Wikipedia

Thành viên:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/Birthday-number effect

< Thành viên:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh

Hiệu ứng số – sinh nhật là xu hướng của tiềm thức con người, khiến họ yêu thích những con số có trong ngày sinh của mình hơn các số khác. Hai nhà tâm lý học người Nhật Bản Kitayama Shinobu và Karasawa Mayumi là những người đầu tiên nghiên cứu hiệu ứng này, vào năm 1997; sau đó, thí nghiệm của họ được tái hiện ở nhiều quốc gia khác nhau. Hiệu ứng có ảnh hưởng với mọi giới tính và tuổi tác, nhưng đặc biệt mạnh với những số lớn hơn 12.

Hầu hết mọi người đều thích chính bản thân mình. Sinh nhật có liên quan đến bản ngã, và do đó, họ sẽ yêu thích các số trong ngày sinh hơn, dù những số này còn xuất hiện ở rất nhiều ngữ cảnh khác. Những người không thích bản thân cũng thường không chịu ảnh hưởng từ hiệu ứng số – sinh nhật. Tương đồng với hiệu ứng số – sinh nhật, hiệu ứng chữ cái – tên có tác dụng đặc trưng đối với các chữ cái: con người có thiên hướng yêu thích những chữ cái trong tên mình hơn. Hai hiệu ứng nói trên tương quan rất mạnh với nhau. Khi đánh giá tâm lý, bài kiểm tra Yêu thích Chữ số được dùng để đo mức độ tự tôn nội tại.

Người ta tìm được một số bằng chứng cho thấy hiệu ứng này có ảnh hưởng đến các quyết định ngoài đời thực. Một tiểu cứu trong môi trường phòng thí nghiệm chỉ ra rằng con người sẽ thích giá tiền của một vật hơn nếu giá đó bị kiểm soát để có liên quan đến ngày sinh của họ, từ đó gia tăng khả năng mua hàng, nhưng một tiểu cứu khác sử dụng ngày sinh làm giá tiền lại không cho cùng kết quả như vậy. Kết quả nghiên cứu về mức độ ưa thích sản phẩm cũng cho thấy những đối tượng tự tôn cao sẽ thích một vật gì đó hơn nếu tên vật đó có chứa các chữ cái và số trong tên hoặc ngày sinh của họ. Một số nghiên cứu rộng hơn về tác động của hiệu ứng số – sinh nhật đối với các quyết định lớn trong đời (như chọn nơi ở) gây khá nhiều tranh cãi.

Cơ sở

Trong lịch sử, các xã hội đều từng coi trọng một hoặc một vài con số nào đó.[1][2] Ví dụ, người La Mã cổ đại coi số 7 là điềm lành,[3] nền văn minh Maya tôn thờ số 13,[4] người Nhật thường tặng quà theo bộ số ba, năm, hoặc bảy để cầu phúc, người Trung Quốc thường dùng số 8 vì cho rằng đây biểu tượng của vận may, và thường sẽ tránh dùng số 4.[5] Ở các nền văn hoá phương Tây, thuật ngữ "triskaidekaphobia" ("hội chứng sợ số 13") hình thành vì người dân coi số 13 là xui rủi.[6]

Các thí nghiệm có kiểm soát về các con số bắt nguồn từ những năm 1933, khi nhà nghiên cứu Dietz hỏi các đối tượng người Hà Lan con số (từ 0 đến 99) mà họ nghĩ đến đầu tiên.[7][8] Thí nghiệm cho thấy họ trả lời số 7 nhiều nhất; các phiên bản tái hiện sau này ở các quốc gia khác cũng cho kết quả tương tự.[8][9][10][a] Trong các tiểu cứu về con số yêu thích, số 7 cũng là một trong những câu trả lời xuất hiện nhiều nhất.[13][14][15][16] Một cuộc biểu quyết trực tuyến của Alex Bellos, một biên tập viên chuyên mục cho tờ The Guardian, đã thu hút hơn 30.000 người từ khắp nơi trên thế giới tham gia bỏ phiếu, và 7 là số được chọn nhiều nhất. Mọi số nhỏ hơn 100, và khoảng một nửa các số nhỏ hơn 1000, đều có ít nhất một phiếu.[17][b] Hai nhà nghiên cứu thị trường Dan King và Chris Janiszewski nghiên cứu về con số yêu thích theo một cách khác; họ cho các sinh viên đại học xem những số được chọn ngẫu nhiên và yêu cầu đối tượng chọn nhanh một trong ba cảm nhận: thích, không thích, hoặc trung tính. Số 100 được nhiều người yêu thích nhất (70% đối tượng) và ít người không thích nhất (5%). Trung bình, các số từ 1 đến 20 được yêu thích hơn 9% các số từ 21 trở lên, còn các tích số trong bảng cửu chương (tức là từ   đến  ) thì được yêu thích hơn 15% so với các số còn lại. King và Janiszlewski kết luận rằng tính quen thuộc sẽ có ảnh hưởng mạnh đến cảm nhận: số trong bảng cửu chương sẽ được nhiều người thích hơn số nguyên tố.[19]

