Name letter preferences are not merely mere exposure: Implicit egotism as self-regulation.

By John T Jones, B. Pelham, Matthew C. Mirenberg, John J. Hetts. 2002

220 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/182bdbc12501aecc04c6281d4af31633ef72d685

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups (2002, background): “For example, Jost and Burgess (2000) demonstrated that greater attitudinal ambivalence toward the ingroup exists among members of low status groups (compared to members of high status groups), dueto the competing pressures of group justification and system justification.”
How to find what's in a name: Scrutinizing the optimality of five scoring algorithms for the name‐letter task (2009, background): “, 2003), feedback sensitivity (Dijksterhuis, 2004), self-regulation (Jones et al., 2002) and defensiveness (Schröder-Abé et al.”
Gender moderates the relation between implicit and explicit self-esteem (2005, unknown): “A study by Jones et al. (2002) yielded similar findings.”
Self-Image Motives and Consumer Behavior: How Sacrosanct Self-Beliefs Sway Preferences in the Marketplace (2007, background): “When people face psychic threats, those with high selfesteem (but not those with low self-esteem) exaggerate how much they prefer the letters in their own name, presumably to repair a positive sense of self (Jones et al., 2002).”
Implicit measures in social cognition. research: their meaning and use. (2003, background): “(d) Following from the documented tendency of people to prefer the letters that appear in their own names, especially their initials (Nuttin 1985), the name-letter preference effect has been employed as an implicit measure of self-esteem (Koole et al. 2001, Jones et al. 2002, Pelham et al. 2002).”
What lies beneath: Parenting style and implicit self-esteem. (2006, methodology): “Participants were further told to “trust your intuitions, work quickly, and report your “gut impressions” (Jones et al., 2002).”
On the nature of implicit self-esteem: The case of the name letter effect. (2002, background): “Jones et al (2002) have also collected data that appear to rule out the mere exposure effect as an explanation for name-letter preferences.”
Name Letter Branding: Valence Transfers When Product Specific Needs Are Active (2005, methodology): “This boost of name letter liking has not been found after people wrote about a personal strength (Jones et al. 2002; Koole et al. 2001).”
The Persuasive Role of Incidental Similarity on Attitudes and Purchase Intentions in a Sales Context (2010, unknown): “In this task, participants were asked either to write down undesirable aspects of who they are and a short description of something that they wish but have not been able to change (“self-threat” condition) or they were asked to write something positive about themselves (“self-affirmation” condition;”
The New C Standard (Excerpted material) An Economic and Cultural Commentary (2008, unknown): “A study by Jones, Pelham, Mirenberg, and Hetts[171] showed that the amount of exposure to different letters had some effect on subject’s choice.”
Self-Enhancement Tendencies Among People With High Explicit Self-Esteem: The Moderating Role of Implicit Self-Esteem (2003, methodology): “…self-enhancement following an overt threat, the idea of the self-zoo may still be relevant: Both Initials-preferences and explicit self-enhancement strategies are thought to serve self-regulatory functions by boosting and=or maintaining high selfesteem (Jones et al., 2002; Taylor & Brown, 1988).”