Unfortunately, only a small percent of pathological gamblers seek the professional help they need. In the current study, we test the idea that individual differences in reward sensitivity should predict whether a pathological gambler has sought treatment—the odds of treatment seeking should decrease as reward sensitivity increases. This hypothesis rests on the proposition that reward sensitive pathological gamblers should find treatment seeking aversive because doing so would remove a route to reward. We also tested those motivations to gamble that are positively reinforcing (social affliction and self-enhancement) as a possible mechanism by which reward sensitivity undermines treatment seeking—we did not anticipate negatively reinforcing motivations (e.g., coping) to be a mechanistic variable. Ninety-two pathological gamblers completed a large-scale survey that contained the variables of interest. As predicted, pathological gamblers were less likely to have sought treatment as reward sensitivity increased. Moreover, this relationship was mediated by social affiliation motivations to gamble, but not self-enhancement or coping motives. Reward sensitive gamblers did not wish to seek treatment to the extent that they were motivated to gamble for the social interactions it provides—seeking treatment would cut this avenue of affiliation with others. In light of these results, we suggest health care professionals take reward sensitivity into account when trying to promote treatment seeking, to say nothing of the social affiliation motives that underlie the reward sensitivity-treatment seeking link.

Purpose This study aims to explore the role of brand personality traits in explaining how different levels of brand favorability evoke affect from and forge connections to consumers. Design/methodology/approach The authors used a quantitative approach consisting of within-subjects (Study 1) and between-subjects (Study 2) experimental designs. Mediation analyses were tested using OLS regression with the MEMORE and PROCESS macros. Findings Findings suggest increases in brand excitement and sincerity to be related to differences in positive affect evoked by favorable and unfavorable brands; decreases in brand sincerity to be related to differences in negative affect between favorable and unfavorable brands (Study 1); brand competence and excitement to be related to the relationship between brand favorability and self-brand connection; and brand competence and excitement to best distinguish favorable brands from unfavorable brands (Study 2). Originality/value These results support the importance of brand personality traits that are considered to be universally positive and provide managers with an initial roadmap for which brand personality traits should be prioritized when communicating with consumers.

No abstract

Drawing on recent evidence suggesting that beliefs about contagion underlie the market for celebrity‐contaminated objects, the current work investigates how people can make biased dispositional judgments about consumers who own such objects. Results from four experiments indicate that when a consumer comes in contact with a celebrity‐contaminated object and behaves in a manner that is inconsistent with the traits associated with that celebrity, people tend to make more extreme judgments of them. For instance, if the celebrity excels at a particular task, but the target who has come into contact with the celebrity‐contaminated object performs poorly, people reflect more harshly on the target. This occurs because observers implicitly expect that a consumer will behave in a way that is consistent with the traits associated with the source of contamination. Consistent with the law of contagion, these expectations only emerge when contact occurs. Our findings suggest that owning celebrity‐contaminated objects signals information about how one might behave in the future, which consequently has social implications for consumers who own such objects.