Các nghiên cứu về chữ cái yêu thích, một lĩnh vực có liên quan mật thiết, đã có từ những năm 1950. Năm 1985, nhà tâm lý học người Bỉ Jozef M. Nuttin, Jr. ghi nhận rằng con người có xu hướng yêu thích các chữ cái trong tên mình với mức độ khác nhau nhưng không tự nhận thức được điều này. Hàng chục tiểu cứu sau đó trong nhiều điều kiện khác nhau, như ngôn ngữ, văn hoá, hệ thống ký tự, cùng các yêu cầu đa dạng, như chọn một chữ cái từ một cặp ngẫu nhiên, chọn ra 6 chữ cái từ một bảng, hay đánh giá mức độ yêu thích từng chữ cái khác nhau, đều xác nhận hiệu ứng chữ cái – tên.[20] Nuttin dự đoán rằng, bởi vì nguyên nhân gây ra hiệu ứng chữ cái – tên là sự yêu thích vô thức bất kỳ thứ gì liên quan đến bản ngã, có lẽ hiệu ứng số – sinh nhật cũng tồn tại.[21][22]

Tiểu cứu gốc

Năm 1997, hai nhà nghiên cứu Kitayama Shinobu và Karasawa Mayumi quan sát kết quả các tiểu cứu và nhận thấy rằng, khác với người châu Âu và người Mỹ, người Nhật không ham muốn giữ gìn và củng cố tự tôn cá nhân.[23] Những nghiên cứu trên các đối tượng phương Tây cho thấy họ thường tin lầm rằng bản thân mình tốt hơn mức trung bình,[24] là nhân tố dẫn đến thành công, hay đổ lỗi thất bại cho người khác,[25] và ước tính quá cao xác suất may mắn đến với mình.[26] Ngược lại, các nghiên cứu với đối tượng người Nhật lại chỉ ra rằng họ không có những thiên hướng tự đề cao trên.[27] Ngoài ra, trong các tiểu cứu liên văn hoá, hai nhóm đối tượng này cũng cho kết quả trái ngược nhau: người Nhật cho rằng lòng tự trọng của họ sẽ chịu nhiều tổn thương khi thất bại hơn là cảm giác tích cực khi thành công, còn người Mỹ thì ngược lại.[28] Tất cả All these studies involved participants being aware that their self-esteem was being evaluated, and hence they are said to be measures of explicit self-esteem.[28] This made Kitayama and Karasawa wonder. It seemed unlikely to them that Japanese have no positive feelings attached to their selves. They hypothesized that somehow Japanese do not allow these feelings to be detected overtly. To test this, they ran two experiments that hid the aim of assessing self-esteem, measuring instead tự tôn nội tại.[28] Because by definition implicit self-esteem is not accessible to nội quan, measures of it do not rely on direct self-reports but on the degree to which objects associated with the self generate positive versus negative thoughts.[29][30][31] The first experiment was a replica of Nuttin's 1987 study of letter preference, looking for an effect tied to letters of the participant's name.[32][33] The second experiment involved numbers, looking for an effect tied to numbers representing the day of the month a participant was born (between 1 and 31) and the month of their birthday (between 1 and 12).[34]

Phương pháp

For the letter experiment, they asked 219 Japanese undergraduate students to rate each of the 45 hiragana, part of the Japanese writing system, according to how much they liked it.[32] For the number experiment, they asked 269 Japanese undergraduate students to rate the numbers between 0 and 49 on attractiveness. The number 49 was chosen as the upper limit to mask the true aim of the study, which 31 (being the maximum number of days in a month) might have hinted at. Likewise, the number 0 was included for disguise. Participants had to give ratings on a six-point scale, ranging from 1, if they disliked the number very much, to 6, if they liked it very much. Once done, participants were asked for various demographic data, including their birthdays.[34]

Kết quả

Analysis of the letter preference data revealed a name-letter effect: an enhanced liking for letters in the participant's own name.[35] Analysis of the number preference data revealed a birthday-number effect. For each number, the researchers first calculated the mean liking by participants who did not have that number in their birthday. These means served as a baseline. For each participant 50 relative liking scores were computed between the baseline of a number and the actual preference.[c] The mean liking scores for different types of numbers showed that participants disproportionately preferred numbers in their birthday. The effect was stronger for higher numbers, over 12, than for lower numbers. The effect was weakest for males and their birth month (only a 0.03 difference from the mean), and strongest for females and the day of their birthday (0.77 difference with the mean). Overall, women showed a greater liking for the numbers in their birthday than men did.[37]

