2014
DOI: 10.1086/674196
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Interactive Effect of Beliefs in Malleable Fate and Fateful Predictions on Choice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
(58 reference statements)
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, the question of manipulating and measuring mindsets brings up two important questions. The first relates to the relationship between domain-general mindsets (Levy et al, 1998) and the specific domains researched in extant literature such as human intelligence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), brand personality (Mathur, Jain, & Maheswaran, 2012), and fate (Kim, Kulow, & Kramer, 2014), to name a few. Relatedly, it is unclear how domain-specific mindsets may interact with one another.…”
Section: Methodological Considerations: Manipulation and Identificatimentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Further, the question of manipulating and measuring mindsets brings up two important questions. The first relates to the relationship between domain-general mindsets (Levy et al, 1998) and the specific domains researched in extant literature such as human intelligence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), brand personality (Mathur, Jain, & Maheswaran, 2012), and fate (Kim, Kulow, & Kramer, 2014), to name a few. Relatedly, it is unclear how domain-specific mindsets may interact with one another.…”
Section: Methodological Considerations: Manipulation and Identificatimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, recent research reveals that a fixed mindset may help benefit entity theorists. For example, Kim et al (2014) have shown that those who have a fixed mindset about their fate may be less likely than incremental theorists to choose indulgent options when they anticipate an unfavorable day. Incremental theorists choose indulgent options because they are ‘depleted’ (Baumeister, 2002) after trying to build positive illusions about changing their fate.…”
Section: The Role Of Signaling and Learning In Self‐enhancementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use the term consumption to include consumers’ personal preferences for an array of physical goods and abstract concepts. For example, implicit beliefs of the malleability of fate can change consumer preferences between healthy and indulgent choices (Kim et al, ). Consumer researchers have implicated implicit beliefs in changing consumer preferences for more abstract qualities, such as risk‐taking tendencies in financial decision‐making (Rai & Lin, ) or evaluations of various line‐queueing systems (Mathur, Block, & Yucel‐Aybat, ).…”
Section: Consumption Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fate beliefs are intrinsically linked to cultural worldviews (Young, Morris, Burrus, Krishnan, & Regmi, ) and social axioms (Leung et al, ; Zhou, Leung, & Bond, ), and beliefs dealing with the malleability of fate lead to different preferences for healthy and indulgent offerings. For instance, those possessing an incremental view of fate and receive favorable predictions tend to indulge themselves, but individuals receiving unfavorable predictions are less likely to do so (Kim et al, ). Conversely, people with an entity view of fate do not alter their preferences based on the valence of the fateful predictions.…”
Section: Consumption Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation