseemployedinStudy1.Thoseinthename-familiarconditionrandomlyreceivedapacketinwhichthecentralcharacter’snamewasconstructedfromtheU.S.CensusandSocialSecurityAdministrationdatadescribedearlier.Men(=22)receivedthepacketswiththemostfamiliarmalenames(e.g.,JamesSmith,RobertJohnson,JohnJones,etc.)andwomen(=34)receivedpacketswiththemostfamiliarfemalenames(MarySmith,PatriciaJohnson, Linda Williams, etc.).TheproceduresandinstructionsweresimilartoStudy1.Theparticipantswereaskedtocompleteashortreadingcom-prehensionexercisethatwasbeingconductedattherequestoftheCommunicationDepartment.Attheconclusionoftheexercise,thestudentsinthisstudywereaskedtobringtheircompletedpackettooneoftheresearchassistantsatthefrontoftheroom.Theassistantsrecordedthetimethatthepacketwasreturned.Participantswerenotdebriefedimmediatelyasinthepreviousstudy.A2-weekfollow-upwasconductedinwhichthe10-question,content-retentioninstrumentwasad-ministered.Oncethisprocesswascompleted,thepartici-pants were thanked and fully debriefed.TheresultsofthisstudyaresummarizedintherighthalfofTable1.ConsistentwiththeresultsinStudy1,participantsinname-similarconditionsindicatedthatthecentralcharacterwasmoresimilartothemselves(=8.84)thandidparticipantsinname-familiarconditions(=5.82),110)=66.51,.001,=.377.Theyalsoratedthecharacterasrelativelymorelikeable(9.64vs.7.62),(1,110)=.01,=.197andweremorewillingtodoafavorfortheperson(9.21vs.7.26),(1,110)=29.88,=.214.Allmeasureswerehighlycorrelated,rangingfrom.68to.71.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbygenderineithercondition.Participantsinthename-familiarconditiongavesimilarity-to-selfratingsthatwerebelowthemidpointofthescale.Time to complete the questionnaire.Participantsinthename-similarconditiontooksignificantlylonger(15.05min)tocompleteandreturntheirpacketsthandidthoseinthename-familiarcondition(=12.44min),Information recall.Thefollow-upinstrumentdesignedtoassesscontentretentionofthescenariowasadministeredto101oftheoriginal112participants.(Ofthe11missingparticipants,7wereinthename-similarconditionand4wereinthename-familiarcondition.)Althoughparticipantsrecalledagreaterproportionoftheinformationinname-similarconditions(=82.0%)thaninname-familiarconditions=78.9%),thisdifferencewasonlymarginallysignificant,(1,100)=3.02,.09.Thismaybeduetotheratherstraightforwardcontentinthescenarioandthesimplenatureof the exercise.Theresultssuggestthatnamesimilarityratherthannamefamiliarityhadthedominantinfluenceundertheconditionsweinvestigated.Participantsinname-similarconditionsrelativetothoseinname-familiarconditionsperceivedthemselvestobemoresimilartothecharacter,likedthecharactermore,andexpressedgreaterwillingnesstodothepersonafavor.Thus,thefamiliarnamesusedinthisstudydidnothavethesamepersuasiveeffectasthesimilarones.Itispossiblethattheparticipantsviewedthesimilarnamesassocommonrelativetotheirownthattheydecreasedtheirperceptionsofsimilarity.Thisissomewhatakintothefalseuniquenesseffect(Goethals,Messick,&Allison,1991)inwhichpeoplebelieveandwanttobeviewedasdistinctiveratherthancommonplace.Itisimportanttonotethatalthoughthecontrolnameswereintentionallycreatedtobehighlyfamiliar,theymaynotbeviewedasfamiliarasone’sownname.Asaresult,onemightarguethatnamefamiliarityremainsapossiblemediator.However,acomparisonoftheresultsofStudies1and2arguesagainstthisconclusion.Table1showsastrongcorrespondenceinscoresassociatedwiththename-similarconditionsinbothstudies.Furthermore,thedataforthetwocontrolconditionsarealsoverysimilardespiteimportantdifferencesintheirconstruction.AlthoughthecommonnamesinStudy2mayhavebeenlessfamiliartoparticipantsthantheirownnames,theywereclearlymorefamiliarthanKerryStanlin.However,aposthocanalysisindicatesthatthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthemeanratingsbycondition(namesimilarorcontrol)onanyvariableacrossthetwostudies(1inallcases).Althoughcautionshouldbeexercisedwhenmakingcomparisonsacrossstudies,theseexperimentswereconductedwithinasimilartimeframeandparticipantsweredrawnfromthesameparticipantpopulation.Therefore,theseresultsstronglyargueagainstfamiliarityastheprimarymediator.ParticipantsinStudy2spentmoretimethinkingaboutthescenarioinname-similarthaninname-familiarconditionsandhadnonsignificantlybetterrecalloftheinformationpresentedinformerconditions.Thesedatasuggestthatasimilarnamestimulatedparticipants’attentiontothecontentofthescenario,resultinginamorecarefulassessmentofitsimpli makingthesurveyproceduremoreefficientandproductiveinthefuture.Inthiscontext,participantswereaskedtoindicateanyreasonstheyconsideredwhendecidingtocompleteandreturnthesurvey.Fontstyle,generalappearance,andimportanceoftheinformationwerelistedaspossibleexamples,although the format was open ended.Design and procedure.Thirtyuniversityprofessorswererandomlyselectedtoreceiveaname-similarsurveypacketdescribedpreviously.Anadditional30professorsrandomlyreceivedacontrolsurveypacketalsocreatedinaccordancewithStudy3procedures.Thematerialsweresentviainterofficemailandincludedareturn-addressenvelope.Thosewhoreturnedthesurveywithintherequested10daysweresentthefollow-upquestionnaire.Thiswasdoneinanefforttodetermineifthoseinthename-similarconditionidentifiedthenamesimilarityoftherequesterasareasonorconsideration for the return of the survey.Attheconclusionofthestudy,allparticipantswereprovidedwithdetailedcorrespondenceoutliningthetruenatureofthestudy.Thecommunicationlistedanumbertocalliftherewereanyconcernsorquestions.Norequestsforaddi-tional information or inquiry were received.Thehypothesiswasconfirmed.Thosefacultymembersweresignificantlymorelikelytoreturntheirsurveyiftheyre-ceivedaname-similarcoverletter(56%;=17)thaniftheydidnot(30%;=9),=60)=4.34,.04.Follow-upquestionnairesweresenttoallofthosewhoreturnedtheirsurveysregardlessofcondition.Therewasnosignificantcontentvariationintheresponsesprovided.Analysisofthefollow-upquestionnaire,whichwasreturnedby9ofthe17participantsinthename-similarcondition,revealedthatnoneoftheparticipantswhoreturnedtheirsurveyindicatedthatthenamesimilarityofthesenderwasareasonfortheirreTheresultsofStudy4confirmtheconclusionthatperceivednamesimilaritycaninfluenceovertbehavioraloutcomes.Inthisreal-worldsetting,universityprofessorswhoreceivedthecoverlettersignedwithanamethatwassimilartotheirowncompletedandreturnedthesurveyinsignificantlygreaternumbersthanthoseinthecontrolgroup.AsidentifiedinStudy3,thelevelofcommitmentinvolvedinthisbehavioralsequencefarexceedthemereexpressionofaparticularNotsurprisingly,noneoftherecipientswhoreturnedthesurveyindicatedthatsimilarityofnamewasinvolvedintheirbehavioraldecisiontocompleteandreturnthesurvey.BornsteinandD’Agostino(1992)suggestedthatsucheffectsarestrongestwhentheyareperceivedwithoutconsciousawareness.Althoughitispossiblethatthenamesimilaritywasnoticed,itwasapparentlynotidentifiedasaconsciousconsiderationincomplyingwiththerequest.Thesefindingsareconsistentwiththeincreasingbodyofliteraturethathassuggestedpeoplefrequentlyrelyoncognitiveshortcutsindecisionmaking(Chaiken,1980,1987;Chaiken&Trope,1999;Eagly&Chaiken,1993;Petty&Cacioppo,1986).Thefailureofparticipantstomentionnamesimilarityasabasisfortheirdecisionmustbeevaluatedwithcautionduetotheobviousfailingsofhumanmemoryoverthe2-weekintervalbetweencompletionofthequestionnaireandthefollow-upsurvey.Furthermore,participantsmayhaveconsciouslyconsiderednamesimilarityatthetimetheyfirstdecidedtocompletethesurveybutmayhaveconsideredonlymoreproximalreasonsfortheirdecisionswhenlateraskedaboutit.Thisseriesofstudiesprovidedstrongsupportforthename-similarityeffect.Indoingso,theydemonstratedthatsomethingasseeminglyinsignificantasnamesimilaritycanhaveapersuasiveinfluenceonperceptionsofliking,percep-tionsofsimilaritytoself,andtheexpressedintentiontoen-gageintangiblebehavior(viz.,agreeingtodoafavor).Inad-dition,namesimilarityinducedindividualstoengageinanovertbehavioraltask.Thisfindingextendstheimplicationsofpreviousresearch,whichhasoftenconsideredonlygen-eral preferences for the first or the last letter in one’s name.Studies1and2notonlyprovidedevidencethatnamesim-ilaritycanhaveapotentinfluenceonperceptions,butindi-catedthattheeffectoccurredindependentlyofnamefamiliarity.Ifgeneralnamefamiliaritywereequallypersuasive,itshouldhavehadaninfluenceinthecontrolconditionofStudy2inwhichthenameswerequitefamiliar.Infact,thisinfluencewasnotevident.Moreover,theeffectsintheseconditionsdidnotdifferfromthoseobservedincontrolconditionsofStudy1inwhichthename(KerryStanlin)wasunfamiliaraswellasdissimilar.Incombination,thesedataprovideastrongargumentagainstfamiliarityastheprimarymediator.ItispossiblethatthecommonnamesusedinStudy2weresogeneralastohavelimitedpersuasiveappeal.Forexample,thenameJohnSmithmaybeamongthemostfrequentandfamiliarnames;however,itsverygeneralitymayadverselyimpactanypotentialinfluence.Onemightpaymoreattentiontosomethingastheresultofseeinganamesimilartooneself,butanameascommonasJohnSmithmayhardlycaptureone’sattention.Namesthatarepopular,familiar,andassociatedwithwellknownindividuals(e.g.,GeorgeBush,DonaldTrump,orMohammedAli)mayhaveresultedinmuch different findings.However,Study2providedasuggestionastoapotentialmediatingfactorinthisnamesimilarityprocess.Thosewho Lee,A.(2001).Themereexposureeffect:Anuncertaintyreductionexplanationrevisited.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,27,Miller,D.(1991).Handbookofresearchdesignandsocialmeasurement(5th ed.). New York: McKay.Moreland,R.,&Zajonc,R.(1976).Astrongtestofexposureeffects.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12,Nuttin,J.(1987).Affectiveconsequencesofmereownership:ThenamedlettereffectintwelveEuropeanlanguages.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology, 17,Pelham,B.,Mirenberg,C.,&Carvallo,X.(2002).Implicitegotism:Implicationsforinterpersonalattraction.ManuscriptsubmittedforpublicaPelham,B.,Mirenberg,C.,&Jones,J.(2002).WhySusiesellsseashellsbytheseashore:Implicitegotismandmajorlifedecisions.JournalofPersonality and Social Psychology, 82,Petty,R.E.,&Cacioppo,J.T.(1986).Communicationandpersuasion:Centralandperipheralroutestoattitudechange.NewYork:Springer-Verlag.Reaney, P. (1967).Strumpfer,D.(1978).Relationshipbetweenattitudestowardsone’snamesPsychological Reports, 43,Swap,W.C.(1977).Interpersonalattractionandrepeatedexposuretorewardersandpunishers.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,3,Zajonc,R.B.(1968).Theattitudinaleffectsofmereexposure.[MonographsJournal of Personality And Social Psychology, 9,Received: December 19, 2003