Giải thích

Kitayama and Karasawa concluded that the patterns in the findings from both experiments were most consistent with the hypothesis that the preference is due to an attachment to the self. These feelings leak out to stimuli that are closely associated with the self, not just names and birthdates, but also, implicitly, their constituent letters and numbers.[38][d] Since most people like themselves,[41] most people are found to have positive feelings for these constituent parts. The researchers suggested that the effect is stronger for higher numbers because in daily life these numbers are less saturated with other meanings, other than their associations with birthdays.[42]

An alternative explanation for the birthday-number effect that had to be tested is mere exposure. If it were true that the numbers in one's birthday are used disproportionately in one's daily life, then the preference for numbers in one's birthday could simply be a preference for what is most frequent. Zajonc found in his 1960s and 1980s lab studies that familiarity can strongly influence preference, and coined the term "mere exposure effect".[43][44] But Kitayama and Karasawa argued that even if people did see numbers from their own birthday more, this would still be negligible in comparison to the overall quantity of numbers they encounter in daily life.[e] This is in line with the argument other researchers have used to rule out mere exposure as an explanation for the name-letter effect.[42][45]

Kitayama and Karasawa concluded that Japanese people do indeed have warm feelings towards themselves, just like Americans and Europeans, but that these feelings are masked when explicitly asked for. They speculated that the reason for this masking lies in the Japanese tendency to attend to negative, undesirable features by way of improving the self.[46]

Các tiểu cứu sau

Tính đến 2017, nghiên cứu của Kitayama và Karasawa đã được chú dẫn trong hơn 300 tài liệu khoa học khác nhau.[47]

Early follow-up studies

The first follow-up study looked at cultural differences. Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell used US undergraduate students as participants to replicate the original study. In their paper presented at the American Psychological Association's annual conference in Chicago, in August 1997, they reported the same result: a preference for birthday numbers. They did find a much stronger effect though, which according to the researchers could be due to Americans' tendency towards self-enhancement.[48][49]

The second follow-up study was done in 1998 by Kitayama and Uchida. They sought to investigate the relationship between a person's name-letter effect and his or her birthday-number effect, given that Kitayama and Karasawa had suspected a single driving force behind both. As they had predicted, Kitayama and Uchida found that within a person the two effects were correlated.[50] Later studies confirmed this finding.[51]

In 2000, Bosson, Swann and Pennebaker tested seven measures of implicit self-esteem, including the birthday-number task and name-letter task, and four measures of explicit self-esteem.[36] They used a seven-point rating scale instead of the six-point scale Kitayama and Karasawa had used, and they only looked at the day of the birthday. On average, respondents scored their birthday number 0.73 higher than the other numbers. When the researchers retested all seven implicit self-esteem measures, the birthday-number task was one of three that produced similar results.[52] From the weak or non-significant correlations between the implicit and explicit self-esteem measures they concluded that implicit and explicit self-esteem are tapping different underlying constructs.[52]

Later follow-up studies

Later studies investigated aspects of the effect. Koole, Dijksterhuis, and van Knippenberg sought to explore how automatic the preference process was. They did this with both numbers and letters. They divided participants into two groups. The first group was asked to give quick, intuitive reactions stating preferences for the stimuli. The second group was asked to reason why they liked some numbers better than others and to analyse which features of the numbers they liked. As the researchers had predicted, they found that both the birthday-number effect and name-letter effect disappeared in the ‘thinking’ condition. They argued that thinking about reasons instigates deliberative overriding of implicit self-esteem effects.[53] This conclusion was supported by looking at correlations between the effects: whereas in the feeling condition the strength of a participant's birthday-number effect was correlated to his or her name-letter effect, no such correlation was found in the thinking condition.[54]

Jones, Pelham, Mirenberg, and Hetts investigated how the effect held up under so-called 'threats' to the self. Earlier research by Koole, Smeets, van Knippenberg, and Dijksterhuis had already shown that the name-letter effect is influenced by a perceived threat.[55] Jones, Pelham, Mirenberg, and Hetts first made some participants write about a personal flaw and then gave all participants the Number Preference Task and the Letter Preference Task. What they found was consistent with previous findings: people who liked themselves a lot liked the numbers in their birthday and the letters of their name even more when an aspect of their self seemed under threat. This is predicted by the theory of unconscious self-enhancement. It can not be explained by mere exposure theory.[56][57]

Nickell, Pederson, and Rossow looked for effects with significant years. They asked 83 undergraduate students to rate, on a scale from 1 to 7, how much they liked the years between 1976 and 2001, the months of the year, the seasons, times of day, and even types of pet in an attempt to disguise the aim of the study. Analysis of the data showed that participants liked the year of their birth much more than the average of the four years after they were born. The researchers also found that the year of high school graduation was also liked better than average. Of the months of the year, the most liked month was the one in which the participants were born.[58]

