Colleen P. Kirk

Objective: We examined the roles of Narcissistic Admiration and Narcissistic Rivalry in gift giving. We hypothesized that Admirative and Rivalrous individuals diverge in their likelihood of giving gifts.
Method: Across six studies (ΣN = 2,198), we used correlational and experimental methodology, and capitalized on both scenarios and actual gift giving.
Results: Narcissistic Admiration was positively, but Narcissistic Rivalry was negatively, associated with gift-giving likelihood (Studies… Show more

Objective: We examined the roles of Narcissistic Admiration and Narcissistic Rivalry in gift giving. We hypothesized that Admirative and Rivalrous individuals diverge in their likelihood of giving gifts.
Method: Across six studies (ΣN = 2,198), we used correlational and experimental methodology, and capitalized on both scenarios and actual gift giving.
Results: Narcissistic Admiration was positively, but Narcissistic Rivalry was negatively, associated with gift-giving likelihood (Studies 1-2). These findings were explained by diverging communal motivations for gift giving (Study 3). Consistent with the notion that Rivalrous individuals are less likely to give gifts for communal reasons because they feel threatened by social closeness, the negative association between Narcissistic Rivalry and gift-giving likelihood was attenuated when the gift recipient was more socially distant (vs. close; Study 4). Further, gifts that are recipient-centric (e.g., customized with a recipient’s name) are less focused on attributes of the giver and less likely to foster social closeness. Therefore, consistent with Admirative individuals’ use of gift giving to promote themselves as a superior communal relationship partner, the positive association between Narcissistic Admiration and gift-giving likelihood was attenuated for gifts that were recipient-centric (Study 5). Socially desirable responding, self-esteem, and fear of failure (Study SM1) did not account for the findings. Show less

Seven preregistered experiments demonstrate that when consumers believe emotional marketing communications are written by an AI (vs. a human), positive word of mouth and customer loyalty are reduced. Drawing from authenticity theory, we show that this “AI-authorship effect” is attenuated for factual (vs. emotional) messages (Study 2); when an AI only edits the communication (Study 3); when a communication is signed directly by an AI (Study 4); and when consumers believe that most marketing… Show more

Seven preregistered experiments demonstrate that when consumers believe emotional marketing communications are written by an AI (vs. a human), positive word of mouth and customer loyalty are reduced. Drawing from authenticity theory, we show that this “AI-authorship effect” is attenuated for factual (vs. emotional) messages (Study 2); when an AI only edits the communication (Study 3); when a communication is signed directly by an AI (Study 4); and when consumers believe that most marketing communications are written by AI (Study WA1). Importantly, when consumers believe a communication is reused (i.e., not originally written by the sender), the effect is reversed (Study 6). This “AI-authorship effect” is serially mediated by perceived authenticity (Studies 5 and 6) and moral disgust (Studies 1-6 and WA1). These findings are evidenced using both personalized and mass communications, different emotions, businesses and organizational employees, and both hypothetical and behavioral measures. Show less

People are frequently invited to join others for fun social activities. They may be invited to lunch, to attend a sporting event, to watch the season finale of a television show, and so forth. Invitees—those who are on the receiving ends of invitations—sometimes accept invitations from inviters—those who extend invitations—but other times, invitees decline. Unfortunately, saying no can be hard, leading invitees to accept invitations when they would rather not. The present work sheds light on… Show more

People are frequently invited to join others for fun social activities. They may be invited to lunch, to attend a sporting event, to watch the season finale of a television show, and so forth. Invitees—those who are on the receiving ends of invitations—sometimes accept invitations from inviters—those who extend invitations—but other times, invitees decline. Unfortunately, saying no can be hard, leading invitees to accept invitations when they would rather not. The present work sheds light on one factor that makes it so hard to decline invitations. We demonstrate that invitees overestimate the negative ramifications that arise in the eyes of inviters following an invitation decline. Invitees have exaggerated concerns about how much the decline will anger the inviter, signal that the invitee does not care about the inviter, make the inviter unlikely to offer another invitation in the future, and so forth. We also demonstrate that this asymmetry emerges in part because invitees exaggerate the degree to which inviters focus on the decline itself, as opposed to the thoughts ran through the invitee’s head before deciding. Indeed, across multiple studies, we find support for this process through mediation and moderation, while simultaneously finding evidence against multiple alternative accounts. We conclude with a discussion of the contributions and limitations of this research, along with directions for future work. Show less

