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

Journal of Marketing ResearchVol. 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 Professorof Marketing, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota (e-mail: [email protected]). Both authors contributed equally to this article.The authors acknowledge many helpful suggestions from the anonymousJMR 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 helpthem perform better. The authors report four studies showing that branduse can enhance feelings of self-efficacy, which can lead to better taskperformance. Students scored higher on difficult Graduate RecordsExamination questions when they took the test using a MassachusettsInstitute of Technology pen (Study 1) and showed better athleticperformance when they drank water from a Gatorade cup duringstrenuous athletic exercise (Studies 2 and 3). These increases in taskperformance were mediated by feelings of self-efficacy (Studies 3 and 4).Furthermore, the results show that not everyone experiences thebeneficial 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, whereasusers adopting incremental theories (incremental theorists) wereunaffected 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 AssociationISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) 233

Consumers face a variety of challenges in their everydaylives. Getting through a tough exercise routine, finishing adifficult work assignment, and disciplining an obstinatechild are just a few examples of activities that present anuphill battle for many people. In each case, consumers mustpersist in the face of obstacles to complete the task. Whenthey fail, it is often because they lack confidence in theirabilities. 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 thegoing gets tough, the tough get going.We propose that brands can help consumers with chal-

lenging situations in their lives. Specifically, we suggest thatusing brands can increase consumers sense of self-efficacy,which refers to the belief in ones capabilities to performwell in a particular situation (Bandura 1995). Self-efficacyis an important regulatory mechanism that governs the levelof challenge people are willing to undertake, and it thus

determines actual performance on challenging tasks (Bandura1982; Wood and Bandura 1989). We posit that consumerscan feel more confident about their ability to perform well(self-efficacy) and can actually perform better when theyuse a brand that promises benefits helpful for performingthe task. For example, consumers engaged in a tough exer-cise routine can feel more confident about their abilitiesand actually perform betterif they exercise while using abrand that promises better athletic performance, such asGatorade 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 animportant moderating factor (Dweck 2000). We find thatpeople who believe that their personal qualities and abilitiescannot be improved by their own efforts (entity theorists)experience a boost in self-efficacy and performance whenusing a brand during a difficult task. In contrast, people whobelieve that they can improve their personal qualities andabilities through their own efforts (incremental theorists)do not experience the self-efficacy boost from using brandsand do not exhibit better task performance.We present four experiments to explore these effects. In

each, participants use a branded product while performing adifficult task, such as taking a graduate school admissionstest (while using a Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[MIT] pen) or engaging in strenuous athletic exercise (whiledrinking tap water from a Gatorade cup). The products, suchas a pen or water, do not have functional qualities that couldaccount for better task performance. For example, a pendoes not have functional qualities that could increase a testtakers intelligence level or ability to answer GraduateRecords Examination (GRE) questions. This aspect of ourstudy enables us to test the brands effects apart from func-tional qualities that could be falsely attributed to the productitself. It also distinguishes our research setting from tradi-tional placebo studies, in which people have a basis fordeveloping false beliefs about inert substances such as asugar pill because pills usually have functional qualities thatcure medical ailments.Our research opens a new area of inquiry in understand-

ing how consumers benefit from using brands. First, brandscan provide a sense of self-efficacy. Consumers often lackthe confidence to engage in challenges that could improvetheir lives, such as exercising strenuously or makinghealthy, home-cooked meals. Self-efficacy is critical forsuccess in these situations, and we find that brands can pro-vide the boost necessary to help many consumers performwell. We also identify the type of consumers (entity theo-rists) who experience such benefits from using brands. Forexample, we find that entity theorists score higher on a diffi-cult graduate school admissions test when using an MIT pento take the test and show better athletic performance whendrinking tap water from a Gatorade cup during strenuousathletic exercise.Second, we identify a process whereby brands can influ-

ence behavior that differs from that detailed in priorresearch. For example, previous studies have found thatincidental exposure to a brand (e.g., brand logos for Apple,Disney) can activate goals and goal-consistent behaviorrelated to the brands image (e.g., being creative, behavinghonestly) (Chartrand et al. 2008; Fitzsimons, Chartrand, andFitzsimons 2008). These effects take place on a noncon-scious level. Although brands can automatically activategoals, 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 toincrease the level of challenge that people are willing toundertake and to perform well on the task (Zimmerman,Bandura, and Martinez-Pons 1992). By focusing our inquiryon difficult tasks, we show that brands can affect behaviorson a conscious level by driving feelings of self-efficacy.This distinction is important on a managerial level becauseit is difficult to communicate nonconscious benefits thatbrands deliver to consumers, but firms can incorporate con-sciously experienced brand benefits into brand messagingand brand promotions.Third, our research confirms the importance of implicit

self-theories in brand research. Prior work has found thatthese beliefs influence how consumers form attitudestoward branded products (Yorkston, Nunes, and Matta2010). Research has also shown that the use of brands canchange peoples self-perceptions about their personalitytraits, but this change only occurs for entity (not incremen-tal) theorists (Park and John 2010). In this article, we showthat, for consumers who hold entity theory beliefs, brandscan raise their sense of self-efficacy and increase their levelof performance when facing challenging tasks. Thus, our

findings confirm the sensitivity of entity theorists to brandcues and extend the realm of influence from self-perceptionsto self-efficacy and task performance. Self-perceptions (e.g.,I am athletic) are broad evaluations of the self, whereasself-efficacy (I am confident I can do well on this exercise)is task specific and is a key determinant of performance onspecific 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 whyimplicit self-theories moderate this effect. Next, we presentthe results of four experiments that demonstrate the self-efficacy effect, with brand usage resulting in heightenedself-efficacy and better task performance for entity theoristsonly. Our findings also support the idea that self-efficacymediates better task performance and that the process takesplace 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 furtherresearch.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUNDIn 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 differentsources of self-efficacy than do incremental theorists. Wesuggest that opportunities to learn and develop skills are apotent source of self-efficacy for incremental theorists,whereas entity theorists rely on assurances that they can besuccessful as a source of self-efficacy. We argue that brandscan provide such assurances and thus can be a source ofself-efficacy, which contributes to better performance forentity theorists.