Falk, Heine, Takemura, Zhang and Hsu investigated the validity of implicit self-esteem measures to assess cultural differences.[59] They subjected Canadian and Japanese participants to a series of tests, one of which was rating the numbers to 40 by how much participants liked them.[60] Because the researchers saw little to no correlation between the various implicit self-esteem measures, they did not draw any conclusions about cultural differences.[61] Stieger and Krizan explored cross-cultural differences in number preferences, specifically the day on which Christmas is celebrated as a contributor to number preference. They asked participants from six countries to rate numbers between 1 and 36. They found that in countries where gifts are exchanged on 24 December participants disproportionately preferred the number 24, whereas in countries that do this on 25 December participants preferred 25.[62] They concluded that cultural influences need to be taken into account if these preferences are used to reflect individual differences.[63]

Ứng dụng

In psychological assessments, the birthday-number effect has been exploited to measure implicit self-esteem.[64] The Number Preference Task is often used in combination with the more popular Letter Preference Task, sometimes jointly called the Initials and Birthday Preference Task (IBPT).[36][64] The most popular method to measure implicit self-esteem is the Implicit Association Test.[65]

There is no standard method for applying the task. The most commonly used one is a rating task, which involves having participants judge all the numbers under a certain threshold (typically over 31 to mask the purpose of assessing connections to dates), indicating how much they like them on a 7-point rating scale.[36] There is no standard algorithm for calculating implicit self-esteem. At least six algorithms are in use. In their meta-analysis of the name-letter effect, Stieger, Voracek, and Formann recommend using the ipsatized double-correction algorithm.[66] The algorithms are typically applied to both the number of the day and of the month.[36][66]

Stieger, Voracek, and Formann recommend that the task involve both letter preference and number preference, that it be administered twice, and that the instructions focus on liking rather than attractiveness.[67] The Number Preference Task has been used to measure implicit self-esteem in contexts as diverse as parenting[51] and mental habits.[68]

Ý nghĩa bao quát

Researchers have looked for wider implications of the birthday-number effect on preferences, both inside and outside the lab. A body of controversial research under the umbrella of implicit egotism, starting with Pelham, Mirenberg, and Jones, has investigated whether people unknowingly make life decisions based on their name letters or birthday numbers.[57][69][70] Skeptics say that the claim that letters influence life decisions is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence.[71] Based on analysis of US field data Pelham et al. concluded that people disproportionately live in towns whose names contain numbers that match the numbers in their birthday. They looked at people who were born on 2 February, 3 March, 4 April, etc. up to 8 August, and at people who lived in towns with numbers in them, such as Two Rivers, Three Oaks, Four Corners, etc.[72] But in his critical analysis of this study Simonsohn argued that its reliability is questionable, as it found only a small number of residents with matching numbers. Simonsohn tried to replicate the finding in different ways but without success. He found no effect of just the day of birthday on the town (e.g. the second of any month, not just February). He also found no effect of birthday number on street, address, or apartment number.[73]

Jones, Pelham, Carvallo and Mirenberg investigated the influence of number preference on interpersonal attraction. In a lab study they showed US participants text profiles of people. The profiles came with a prominently displayed, seemingly arbitrary code that was explained as merely to help the researchers keep track of the profiles. One half of the participants were shown a code that matched their birthday (e.g. someone born on 8 September saw a partner profile with the code "09-08"); the other half a non-matching code (e.g. "03-23"). All participants were shown exactly the same profile. They had to rate how much they thought they would like the person in the profile. The results showed that participants liked the profiles significantly more when the code matched their own birthday numbers.[74] Relative to participants in the control condition, participants in the birthday-association condition could at the end of the test more accurately recall the code, but only 5 of 110 participants mentioned the matching code as a potential influence. Jones et al. concluded that people's preferences for their own birthday numbers are potent enough to influence people's attraction to other people.[75] Pelham and Carvallo subsequently looked at interpersonal attraction using field data. They used statewide marriage records to conclude that people disproportionately marry people who share their birthday numbers.[69] They also found that brides disproportionately chose their own birthday numbers and birth months as wedding dates.[76][f]

Coulter and Grewal investigated if the birthday-number effect could be exploited in sales and marketing. Over 200 participants of an online survey were asked about an advertisement for a pasta dinner, where the price was secretly matched to the day of the month of their birthday. For example, someone born on the 16th of a certain month would see the price "$39.16". The researchers found that matching numbers increased price liking and purchase intention. When introducing a perceived threat to the self into the task, they found an exaggerated effect. From this they concluded that the positive affect linked to birthday-numbers transfers directly to consumers’ price predilections, and ultimately affects their purchase intentions.[80] Keller and Gierl sought to replicate Coulter and Grewal's study. They manipulated the prices in advertisements for pizza and a music streaming service to match the birthday (day, year) of the participants in their lab study. They did not find any disproportionate liking of matching prices, neither for the year the participant was born in or the day. Keller and Gierl concluded that there must be some prerequisites such as priming stimuli to trigger the effect, although they suggested it is possible that their participants, who all happened to have been born between 1990 and 1999, saw their birthyear as price so often in real life that it had become too common.[81]