The Peer-to-Peer sector of the sharing economy relies on reputation systems through which consumers and providers review each other. Whereas prior research has examined the effects of reviews by consumers on providers and firms, this research examines, for the first time, a turn of the tables in which consumers are evaluated. Across a pilot and seven studies (five preregistered), using multiple actual behaviors and sharing contexts, results reveal that a negative review of the consumer from the… Show more

The Peer-to-Peer sector of the sharing economy relies on reputation systems through which consumers and providers review each other. Whereas prior research has examined the effects of reviews by consumers on providers and firms, this research examines, for the first time, a turn of the tables in which consumers are evaluated. Across a pilot and seven studies (five preregistered), using multiple actual behaviors and sharing contexts, results reveal that a negative review of the consumer from the peer provider leads to negative word of mouth (NWOM) about the platform. Drawing from psychological contract theory, the research demonstrates that this effect is mediated by consumers' perceived betrayal by the platform. Two sets of moderators are identified. The first set establishes that a breach of consumers' psychological contract with the platform underlies the effect. In the second set, platform policies that may render a breach more or less consequential can intensify or mitigate consumer reactions. Specifically, making the review private (vs. public) and providing opportunities for justice restoration (response, revenge, and dispute) attenuate the effect of review valence on betrayal and NWOM. Implications for sharing economy platform managers and consumers are discussed. Show less

We examine the role of narcissistic admiration and rivalry in consumers’ word of mouth about promotional games. We show that, although narcissistic admiration and rivalry are both positively associated with belief in good luck (Study 1), their associations with word of mouth in reference to a retailer diverge when consumers lose a chance-based promotional game (Study 2). Specifically, when consumers lose (but not win), narcissistic admiration is associated with more favorable word of mouth… Show more

We examine the role of narcissistic admiration and rivalry in consumers’ word of mouth about promotional games. We show that, although narcissistic admiration and rivalry are both positively associated with belief in good luck (Study 1), their associations with word of mouth in reference to a retailer diverge when consumers lose a chance-based promotional game (Study 2). Specifically, when consumers lose (but not win), narcissistic admiration is associated with more favorable word of mouth (i.e., leaving a positive review on a website), whereas narcissistic rivalry is associated with less favorable word of mouth. These diverging effects vary depending on the effort that consumers exert to participate in the game (Study 3), and are informed by authentic and hubristic pride (Study 4). Positive and negative affect do not account for the findings. The results provide further evidence of the distinct processes motivating self-enhancement among consumers higher in narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Show less

This research examines the effect of a contagion threat on consumers’ social
connectedness. Across two experiments, we show that when consumers are near others in public
places during a pandemic (but not before or after), they psychologically distance
themselves by perceiving lower social connectedness. This reduction in social connectedness is
higher when consumers have more (vs. less) psychological ownership of the public place (Study
1). Further, the negative effect of… Show more

This research examines the effect of a contagion threat on consumers’ social
connectedness. Across two experiments, we show that when consumers are near others in public
places during a pandemic (but not before or after), they psychologically distance
themselves by perceiving lower social connectedness. This reduction in social connectedness is
higher when consumers have more (vs. less) psychological ownership of the public place (Study
1). Further, the negative effect of psychological ownership on social connectedness found during
(but not after) a pandemic is attenuated when consumers do not believe the disease is a severe
threat to their own health (Study 2). We examine downstream effects by illustrating that both
individual psychological ownership and social connectedness contribute to collective
psychological ownership, which in turn enhances stewardship of the public place. The interacting
effects of a contagion threat and psychological ownership on stewardship are not explained by
territorial infringement, self-esteem, perceived crowding, positive or negative affect, hope or
nostalgia. Show less

How can consumers be encouraged to take better care of public goods? Across four studies, including two experiments in the field and three documenting actual behaviors, the authors demonstrate that increasing consumers’ individual psychological ownership facilitates stewardship of public goods. This effect occurs because feelings of ownership increase consumers’ perceived responsibility, which then leads to active behavior to care for the good. Evidence from a variety of contexts, including a… Show more