Self-EfficacySelf-efficacy refers to the belief in ones capabilities to

perform well in a particular situation (Bandura 1995).Beyond this definition, Bandura and Wood have highlightedthree 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 performdifferently because of their utilization and combination ofthese 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 taskperformance. Third, self-efficacy beliefs are linked to dis-tinct realms of functioning (I can do well on this test) asopposed to representing a global trait (I am smart).According to social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is an

important self-regulatory mechanism that governs ongoingmotivation and performance (Bandura 1986). Self-efficacybeliefs increase the level of challenge people are willing toundertake, the amount of effort they expend in meetingthose challenges, and the level of perseverance in the face ofdifficulties in completing the task, resulting in better per-formance (Bandura 1982; Wood and Bandura 1989). Forexample, research has shown that self-efficacy beliefs playan important role in controlling eating disorders (Schneiderand 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-TheoriesPeople develop lay theories regarding the nature of the

social world to interpret, predict, and control their socialworlds (Lickel, Hamilton, and Sherman 2001). Included inthis category are implicit self-theories, which are lay beliefsregarding the malleability of personal qualities. Researchhas identified two types of implicit self-theories: incremen-tal and entity theories. People who endorse incrementaltheory (incremental theorists) view their personal quali-ties as malleable and believe they can improve on thesequalities 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 notbelieve they can change these qualities by devoting effort toself-improvement (Dweck 2000).We propose that these mindsets influence the way people

develop a sense of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs arebased on a persons assessment of whether he or she has theability to perform well on a specific task, and we suggestthat entity and incremental theorists develop confidenceabout their abilities in different ways. Incremental theoristsare more confident about their abilities when they haveopportunities to learn and develop their skills. Becauseincremental theorists believe they can improve their abilitiesif they try, they welcome opportunities to learn and developtheir skills. Moreover, when they engage in these activities,they gain confidence in their abilities (self-efficacy), whichincreases 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 beimproved on through their own efforts, so they show help-less and defensive reactions when given an opportunity tolearn and practice new skills. As a result, these opportunitiesdo not increase self-efficacy for entity theorists (Martocchio1994; Rhodewalt 1994; Robins and Pals 2002).Instead, we propose that entity theorists are more confi-

dent about their abilities when they receive assurances thatthey can perform well on the task. Because entity theoristsbelieve that their abilities are fixed and cannot be improvedeven if they try, they prefer situations in which they areassured of doing well (Dweck and Leggett 1988; Elliott andDweck 1988). For example, college students who are entitytheorists prefer easier courses in which there is an assuranceof getting an A rather than more challenging courses inwhich they could learn more but might receive a C. Incre-mental theorists exhibit the opposite behavior, choosingmore challenging courses even though they may receive alower grade (Dweck and Leggett 1988; Elliott and Dweck1988). Thus, entity theorists feel a lack of confidence abouttheir abilities (low self-efficacy) when they face a challeng-ing taskand, unless they receive assurances that they canperform well, entity theorists tend to do poorly in the task(Robins and Pals 2002).Brands as a Source of AssuranceBrands can provide assurances of success to consumers

through brand promises. A brand promise is a statement ofthe benefits a brand offers to consumers. Many of thesebenefits 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, promisesmore endurance and better athletic performance, whichassures consumers that they can perform better whenengaged in a challenging workout routine or sport if theyuse Gatorade.We predict that entity theorists will use brand promises as

a source of self-efficacy. When engaged in a challengingtask and using a brand that promises better performance onthe task, entity theorists will rely on this promise to increasetheir confidence about performing well on the task. Thisincrease 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 thebrands promise of better athletic performance, whichincreases 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-efficacythrough opportunities to learn and develop their skills.Thus, simply using a brand that promises they can performwell will not be effective in enhancing self-efficacy and taskperformance for incremental theorists. In contrast, incre-mental theorists engaged in a challenging workout routinecan become more confident if they have engaged in oppor-tunities to learn proper workout technique. Thus, engagingin these self-development opportunities will enhance self-efficacy and task performance.

Overview of Empirical StudiesWe examine our predictions in four studies. The first two

studies demonstrate that brand use affects task performancefor entity theorists using different brands (MIT andGatorade), different tasks (GRE test and athletic exercise),and different ways of examining implicit self-theories (mea-sure vs. manipulation). Entity theorists performed better ondifficult GRE questions (Study 1) and a physically challeng-ing athletic exercise (Study 2) when they used a brandpromising 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-efficacyin 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 tipsfor better performance. Using the Gatorade brand increasesself-efficacy and task performance only for entity theorists,whereas receiving training tips increases self-efficacy andtask performance only for incremental theorists. We alsofind that self-efficacy mediates the relationship betweenimplicit 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 betterperformance. We manipulate the credibility of the Gatoradebrand by providing information that either confirms or dis-confirms its promise of better athletic performance. Entitytheorists experience a boost in self-efficacy and task per-formance only when the brand promise is confirmed,whereas incremental theorists are unaffected by whether theGatorade 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 1OverviewUndergraduate 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 theGRE test for entity theorists, particularly for more difficultGRE questions. Test performance for incremental theoristswas unaffected by the pen they used. In addition, entity the-orists using the MIT pen performed better on the GRE testthan did incremental theorists.

Stimuli SelectionWe selected a GRE math test as the task for several rea-

sons. First, the test could be constructed with difficult andeasy questions, using data on the percentage of test takersanswering questions correctly supplied by Educational Test-ing Services (which administers the GRE test). This featureenabled us to examine the idea that brands serve as a sourceof self-efficacy, which is required for difficult but not foreasy tasks. Second, students had little to no experience withthe GRE math test, which eliminated a potential confoundwith 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 itsstudent body, and this is the promise offered to students whoattend. To confirm this notion, we asked a sample of under-graduate students (n = 43) to agree or disagree with fourstatements related to MITs brand promise, such as MITpromises 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 forthe 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 thanfor the Pilot brand (MMIT = 6.56 vs. MPilot = 3.39; t(42) =13.70, p < .001). Furthermore, these ratings did not differfor 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 thetest, so using a pen was unobtrusive. In addition, a pen lacksfunctional attributes that would help the user answer mathquestions more accurately, which is important for two rea-sons. First, it enables us to separate brand effects from thefunctional qualities of a product. Second, it enables us torule out a placebo effect as an explanation for increases intest performance for students using the MIT pen. Placeboeffects occur when people form false beliefs that an inertsubstance (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 factthat pills typically do have active ingredients designed tocure illnesses. In our study, we use a product category(pens) that is not associated with functional qualities thatimprove 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 usingthe MIT pen cannot be attributed to a placebo effect.