Smeets used name and birthday matching in a product-liking experiment. He made up product names for a DVD that matched both part of the participant's name and his or her birthday. For example, a participant named Mariëlle, born on 14 May, would get an ad for a DVD-player named "DVD-Ma 14" in the self-relevant condition and "DVD-Pu 30" in the control condition. He found that high self-esteem participants liked products more if the product names were self-relevant than if they were not. He also found the opposite happened among low self-esteem participants: they liked products better if they were not self-relevant.[82]

Chú giải, chú thích và tham khảo

Chú giải

  1. ^ Khi Kubovy và Psotka giảm giới hạn xuống các số từ 20 đến 29, đa số người tham gia sẽ nói đến số 27.[8] Hai nhà nghiên cứu lập luận rằng với dạng nhiệm vụ này, các đối tượng sẽ đưa ra những câu trả lời nghe có vẻ phù hợp với một yêu cầu đòi hỏi phản ứng tự phát.[11] Họ suy đoán rằng các số khác có vẻ quá rõ ràng, và 7 là số đặc biệt nhất trong các số từ 0 đến 9: không có bội số nào của 7 nằm trong 10 số trên.[11] Tuy nhiên, những đứa trẻ thì khác: trẻ từ 8 đến 9 tuổi không thường nghĩ đến số 7 đầu tiên.[12]
  2. ^ Các số lẻ nhận nhiều phiếu hơn số chẵn. Bellos giải thích rằng nguyên nhân là vì các số lẻ có nhiều ý nghĩa về tâm linh hơn số chẵn ở cả phương Đông và phương Tây.[17] Quá trình xử lý của bộ não đối với hai loại số có vẻ cũng khác nhau: nhà nghiên cứu ước tính tốc độ phản xạ Hines phát hiện ra quá trình nhận diện "số lẻ là lẻ" ở con người sẽ tốn nhiều thời gian hơn "số chẵn là chẵn".[5][18]
  3. ^ An alternative scoring algorithm is to take the mean of all of a respondent's ratings and subtract that from his or her birthday-number rating. But as Bosson, Swann, and Pennebaker later argued, this does not control for common preference effects.[36]
  4. ^ Previous studies had already proven that birthdays are a positively valued part of the self-concept.[39] Finch and Cialdini, for example, manipulated some participants into thinking they shared their birthday with Rasputin. These people rated him more favourably than the control group.[40]
  5. ^ Kitayama and Karasawa found a name-letter effect even for the high-frequency letters, which helped convince them mere exposure is not the driving force behind the two effects.[42]
  6. ^ There is a body of research into the effects of knowing a birthday match exists. Jiang, Hoegg, Dahl and Chattopadhyay examined the role of a salesperson and a potential customer knowingly sharing a birthday in a sales context. They found such an incidental similarity can result in a higher intention to purchase. This persuasive effect stems from the need for connectedness.[77] Similarly, Burger, Messian, Patel, del Prado and Anderson investigated the impact sharing a birthday with someone has in the context of making a request. Some participants were led to believe they shared a birthday with the requester, who asked for an overnight critique of an eight-page English paper. Whereas in the control group 34% of participants complied with the request, in the birthday group 62% complied. Burger et al. wrote that this is caused by the incidental association producing fleeting feelings of attraction. Participants reacted in a heuristic fashion, acting as if they were dealing with a friend.[78] An analysis of large databases of lottery number picks revealed that people disproportionately selected numbers matching their birthdays.[79]