How can consumers be encouraged to take better care of public goods? Across four studies, including two experiments in the field and three documenting actual behaviors, the authors demonstrate that increasing consumers’ individual psychological ownership facilitates stewardship of public goods. This effect occurs because feelings of ownership increase consumers’ perceived responsibility, which then leads to active behavior to care for the good. Evidence from a variety of contexts, including a public lake with kayakers, a state park with skiers, and a public walking path, suggests that increasing psychological ownership enhances both effortful stewardship, such as picking up trash from a lake, and financial stewardship, such as donating money. This work further demonstrates that the relationship between psychological ownership and resulting stewardship behavior is attenuated when there are cues, such as an attendance sign, which diffuse responsibility among many people. This work offers implications for consumers, practitioners, and policy makers with simple interventions that can encourage consumers to be better stewards of public goods. Show less

In this research, we document some of the many unusual consumer behavior patterns that came to dominate the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. We offer insights based on theory to help explain and predict these behaviors and associated outcomes in order to inform future research and marketing practice. Taking an environmentally-imposed constraints point of view, we examine behaviors during each of three phases: reacting (e.g., hoarding and rejecting), coping (e.g. maintaining social… Show more

In this research, we document some of the many unusual consumer behavior patterns that came to dominate the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. We offer insights based on theory to help explain and predict these behaviors and associated outcomes in order to inform future research and marketing practice. Taking an environmentally-imposed constraints point of view, we examine behaviors during each of three phases: reacting (e.g., hoarding and rejecting), coping (e.g. maintaining social connectedness, do-it-yourself behaviors, changing views of brands) and longer-term adapting (e.g. potentially transformative changes in consumption and individual and social identity). We discuss implications for marketing researchers and practice. Show less

Results of three experiments reveal that consumers place a higher economic valuation on dogs versus cats, as evidenced by willingness to pay more for life-saving surgery, medical expenses, and specialty pet products, as well as increased word-of-mouth about the pet. This effect is explained by consumers' enhanced psychological ownership of and resulting emotional attachment to the pet. The effect is reversed when a dog acts like a cat and a cat acts like a dog and is due to the perceived… Show more

Results of three experiments reveal that consumers place a higher economic valuation on dogs versus cats, as evidenced by willingness to pay more for life-saving surgery, medical expenses, and specialty pet products, as well as increased word-of-mouth about the pet. This effect is explained by consumers' enhanced psychological ownership of and resulting emotional attachment to the pet. The effect is reversed when a dog acts like a cat and a cat acts like a dog and is due to the perceived ability to control the animal's behavior rather than other attributes intrinsic to the pet. This research offers a first look at psychological ownership of a living creature and its effect on economic valuation. Show less

A simple concept can help businesses capture the attention of potential customers. It’s called psychological ownership. That’s when consumers feel so invested in a product that it becomes an extension of themselves. Companies that encourage psychological ownership can entice customers to buy more products, at higher prices, and even to willingly promote those products among their friends. But if businesses disrespect this feeling, sales can suffer.

Psychological ownership, or the feeling that something is mine, has garnered growing attention in marketing. While previous works focuses on the positive aspects of psychological ownership, this research draws attention to the darker side of psychological ownership, territorial behavior. Results of five experimental studies demonstrate that when consumers feel psychological ownership of a target, they are prone to perceptions of infringement and subsequent territorial responses when they infer… Show more

Psychological ownership, or the feeling that something is mine, has garnered growing attention in marketing. While previous works focuses on the positive aspects of psychological ownership, this research draws attention to the darker side of psychological ownership, territorial behavior. Results of five experimental studies demonstrate that when consumers feel psychological ownership of a target, they are prone to perceptions of infringement and subsequent territorial responses when they infer that another individual feels ownership of the same target. Potential infringers are held less accountable when they acknowledge ownership prior to engaging in otherwise threatening behaviors, and when they could not be expected to know that a target is owned, as it was not clearly marked. In addition, narcissists are subject to a psychological ownership metaperception bias, and are thus more apt than low narcissists to perceive infringement. A multitude of territorial responses are documented for both tangible (coffee, sweater, chair, pizza) and intangible (a design) targets of ownership. Further, consumers infer the psychological ownership of others from signals of the antecedents of psychological ownership: control, investment of self, and intimate knowledge. Theoretical implications for territoriality and psychological ownership are discussed, along with managerial implications and areas for future research. Show less