Sample and ProcedureEighty undergraduate students (42 men and 38 women)

majoring in business, economics, or engineering at twolarge public universities participated in exchange for coursecredit. Participants who did not complete the study (n = 2)or whose time data were lost (n = 2) were removed from thefinal sample. Participants were told that they were going toparticipate in several different studies to reduce suspicionthat measures and procedures administered at differenttimes 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 pensand was asking for help in evaluating which pens peoplelike most. Participants were randomly assigned to the MITpen condition (n = 40) or the non-MIT pen condition (n =36). In the MIT pen condition, participants were asked toselect a pen from two options, a pen engraved with the MITname or a pen from a less prestigious university. As weexpected, all respondents chose the MIT pen. In the non-MIT pen condition, participants selected a pen from twooptions (a Pilot or Uni-Ball pen), and all choose the moreappealing Pilot pen. Then, they were asked to use the penwhile completing the next study and were told that theywould be asked their opinions about the pen at the end ofthe 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, theywere asked to take a test consisting of 30 math questionsfrom the GRE practice test booklet, using the pen they hadselected earlier. The GRE test is a standardized testdesigned to measure academic abilities, and students weretold that the test has been shown to correlate with intelli-gence tests. Participants had 30 minutes to complete the testand were told that they did not have to complete all thequestions and could stop taking the test whenever theywanted. To enable participants to choose the level of diffi-culty they wanted to try, we phrased each test question toinclude information about the ease or difficulty of answer-ing the question (percentage of test takers answering thequestion 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% ofGRE test takers). After the test, participants evaluated thepen they used for the test. Next, they were asked about thepurpose of the study, and none of the participants answeredcorrectly. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked. Intotal, the study took approximately 50 minutes to complete.

MeasuresGRE test performance. The number of difficult questions

answered correctly (015) and the number of easy questionsanswered correctly (015) was recorded. We also measuredthe 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 ofentity theory (e.g., Everyone is a certain kind of person,and there is not much that they can do to really changethat) and four representative of incremental theory (e.g.,Everyone, no matter who they are, can significantlychange their basic characteristics), on a scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). We combinedresponses for all eight items into a scale (a = .90) afterreversing responses for the entity theory items. Higherscores indicate a stronger belief in incremental theory. Notethat 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 testperformance.Pen evaluation. After taking the GRE test, participants

evaluated the pen (nice design and comfortable grip) ona scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). We com-bined responses to these two items (a = .72) and includedthem as a control measure in the main analysis to accountfor any unpleasant experiences using the pen.

ResultsWe used a mixed model analysis to test our prediction

that entity theorists would perform better on the GRE testwhen using an MIT versus regular pen, but incremental the-orists would not. Furthermore, we expected to observe thebeneficial effect of using the MIT pen for only the difficultGRE questions, on which test takers tend to struggle themost and for which the beneficial effects of using the MITpen should be most pronounced. Our model includedperformance 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-subjectsvariables and GRE question type (difficult = 0, easy = 1) asa within-subject variable. Following Singer (1998), we usedMIXED in SPSS, which enables us to test effects for thebetween-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 andtime 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 controllingfor 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 thisthree-way interaction in more detail and report findingswithin 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 betweenimplicit self-theory and pen condition (b = 1.4, t(70.37) =2.23, p < .05). Figure 1 illustrates the effect, which is plottedat one standard deviation below the mean (1 SD: entitytheorists) and one standard deviation above the mean (+1SD: incremental theorists) of the implicit self-theory meas-ure by substituting these values into the model (Cohen andCohen 1983). To explore this interaction in more detail, weconducted 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 founda significant, positive relationship between pen condition(non-MIT pen = 0, MIT pen = 1) and performance on theGRE 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 theoristsperformed better on the test when using the MIT pen versusa regular pen. Additional simple slope tests within each pencondition (West, Aiken, and Krull 1996) revealed that in theMIT 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 significantdifference in performance between entity theorists andincremental 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 forwhich test takers do not struggle as much to answer thequestions, the effect of using the MIT pen we found previ-ously with entity theorists was not evident.

DiscussionOur findings show that using an MIT pen increased test

scores for some, but not all, students. We found that entity

Figure 1STUDY 1: PERFORMANCE ON THE GRE MATH TEST AS A

FUNCTION OF IMPLICIT SELF-THEORY, BRAND USECONDITION, AND QUESTION DIFFICULTY

A: Difficult Questions

B: Easy Questions

15

12

9

6

3

Perfo

rman

ce

Entity Theorists (1 SD) Incremental Theorists (+1 SD)

MIT penRegular pen

15

12

9

6

3

Perfo

rman

ce


MIT penRegular pen

theorists performed better on difficult GRE math questionswhen using an MIT versus regular pen, whereas the per-formance of incremental theorists was unaffected by the penthey used. These findings support our predictions about thegreater influence of brands on task performance for entityversus 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 whichthe level of difficulty increases as performance increases.We asked participants to press a handgrip, which is initiallyeasy to press but becomes more difficult (due to fatigue) asthe handgrip is pressed more times. Third, we used a differ-ent brand, Gatorade, which offers a brand promise (betterathletic 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 questionwhether preexisting differences between entity and incre-mental theorists could have contributed to test performancedifferences. Although researchers usually measure implicitself-theory, others have shown that these beliefs can bemanipulated by exposing people to information advocatinga particular theory (Chiu, Hong, and Dweck 1997; Park andJohn 2010; Yorkston, Nunes, and Matta 2010). We followtheir approach and expose participants to an article present-ing scientific evidence either that personal qualities areenduring and cannot be easily changed (to manipulate entitytheory) or that personal qualities are malleable and can bedeveloped (to manipulate incremental theory).