Chú thích

  1. ^ Schimmel 1994, tr. 4, back cover.
  2. ^ Bellos 2015, tr. 3.
  3. ^ Schimmel 1994, tr. 139.
  4. ^ Schimmel 1994, tr. 207.
  5. ^ a b Bellos 2015, tr. 4.
  6. ^ Wells 1997, tr. 67.
  7. ^ Dietz 1933.
  8. ^ a b c Kubovy & Psotka 1976, tr. 291.
  9. ^ Heywood 1972.
  10. ^ Simon & Primavera 1972.
  11. ^ a b Kubovy & Psotka 1976, tr. 294.
  12. ^ Wiegersma 1979, tr. 472.
  13. ^ Saito 1999, tr. 532.
  14. ^ Philbrick 1976.
  15. ^ Kuloğlu và đồng nghiệp 2009, tr. 113.
  16. ^ Milikowski & Elshout 1996, tr. 13.
  17. ^ a b Bellos 2015, tr. 5.
  18. ^ Hines 1990, tr. 40.
  19. ^ King & Janiszewski 2011, tr. 329–330.
  20. ^ Hoorens 2014.
  21. ^ Nuttin 1985, tr. 359.
  22. ^ Nuttin 1987, tr. 383.
  23. ^ Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 736.
  24. ^ Chambers 2008, tr. 878.
  25. ^ Miller & Ross 1975.
  26. ^ Taylor & Brown 1988, tr. 193.
  27. ^ Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 736–737.
  28. ^ a b c Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 737.
  29. ^ Greenwald & Banaji 1995, tr. 4,10–11.
  30. ^ Spalding & Hardin 1999, tr. 535.
  31. ^ Krizan & Suls 2008, tr. 522.
  32. ^ a b Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 738.
  33. ^ Nuttin 1987, tr. 381.
  34. ^ a b Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 739.
  35. ^ Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 738–739.
  36. ^ a b c d e Bosson, Swann & Pennebaker 2000, tr. 635.
  37. ^ Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 739–740.
  38. ^ Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 738–740.
  39. ^ Kesebir & Oishi 2010, tr. 1526.
  40. ^ Finch & Cialdini 1989, tr. 222.
  41. ^ Greenwald & Banaji 1995, tr. 10.
  42. ^ a b c Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 740.
  43. ^ Zajonc 1968, tr. 1.
  44. ^ Zajonc 1980, tr. 151.
  45. ^ Greenwald & Banaji 1995, tr. 10–11.
  46. ^ Kitayama & Karasawa 1997, tr. 737,741.
  47. ^ Google Scholar 2017.
  48. ^ Blass và đồng nghiệp 1997.
  49. ^ Kitayama & Markus 1999, tr. 286–287.
  50. ^ Kitayama & Markus 1999, tr. 286.
  51. ^ a b DeHart, Pelham & Tennen 2006, tr. 5.
  52. ^ a b Bosson, Swann & Pennebaker 2000, tr. 636.
  53. ^ Koole, Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg 2001, tr. 673–674.
  54. ^ Koole, Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg 2001, tr. 675.
  55. ^ Koole và đồng nghiệp 1999, tr. 111.
  56. ^ Jones và đồng nghiệp 2002, tr. 170.
  57. ^ a b Pelham, Mirenberg & Jones 2002, tr. 479.
  58. ^ Nickell, Pederson & Rossow 2003, tr. 161–163.
  59. ^ Falk và đồng nghiệp 2015, tr. 57.
  60. ^ Falk và đồng nghiệp 2015, tr. 59.
  61. ^ Falk và đồng nghiệp 2015, tr. 66.
  62. ^ Stieger & Krizan 2013, tr. 187–188.
  63. ^ Stieger & Krizan 2013, tr. 190.
  64. ^ a b Stieger, Voracek & Formann 2012, tr. 70.
  65. ^ Hoorens 2014, tr. 230.
  66. ^ a b Stieger, Voracek & Formann 2012, tr. 71.
  67. ^ Stieger, Voracek & Formann 2012, tr. 76.
  68. ^ Verplanken và đồng nghiệp 2007, tr. 534.
  69. ^ a b Pelham & Carvallo 2015, tr. 692.
  70. ^ Jones và đồng nghiệp 2004, tr. 665.
  71. ^ Danesi 2012, tr. 84.
  72. ^ Pelham, Mirenberg & Jones 2002, tr. 478–479.
  73. ^ Simonsohn 2011.
  74. ^ Jones và đồng nghiệp 2004, tr. 672.
  75. ^ Jones và đồng nghiệp 2004, tr. 674.
  76. ^ Pelham & Carvallo 2015, tr. 706.
  77. ^ Jiang và đồng nghiệp 2010, tr. 778.
  78. ^ Burger và đồng nghiệp 2004, tr. 37–38.
  79. ^ Wang và đồng nghiệp 2016, tr. 247.
  80. ^ Coulter & Grewal 2014.
  81. ^ Keller & Gierl 2017, tr. 39–42.
  82. ^ Smeets 2009, tr. 47–49.