STUDY 2Sample and ProcedureOne 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. Participantswere told they were going to participate in several differentstudies.First, participants completed a survey that included per-

sonal background and demographic information. Next, asecond survey was administered that contained the implicitself-theory manipulation (described subsequently). Finally,in the third study, participants were told that Gatorade (IceMountain) was interested in consumer opinions about a newbottled water it was planning to introduce. In the Gatorade(Ice Mountain) condition, participants were given aGatorade paper cup (plain paper cup) filled with tap water.All participants were asked to sign a form if they agreed toevaluate the water, which was intended to discourage themfrom discounting their brand experience as something theywere forced to do, thus potentially decreasing feelings ofself-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 anew product when they experience the product repeatedly.Therefore, they were asked to hold the cup and continuedrinking 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 taskswere included as filler tasks to reduce suspicion about thehandgrip task. Participants were given 15 minutes to exer-cise with the handgrip, but no specific goal was set (for asimilar approach, see Muraven, Tice, and Baumeister 1998).After finishing the handgrip task, participants evaluated thewater they drank during the exercise and were asked aboutthe purpose of the experiment (which none correctlyguessed). Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked.In total, the study took 30 minutes to complete.

Stimuli SelectionWe asked participants to press a handgrip, which had a

counter to record the number of times the handgrip waspressed. Although easy to press initially, the handgrip wasmuch more difficult to squeeze as it was pressed more times.Similar handgrip tasks have been used in self-regulationresearch (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 awarenessof this promise, we asked undergraduate students (n = 42) toagree or disagree with four statements about Gatoradesbrand promise, such as Gatorade promises to help con-sumers enhance their athletic capabilities and Gatoradepromises to help consumers succeed in strenuous athleticexercise (a = .92). For comparison, students responded tothese same items for the other brand of water (Ice Moun-tain) used as a control brand (a = .93). Participants stronglyagreed with the four statements about Gatorade, and thelevel of agreement was significantly stronger than for IceMountain (MGatorade = 6.38 vs. MIce Mountain = 4.52; t(41) =9.67, p < .001). Furthermore, these ratings did not differ forparticipants 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 usersincrease their handgrip strength, which is important for tworeasons. First, it enables us to separate brand effects fromthe functional qualities of the product that participants con-sumed. Second, as described previously, the absence offunctional qualities also differentiates our experimental con-text from placebo effect studies. For example, in placebostudies using energy drink brands (Irmak, Block, and Fitzsi-mons 2005), participants have been told that the beverage isan energy drink, which facilitates the formation of falsebeliefs about the functional qualities of the drink. In ourstudy, participants were told they were drinking bottledwater, and subsequent testing confirmed that they perceivedit as regular water.

Implicit Self-Theory ManipulationWe manipulated implicit self-theories by having partici-

pants read an article presenting views consistent with entityor incremental theory (Chiu, Hong, and Dweck 1997). Wetold participants that we were interested in their opinionsabout the articles. In addition, we asked them to write ashort essay supporting the authors viewpoint. The follow-ing is a sample from each article:

In his talk at the American Psychological Associationsannual 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 neversoften again. He reported numerous large longitudinalstudies showing that people age and develop, but theydo so on the foundation of enduring dispositions.(Entity Theory)In his talk at the American Psychological Associationsannual convention held at Washington D.C. in August,Dr. George Medin argued that no ones character is ashard as a rock so that it cannot be changed. Only forsome, greater effort and determination are needed toeffect changes. He reported numerous large longitudi-nal studies showing that people can mature and changetheir character. He also reported research findingsshowing that peoples personality characteristics canchange, 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 entitytheory article or the incremental theory article and thencompleted a survey that included a measure of implicit self-theory beliefs (Implicit Persons Theory Measure describedin Study 1; a = .95). The results confirmed that participantswho read the entity theory article were more likely to agreewith entity theory beliefs than those who read the incremen-tal theory article (t(54) = 1.85, p < .05).MeasuresHandgrip 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 spentpressing the handgrip and included it as a control variable inthe main analysis.Water evaluation. Participants evaluated the water they

drank on two attributes (crisp and fresh) on a 1 (not atall) to 7 (very much) scale. We combined responses tothese two items (a = .87) and included the resulting meas-ure as a control variable in the main analysis to account forany unpleasant experiences drinking the water.

ResultsWe predicted that participants in the entity theory condi-

tion would perform better when drinking Gatorade versusIce Mountain but that participants in the incremental theorycondition 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, IceMountain) analysis of covariance on handgrip performance,with water evaluation and time spent on the handgrip task ascovariates. As we expected, a significant interactionbetween implicit self-theory and brand use conditionemerged (F(1, 97) = 3.82, p < .05; see Figure 2), even aftercontrolling for water evaluation (F(1, 97) < 1, n.s.) and timespent 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 handgriptask when drinking Gatorade water (tap water in a Gatoradecup) than Ice Mountain water (tap water in a plain cup)(F(1, 97) = 6.92, p < .05). However, participants in theincremental theory condition were not affected by the brandof water consumed (F(1, 97) < 1, n.s.). Additional plannedcomparisons showed that, among participants who drankGatorade 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 individualdifferences 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 theoryconditions on these factors (ps > .60).DiscussionOur findings replicate results from the first study with a

different brand, different brand promise, and different task.Furthermore, our results, obtained using a manipulation ofimplicit self-theory, replicate findings from Study 1, inwhich we measured implicit self-theory as an individual dif-ference variable. Participants who read an article espousingentity theory beliefs performed the handgrip task betterwhen consuming Gatorade versus Ice Mountain water,whereas participants in the incremental theory conditionwere 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 wecould obtain the same effect if participants were simplyexposed to the brand (priming) rather than using it duringthe handgrip task. To explore this possibility, we ran anadditional condition in which participants (n = 65) wereexposed to the Gatorade cup (which was placed on theirdesk with some other study materials) but actually drankwater from a cup with a fictitious brand name (HydroPhase)not associated with any particular benefit or promise relatedto athletic performance in our pretests. If priming is a viablemechanism, we should observe better handgrip performanceamong entity (vs. incremental) theorists. However, therewas no significant difference in handgrip performance

180160140120100806040200

Perfo

rman

ce

Entity Theory Manipulation

Incremental Theory Manipulation

Figure 2STUDY 2: PERFORMANCE ON THE HANDGRIP TASK AS A

FUNCTION OF IMPLICIT SELF-THEORY MANIPULATION ANDBRAND USE CONDITION

GatoradeIce Mountain

between entity and incremental theorists (F(1, 61) = 1.24, p > .25). Thus, simply being exposed to the brand (brandpriming) did not increase handgrip performance for entitytheorists.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 thisfacilitates better performance on the handgrip task. Toexamine this possibility, we ran a condition in which partici-pants (n = 58) were asked to drink water in a cup with theGatorade name or a fictitious brand name (HydroPhase).The procedure followed that of Study 2, except that partici-pants completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedulemood measure (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988) and theimplicit self-theory measure. We conducted a multipleregression analysis with positive mood as the dependentmeasure and implicit self-theory, brand use condition, andtheir interaction as independent variables. We conducted thesame analysis on negative mood. Results of both analysesrevealed no significant main effects or interactions (ps >.20), confirming that mood is not the factor responsible forbetter performance among entity theorists.In the next study, we delve deeper into the process. First,

we measure self-efficacy and show that using the Gatoradebrand increases self-efficacy (and handgrip performance)for only entity theorists. Second, we show why incrementaltheorists are not affected by brand use. Previously, we rea-soned that incremental theorists form self-efficacy byengaging in opportunities to learn and develop their skills ina domain. In our prior studies, no such opportunity was pro-vided, and thus, their handgrip performance did not showimprovement. In Study 3, we provide a learning opportunityby offering training tips to improve skills on the handgriptask and find that self-efficacy increases (and handgrip per-formance increases) for incremental theorists. As weexpected, training tips do not affect entity theorists.Overall, we show that self-efficacy mediates performance

on the handgrip task. We find that handgrip performance isbetter for entity theorists who drink Gatorade water versusreceiving training tips, and this difference is mediated byself-efficacy. Similarly, we show that handgrip performanceis better for incremental theorists who receive training tipsversus drinking Gatorade water, and this difference is alsomediated by self-efficacy.

STUDY 3Sample and ProcedureOne 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 whowere unable to press the handgrip (n = 1) or had problemswith the handgrip counter (n = 1) were removed from thefinal sample. As in our prior studies, participants were toldthat 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 weretold that Gatorade (a national manufacturer) was interested inconsumer opinions about a new bottled water the company

was planning to introduce and were asked to drink water in acup with the Gatorade (HydroPure) name while performingseveral tasks, including the handgrip task, using the sameprocedure as Study 2. Participants in the HydroPure + train-ing tips condition read a one-page article offering tips usefulfor the handgrip exercise before doing the handgrip task.After finishing the handgrip task, participants completed theself-efficacy measure (described subsequently) and evalu-ated the water they had consumed. Then, participants wereasked about the purpose of the study, and none correctlyguessed the purpose. Finally, participants were debriefedand thanked. The study took 30 minutes to complete.

StimuliBrands. 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 enhancetheir athletic capabilities and HydroPure promises to helpconsumers succeed in strenuous athletic exercise (a = .91).Comparing their responses with the same statements forGatorade, we confirmed that participants rated Gatoradehigher than HydroPure in terms of promising better athleticperformance (MGatorade = 6.38 vs. MHydroPure = 4.48; t(41) =11.67, p < .001). Furthermore, these ratings did not differfor entity versus incremental theorists (p > .20).Training tips. We developed an article with tips for several

types of exercise, including handgrips. The article offered thefollowing tip for handgrips: (1) press the grip for as long ascomfortable (2) take a very short break for 23 seconds, and(3) try another round of hand-gripping with graduallyincreased 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 articleand 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) wasgreater than the scale midpoint (t(55) = 9.02, p < .001), indi-cating that participants positively evaluated the informationin the article. Moreover, these ratings did not differ forentity versus incremental theorists (p > .70).Pilot test. To confirm that entity (incremental) theorists

view using the Gatorade brand (training tips) as a source ofself-efficacy, we conducted a pilot study with undergraduatestudents (n = 56). We used the same procedure as in themain study but interrupted participants several minutes intothe handgrip task to ask them questions. In the Gatoradecondition, participants were asked to rate their agreement onthe following items: Thinking about how Gatorade affectspeoples athletic capabilities will make me more confidentabout doing better in the handgrip exercise, and Thinkingabout how Gatorade affects peoples athletic capabilities willmake me feel more confident in my own abilities during thehandgrip exercise (0 = strongly disagree, and 100 =strongly agree; a = .99). As we expected, a regressionanalysis 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 waterevaluation (b = .41, t(25) = 2.47, p < .05).In the HydroPure + training tips condition, participants

agreed or disagreed (using the same 100-point scale) withthe following items: Thinking about how the training tipsaffect peoples athletic capabilities will make me more con-fident about doing better in the hand-grip exercise, andThinking about how the training tips affects peoples ath-letic capabilities will make me feel more confident in myown abilities during the hand-grip exercise (a = .95). Aswe 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 waterevaluation (b = .11, t(25) < 1, n.s.). These findings confirmthat incremental theorists viewed the training tips as asource of self-efficacy, whereas entity theorists viewed theGatorade brand as a source of self-efficacy.

MeasuresImplicit self-theory. We used the same Implicit Persons

Theory Measure (Levy, Stroessner, and Dweck 1998) as inStudy 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 handgripand 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 theexercise (1 = strongly disagree, and 7 = stronglyagree; a = .90). Note that this measure is task specific, asopposed to measuring a general sense of self-efficacy, inline with guidelines for self-efficacy research (Bandura2006).Water evaluation. Participants evaluated the water using

the same scale described in Study 2 (a = .78). We includedthis evaluation as a control variable in the main analysis.

ResultsWe conducted a multiple regression analysis to test our

predictions. The analysis included performance on thehandgrip task as the dependent measure, with implicit self-theory (continuous variable), experimental condition (twodummy variables to represent the three conditions), andtheir interaction as the independent variables. As in the pre-vious studies, we centered scores for the implicit self-theorymeasure and included water evaluation and time spent onthe handgrip task as control variables.As we expected, two significant interactions emerged (see

Figure 3). One was a significant interaction between implicitself-theory and the first dummy variable (Gatorade = 0,HydroPure = 1) (b = .21, t(99) = 1.98, p = .05). The secondwas a significant interaction between implicit self-theory andthe second dummy variable (Gatorade = 0, HydroPure +training tips = 1) (b = .38, t(99) = 3.75, p < .001). Next, weexamine 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 handgripperformance (b = .26, t(99) = 2.02, p < .05). Second, incre-mental theorists who drank HydroPure water performedbetter when they received training tips than when they didnot, as shown by a significant positive relationship betweenthe dummy variable (HydroPure = 0, HydroPure + trainingtips = 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 drinkingGatorade 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 Gatoradewater. First, entity theorists performed better in theGatorade 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 theoristsperformed better when drinking Gatorade versus receivingtraining 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 andincremental theorists were mediated by feelings of self-efficacy. We expected entity theorists to feel a heightenedsense 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 aheightened sense of self-efficacy when learning the trainingtips (vs. using the Gatorade brand), thus resulting in betterperformance.