Tham khảo

  • Bellos, Alex (2015). Alex Through the Looking Glass: How Life Reflects Numbers, and Numbers Reflect Life. London: Bloomsbury Paperbacks. ISBN 978-1-4088-4572-1.
  • Blass, T.; Schmitt, C.; Jones, E.; O'Connell, M. (1997). “The own-birthday effect: From Japan to the United States”. Paper Presented at the 105th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
  • Bosson, Jennifer K.; Swann, William B.; Pennebaker, James W. (2000). “Stalking the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: the blind men and the elephant revisited?”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 79 (4): 631–643. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.371.9919. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.631. PMID 11045743.
  • Burger, Jerry M.; Messian, Nicole; Patel, Shenabi; del Prado, Alicia; Anderson, Carmen (2004). “What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30 (1): 35–43. doi:10.1177/0146167203258838. PMID 15030641. S2CID 2109021.
  • Chambers, John R. (2008). “Explaining false uniqueness: Why we are both better and worse than others”. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2 (2): 878–894. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00076.x.
  • Coulter, Keith S.; Grewal, Dhruv (2014). “Name-letters and birthday-numbers: Implicit egotism effects in pricing”. Journal of Marketing. 78 (3): 102–120. doi:10.1509/jm.13.0059. S2CID 154091141.
  • Danesi, Marcel (2012). Linguistic Anthropology: A brief introduction. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. ISBN 978-1-55130-489-2.
  • DeHart, Tracy; Pelham, Brett W.; Tennen, Howard (2006). “What lies beneath: Parenting style and implicit self-esteem”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 42 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.12.005.
  • Dietz, P. A. (1933). “Over onderbewuste voorkeur”. Nederlandsche Tijdschrift voor Psychologie (bằng tiếng Hà Lan). 1: 145–162.
  • Falk, Carl F.; Heine, Steven J.; Takemura, Kosuke; Zhang, Cathy X.J.; Hsu, Chih‐Wei (2015). “Are Implicit Self‐Esteem Measures Valid for Assessing Individual and Cultural Differences?”. Journal of Personality. 83 (1): 56–68. doi:10.1111/jopy.12082. PMID 24299075.
  • Finch, John F.; Cialdini, Robert B. (1989). “Another indirect tactic of (self-) image management: Boosting”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 15 (2): 222–232. doi:10.1177/0146167289152009. S2CID 145492527.
  • Google Scholar (2017). “Citations for Implicit self-esteem in Japan: Name letters and birthday numbers”. Google Scholar.
  • Greenwald, Anthony G.; Banaji, Mahzarin R. (1995). “Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes”. Psychological Review. 102 (1): 4–27. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.411.2919. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4. PMID 7878162.
  • Heywood, Simon (1972). “The Popular Number Seven or Number Preference”. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 34 (2): 357–358. doi:10.2466/pms.1972.34.2.357. S2CID 144045559.
  • Hines, Terence M. (1990). “An odd effect: Lengthened reaction times for judgments about odd digits”. Memory & Cognition. 18 (1): 40–46. doi:10.3758/BF03202644. PMID 2314226.
  • Hoorens, Vera (2014). “What's really in a name-letter effect? Name-letter preferences as indirect measures of self-esteem”. European Review of Social Psychology (Submitted manuscript). 25 (1): 228–262. doi:10.1080/10463283.2014.980085. S2CID 144292531.
  • Jiang, Dan; Hoegg, Joandrea; Dahl, Darren W.; Chattopadhyay, Amitava (2010). “The persuasive role of incidental similarity on attitudes and purchase intentions in a sales context”. Journal of Consumer Research. 36 (5): 778–791. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.606.9269. doi:10.1086/605364.
  • Jones, John T.; Pelham, Brett W.; Mirenberg, Matthew C.; Hetts, John J. (2002). “Name letter preferences are not merely mere exposure: Implicit egotism as self-regulation”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 38 (2): 170–177. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1497.
  • Jones, John T.; Pelham, Brett W.; Carvallo, Mauricio; Mirenberg, Matthew C. (2004). “How do I love thee? Let me count the Js: Implicit egotism and interperson attraction”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 87 (5): 665–683. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.468.9494. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.665. PMID 15535778.
  • Keller, Barbara; Gierl, Heribert (2017). “Can advertisers benefit from the name-letter-and birthday-number effect?”. Trong Zabkar, Vesna; Eisend, Martin (biên tập). Advances in Advertising Research VIII. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. tr. 31–44. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-18731-6_3. ISBN 978-3-658-18731-6.
  • Kesebir, Selin; Oishi, Shigehiro (2010). “A spontaneous self-reference effect in memory : Why some birthdays are harder to remember than others”. Psychological Science. 21 (10): 1525–1531. doi:10.1177/0956797610383436. PMID 20855903. S2CID 22859904.
  • King, Dan; Janiszewski, Chris (2011). “The Sources and Consequences of the Fluent Processing of Numbers”. Journal of Marketing Research. 48 (2): 327–341. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.2.327. S2CID 41442056.