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Perfo

rman

ce


Gatorade HydroPure HydroPure use+ training tips

Figure 3STUDY 3: PERFORMANCE ON THE HANDGRIP TASK AS A

FUNCTION OF IMPLICIT SELF-THEORY AND SELF-EFFICACYAPPROACH CONDITION

For this analysis, we focused on the Gatorade conditionand the HydroPure + training tips condition. A bootstrapanalysis using the INDIRECT SPSS macro (Preacher andHayes 2008) confirmed a significant mediating pathwayfrom 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 theoristsrely on different approaches to enhance self-efficacy, whichaffects their performance on the handgrip task.

DiscussionIn this study, we provide evidence that entity and incremen-

tal theorists derive feelings of self-efficacy through differentroutes. Entity theorists enhance feelings of self-efficacy byusing the Gatorade brand, which promises to help con-sumers achieve better athletic performance. Incrementaltheorists enhance feelings of self-efficacy by receivingtraining 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 ofself-efficacy because brands offer promises that consumerscan perform better. Thus far, we have shown that brand useincreases self-efficacy and task performance; however, wehave not isolated the effect to brand promises in particular.To do so, we manipulate the credibility of the Gatoradebrand promise in Study 4. We asked participants to drinkGatorade water while performing the handgrip task butmanipulated the credibility of the Gatorade brand promise(improved athletic performance) before the task. Participantsread an article that summarized scientific evidence and expertopinion concluding that (1) Gatorade enhances athletic per-formance (promise confirmation) or (2) Gatorade does notenhance athletic performance (promise disconfirmation).We posit that entity theorists should benefit from using theGatorade brand for the handgrip task only in the confirma-tion condition. In the disconfirmation condition, there is nolonger an assurance that using the Gatorade brand will resultin better athletic performance, which will result in entitytheorists no longer viewing the brand as a valuable sourceof self-efficacy. In contrast, we expect incremental theoriststo remain unaffected by this manipulation because they donot 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 wherebybrand use affects task performance for entity theorists. Inthe 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 taskperformance nonconsciously, performance should not beenhanced when entity theorists are consciously aware of thepositive 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 areconsciously aware of the positive effects of the Gatoradebrand on athletic behavior.

STUDY 4Sample and ProcedureOne hundred fifty-one undergraduate students (88

women and 63 men) participated for extra course credit.They were randomly assigned to one of the experimentalconditions: (1) Gatorade promise disconfirmation + Gatoradeuse (n = 47), (2) Gatorade promise confirmation + Gatoradeuse (n = 49), or (3) Gatorade promise confirmation +HydroPure (control brand) use (n = 55). Participants whowere unable to press the handgrip (n = 1), did not followinstructions (n = 2), or ran out of time to complete the study(n = 6) were removed from the final sample. As in previousstudies, participants were told they were going to participatein 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 secondsurvey was administered that asked participants to read andgive opinions about several articles on various consumertopics, including an article about Gatorade that either con-firmed or disconfirmed the brands promise of enhancingathletic performance. They were then asked to drink waterfrom a Gatorade or HydroPure cup while performing sev-eral tasks, including the handgrip task. The same procedurefrom prior studies was used, with one exception. We pro-vided a difficult goal for the handgrip task (The top 2% ofcollege students can press the handgrip for 600 times ormore in 15 minutes) and instructed participants to try theirbest, enabling us to examine whether our prior results arerobust when a challenging goal is made explicit before thetask.After finishing the handgrip task, participants completed

the same measures as in Study 3. Next, participants wereasked about the purpose of the study, and none correctlyguessed the purpose. Finally, participants were debriefedand thanked. In total, the study took 30 minutes.

Brand Promise ManipulationWe 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 thatGatorade can reduce elevated heart rates in athletes, whichallows them to continue their activities) and concludedwith a statement confirming Gatorades promise (CanGatorade make you more athletic? The resounding answeris YES). For the promise disconfirmation condition, thearticle cited evidence that Gatorade does not help con-sumers enhance athletic performance (e.g., The TexasMedical Association reports that Gatorade can cause ele-vated heart rates in athletes, which causes them to cut backon their activities) and concluded with a statement discon-firming Gatorades promise (Can Gatorade make you moreathletic? 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 thenasked to agree or disagree (1 = strongly agree, and 7 =strongly disagree) with eight statements (e.g., I think thatthe article confirms Gatorades promise of better athleticperformance). We combined responses to these items (a =



.98), and as we expected, participants agreed more withthese statements after reading the confirmation versus dis-confirmation article (Mconfirmation = 2.84 vs. Mdisconfirmation =5.78; t(56) = 10.18, p < .001). Furthermore, we conducted aregression analysis using responses to these items as thedependent variable, including brand promise manipulationcondition, implicit self-theories (a = .92), and their inter-action as independent variables. The results confirm thatentity 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.).MeasuresWe 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 ashaving (not having) unique ingredients to enhance athleticperformance.

ResultsWe conducted a multiple regression analysis to test the

prediction that entity theorists would perform better whendrinking Gatorade water if they read the article confirmingGatorades 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 promisemanipulation. The analysis included performance on thehandgrip task as the dependent measure, with implicit self-theory (continuous variable), experimental condition (twodummy variables to represent the three conditions), and theinteraction between implicit self-theory and experimentalcondition as the independent variables. We centered scoresfor the implicit self-theory measure and included waterevaluation and time spent on the handgrip task as controlvariables.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 .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 entitytheorists viewed Gatorade water as similar to regular water,using the Gatorade brand enhanced their self-efficacy aslong as its brand promise was confirmed.

DiscussionWe found further evidence that entity theorists use brand

promises as a source of self-efficacy, which results in bettertask performance. Entity theorists benefited from using theGatorade brand when the brand promise was confirmed butnot when it was disconfirmed. When the brand promise wasconfirmed, entity theorists used it to assure themselves ofbetter athletic performance. However, when the brandpromise was disconfirmed, it could no longer provide asense of assurance, and therefore, using the Gatorade brandfailed to boost self-efficacy (and athletic performance) forentity theorists. Note that self-efficacy and performance didnot decline for entity theorists when the brand promise wasdisconfirmed. Consistent with our theorizing, this findingsuggests that entity theorists seek out brands as a source ofself-efficacy when facing challenging tasks, and when a brandno longer helps or can hurt their feelings of self-efficacy,they stop relying on the brand as a source of self-efficacy todrive better performance.

These findings also suggest that brand use affects taskperformance for entity theorists through a consciousprocess. Our manipulations of Gatorades brand promisemade the effect of the brand on athletic performance salientto participants. If brand use affects task performance on anonconscious basis, performance should not be enhancedwhen entity theorists are consciously aware of the Gatoradebrands positive effects on athletic behavior (Kramer andBlock 2008; Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely 2005). Yet we foundthat 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 readingthat Gatorade harms performance (disconfirmation condi-tion) did not perform worse than entity theorists who readthe confirmation article but used the HydroPure brand. Ifthe Gatorade article unconsciously affected entity theorists,they should have performed worse in the disconfirmationcondition. Thus, taken together, these results support theidea that entity theorists consciously benefit from brand use.

GENERAL DISCUSSIONWhen a person struggles with a difficult task, can brand

use increase his or her level of performance? The answer isyes. Across four studies, we found that consumers with cer-tain implicit self-theories (entity theorists) benefit fromusing brands that promise better performance. Using a brandsuch as Gatorade increased their sense of self-efficacy inperforming a challenging athletic task, and as a result, entitytheorists 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. Furtherresults supported the view that self-efficacy mediates therelationship between brand usage and task performance andthat the process is conscious in nature.

Contributions to Branding ResearchOur findings add to an increasing body of research show-

ing that brands deliver self-related benefits. Consumers usebrands to express and enhance their self-images, and usingthese brands can actually enhance self-perceptions abouttheir personality traits (Park and John 2010). Beyond thesepurely perceptual effects, we show that using brands canalso enhance self-efficacy, which is an important regulatorymechanism that governs the level of challenge people arewilling to undertake, resulting in better task performance.To illustrate the difference between self-perceptions andself-efficacy, consider research showing that using a brandwith a strong personality (Victorias Secret) can enhanceconsumers self-perceptions about brand-related personalitytraits (feminine and glamorous), if they are entity theorists(Park and John 2010). Could this self-perception effect bethe key determinant of better handgrip performance forentity theorists drinking Gatorade water? We explored thisquestion by measuring self-perceptions of athleticism(along with self-efficacy) in Study 3 and included bothmeasures in a mediation analysis similar to the onedescribed in Study 3. When we included self-perceptions ofathleticism and self-efficacy as mediating factors simultane-ously, a bootstrap analysis using the INDIRECT SPSSmacro (Preacher and Hayes 2008) confirmed self-efficacyas 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-efficacyin driving the improvement in handgrip performance forentity theorists.Our results also complement prior research on noncon-

scious brand priming, which shows that incidental exposureto brands can automatically elicit goals and behaviors(Chartrand et al. 2008; Fitzsimons, Chartrand, and Fitzsi-mons 2008). Here, we show that brands can affect behaviorthrough a conscious route. In Study 2, we ruled out the pos-sibility that our results were due to a nonconscious processby running a separate condition in which participants wereexposed to the Gatorade cup but did not drink water from it.Merely being exposed to the Gatorade name/logo did notenhance task performance for entity theorists. Additionalevidence emerged in Study 4, in which entity theorists whodrank water from a Gatorade cup increased their handgripperformance even when they were made consciously awarethat the Gatorade brand positively affects athletic perform-ance. If Gatorade affected handgrip performance through anonconscious process, performance should not have beenenhanced 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 onbehavior (task performance). In Studies 3 and 4, we provideevidence of mediation using a measure of self-efficacyadministered after completion of the handgrip task, whichavoided the problem that administering the measure beforeor during the task could affect subsequent task performance(Feldman and Lynch 1988). To provide further evidencethat (1) brand use increases self-efficacy (for entity theo-rists) and (2) increases in self-efficacy are accompanied bygreater effort being expended on the task, we conducted asmall study in which self-efficacy and effort were measuredbefore the task. To provide a sense of the task, we gaveundergraduate students (n = 31) five minutes to solve a sam-ple GRE math test with five difficult questions while usingthe MIT pen. Then, participants were asked how confidentthey would be (two items; 0 to 100 scale; a = .92) and howmuch effort they would expend (four items, 0 to 100 scale;a = .95) if they were asked to take a GRE test with 30 mathquestions for 30 minutes. As we expected, a regressionanalysis 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 Hayes2008) confirmed a significant mediating pathway fromimplicit self-theories to intended effort on the next GRE testthrough self-efficacy (95% CI: 1.03, .03). These findingsprovide added support for the view that brand use canenhance self-efficacy for entity (but not incremental) theo-rists and that increases in self-efficacy lead to greater effortbeing expended to perform well in a challenging task.Finally, we contribute to an understanding of individual

differences in the way brands influence behavior. Priorresearch on placebo effects and nonconscious brand priming(two major lines of research providing evidence that brands

can affect behavior) has shown that brands influence someconsumers more than others. For example, brand primingresearch has reported that incidental exposure to brandlogos unconsciously elicits goal-directed behavior, but theeffect is stronger for consumers with a stronger motivationto achieve the goals that brands activate (Fitzsimons, Char-trand, and Fitzsimons 2008). In addition, placebo studiesreveal 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 alsoindicates individual differences, showing that brand useaffects 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 motivatedto depend on and experience the benefits the brand promiseoffers, as opposed to incremental theorists, who are moremotivated to develop their own skills and abilities as a wayto develop self-efficacy. Thus, a consistent theme across allthree lines of research is that individual differences exist inthe degree to which brands influence behavior.

Managerial ImplicationsOur 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, thesebrand elements should be cast as assuring consumers thatthey can achieve, perform better at, or succeed at challeng-ing tasks relevant to the brand. Advertising copy, consumertestimonials, or even brand slogans could contain these sen-timents. Examples of this execution strategy can be found inslogans such as You can do it. We can help (Home Depot)and Be all that you can be (U.S. Army). These slogansshould appeal to entity theorists, although entity theoristswould 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 thisstrategy would be tips and videos for getting the best per-formance from products. Although these types of tips areoften included with products, our findings suggest thatincremental theorists (who believe they can develop theirabilities) are most likely to find these tips appealing.Firms could target these different promotional strategies

to entity and incremental theorists in several ways. First, acustomer database or online customer profile could includemeasures of implicit self-theories. Then, advertising appealscould be tailored for entity versus incremental theorists anddelivered through e-mail, website links, or pop-up windows.Another option would be to prime consumers to be entitytheorists through ad copy and images consistent with entitytheory 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 DirectionsOur 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-specificimplicit self-theories such as intelligence (Erdley et al.1997; Robins and Pals 2002), morality (Chiu, Hong, andDweck 1997; Dweck and Leggett 1988), shyness (Beer2002), self-control (Mukhopadhyay and Johar 2005), andrelationships (Knee 1998). For example, research has foundthat self-control lay theories, which refer to the amount ofself-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 thebelief that self-control is limited but malleable, self-efficacybeliefs predict performance well. Extending this line ofresearch to our context, it would be worthwhile to examinewhether self-control lay theories moderate the effect ofbrand 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-efficacyas they accumulate experiences with challenging tasks.Prior research has shown that entity theorists exhibitdecreasing patterns of self-efficacy as they are exposed todifficult situations repeatedly (Robins and Pals 2002). Wespeculate that if entity theorists are able to use brands as acrutch 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 stableset of self-efficacy beliefs and performance over time. Fur-thermore, as entity theorists develop self-efficacy beliefsover 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 brandeditems we used were designed to strip away functional bene-fits associated with the brand. For example, recall that theGatorade water was tap water poured into a Gatorade logocup. What would happen if participants used a branded itemwith which they could also experience the brands func-tional aspects that can improve their abilities? We wouldexpect that self-efficacy effects might be the same or a bitstronger for entity theorists. However, the real differencecould emerge for incremental theorists, who might experi-ence feelings of self-efficacy from observing actualimprovement in their abilities from the functional aspects ofthe brand. An intriguing possibility is that all consumersderive a sense of self-efficacy from using brands, but entitytheorists respond to the assurance of better performancethey receive from brand use, whereas incremental theoristsrespond to functional aspects of the brand.The pursuit of these lines of inquiry holds the promise of

delivering insights into the way consumers interact withbrands and how this interaction influences their own behav-ior. Studies that incorporate actual brand use, similar to ourresearch, can be an important addition to prior work that hastypically 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 andbehaviors shape, and are shaped by, their consumptionexperiences.

REFERENCESAiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regression:Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Bandura, Albert (1982), Self-Efficacy Mechanism in HumanAgency, American Psychologist, 37 (2), 12247.

(1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A SocialCognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

(1988), Reflection on Nonability Determinants of Compe-tence, in Competence Considered: Perceptions of Competenceand Incompetence Across the Lifespan, Robert J. Sternberg andJohn Kolligian Jr., eds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,31562.

(1993), Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Developmentand Functioning, Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 11748.

(1995), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York:Freeman.

(2006), Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales, inSelf-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Vol. 5, Frank Pajares andTim Urdan, eds. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing,307337.

and Daniel Cervone (1983), Self-Evaluative and Self-Efficacy Mechanisms Governing the Motivational Effects ofGoal 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), 10091024.

Chartrand, Tanya L., Joel Huber, Baba Shiv, and Robin J. Tanner(2008), Nonconscious Goals and Consumer Choice, Journalof Consumer Research, 35 (2), 189201.

Chiu, Chi-Yue, Ying-Yi Hong, and Carol S. Dweck (1997), LayDispositionism and Implicit Theories of Personality, Journal ofPersonality 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 Approachto Motivation and Personality, Psychological Review, 95 (2),25673.

Elliott, Elaine S. and Carol S. Dweck (1988), Goals: AnApproach 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), RelationsAmong 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-GeneratedValidity 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: ATheoretical 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 toWant It to Work, Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (Novem-ber), 406409.

Jones, Edward E., Frederick Rhodewalt, Steven Berglas, andJames A. Skelton (1981), Effects of Strategic Self-Presentationon Subsequent Self-Esteem, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 41 (3), 407421.

Kramer, Thomas and Lauren Block (2008), Conscious and Non-Conscious Components of Superstitious Beliefs in Judgmentand 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 ImplicitTheories, 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 Abilityon Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, and Learning in Training, Journal ofApplied 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 KeepingResolutions, 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 andSchool Success: Self-Efficacy, Self-Concept, and SchoolAchievement, in International Perspectives on Individual Dif-ferences: Self-Perception, Vol. 2, Richard J. Riding and StephenRayner, eds. Westport, CT: Ablex, 23965.

Park, Ji Kyung and Deborah Roedder John (2010), Got to GetYou 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 ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 88 (2), 24562.

Preacher, Kristopher and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), Asymptoticand Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indi-rect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models, Behavior ResearchMethods, 40 (3), 87991.

Rhodewalt, Frederick (1994), Conceptions of Ability, Achieve-ment Goals, and Individual Differences in Self-HandicappingBehavior: On the Application of Implicit Theories, Journal ofPersonality, 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 andIdentity, 1, 31336.

Schneider, John A. and W. Stewart Agras (1985), A CognitiveBehavioural Group Treatment of Bulimia, British Journal ofPsychiatry, 146 (1), 6669.

Shiv, Baba, Ziv Carmon, and Dan Ariely (2005), Placebo Effectsof Marketing Actions: Consumers May Get What They PayFor, Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (November), 38393.

Singer, Judith D. (1998), Using SAS Proc Mixed to Fit MultilevelModels, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models,Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24 (4), 32355.

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 andSocial Psychology, 54 (6), 106370.

West, Stephen G., Leona S. Aiken, and Jennifer L. Krull (1996),Experimental Personality Designs: Analyzing Categorical byContinuous Variable Interactions, Journal of Personality, 64(1), 148.

Wood, Robert E. and Albert Bandura (1989), Social CognitiveTheory of Organizational Management, Academy of Manage-ment Review, 14 (3), 36184.

Yorkston, Eric A., Joseph C. Nunes, and Sashi Matta (2010), TheMalleable Brand: The Role of Implicit Theories in EvaluatingBrand Extensions, Journal of Marketing, 74 (January), 8093.

Zimmerman, Barry J., Albert Bandura, and Manuel Martinez-Pons(1992), Self-Motivation for Academic Attainment: The Role ofSelf-Efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal Setting, AmericanEducational Research, 29 (3), 66376.

Copyright of Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) is the property of American MarketingAssociation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to alistserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

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