  • Kitayama, Shinobu; Karasawa, Mayumi (1997). “Implicit self-esteem in Japan: Name letters and birthday numbers”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 23 (7): 736–742. doi:10.1177/0146167297237006. S2CID 143602622.
  • Kitayama, Shinobu; Markus, Hazel Rose (1999). “Yin and yang of the Japanese self: The cultural psychology of personality coherence”. Trong Cervone, Daniel; Shoda, Yuichi (biên tập). The Coherence of Personality: Social Cognitive Bases of Personality Consistency, Variability, and Organization. New York: Guilford Press. tr. 242–302. ISBN 978-1-57230-436-9.
  • Krizan, Zlatan; Suls, Jerry (2008). “Are implicit and explicit measures of self-esteem related? A meta-analysis for the Name-Letter Test”. Personality and Individual Differences. 44 (2): 521–531. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.017.
  • Koole, Sander L.; Dijksterhuis, Ap; van Knippenberg, Ad (2001). “What's in a name: implicit self-esteem and the automatic self” (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80 (4): 669–685. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.669. hdl:1871/17530. PMID 11316229.
  • Koole, Sander L.; Smeets, Karianne; van Knippenberg, Ad; Dijksterhuis, Ap (1999). “The cessation of rumination through self-affirmation”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (1): 111–125. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.111.
  • Kubovy, Michael; Psotka, Joseph (1976). “The predominance of seven and the apparent spontaneity of numerical choices”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2 (2): 291–294. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.2.2.291.
  • Kuloğlu, Murat; Caykoylu, Ali; Yılmaz, Elif; Akyol, Esra; Ekinci, Okan; İbiloğlu, Aslıhan; Gecici, Omer (2009). “Do psychiatric disorders affect color and number preferences?”. Yeni Symposium. 47 (3): 113–119.
  • Milikowski, Marisca; Elshout, Jan J. (1996). Numbers as friends and villains (PDF) (Bản báo cáo). Amsterdam: Rekencentrale. Bản gốc (PDF) lưu trữ ngày 2 tháng 4 năm 2015. Truy cập ngày 23 tháng 7 năm 2017.
  • Miller, Dale T.; Ross, Michael (1975). “Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction”. Psychological Bulletin. 82 (2): 213–225. doi:10.1037/h0076486.
  • Nickell, Gary; Pederson, Katie; Rossow, Cassie (2003). “The birthdate effect: An extension of the mere ownership effect”. Psychological Reports. 92 (1): 161–163. doi:10.2466/PR0.92.1.161-163. PMID 12674276.
  • Nuttin, Jozef M., Jr. (1985). “Narcissism beyond Gestalt and awareness: the name letter effect”. European Journal of Social Psychology. 15 (3): 353–361. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150309.
  • Nuttin, Jozef M., Jr. (1987). “Affective consequences of mere ownership: The name letter effect in twelve European languages”. European Journal of Social Psychology. 17 (4): 381–402. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420170402.
  • Pelham, Brett W.; Mirenberg, Matthew C.; Jones, John T. (2002). “Why Susie sells seashells by the seashore: Implicit egotism and major life decisions”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82 (4): 469–487. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.469. PMID 11999918.
  • Pelham, Brett; Carvallo, Mauricio (2015). “When Tex and Tess Carpenter build houses in Texas: Moderators of implicit egotism”. Self and Identity. 4 (6): 692–723. doi:10.1080/15298868.2015.1070745. S2CID 145572523.
  • Philbrick, Joseph L. (1976). “Blue seven in East Africa: Preliminary report”. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 42 (2): 484. doi:10.2466/pms.1976.42.2.484. S2CID 147282868.
  • Saito, Miho (1999). “"Blue and seven phenomena" among Japanese students”. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 89 (2): 532–536. doi:10.2466/pms.1999.89.2.532. PMID 10597589. S2CID 25528943.
  • Schimmel, Annemarie (1994). The Mystery of Numbers. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-508919-6.
  • Simon, William E.; Primavera, Louis H. (1972). “Investigation of the "blue seven phenomenon" in elementary and junior high school children”. Psychological Reports. 31 (1): 128–130. doi:10.2466/pr0.1972.31.1.128. S2CID 145778128.
  • Simonsohn, Uri (2011). “Spurious? Name similarity effects (implicit egotism) in marriage, job, and moving decisions”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Submitted manuscript). 101 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1037/a0021990. PMID 21299311. S2CID 207744109.
  • Smeets, Raymond (2009). On the Preference for Self-related Entities: The Role of Positive Self-associations in Implicit Egotism Effects. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: UB Nijmegen. ISBN 978-90-90-24290-3.
  • Spalding, Leah R.; Hardin, Curtis D. (1999). “Unconscious unease and self-handicapping: Behavioral consequences of individual differences in implicit and explicit self-esteem”. Psychological Science. 10 (6): 535–539. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00202. S2CID 146547054.
  • Stieger, Stefan; Krizan, Zlatan (2013). “Cultural influences on number preferences: Christmas and grading systems”. The Psychological Record. 63 (1): 185–192. doi:10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.1.014. S2CID 44257776.
  • Stieger, Stefan; Voracek, Martin; Formann, Anton K. (2012). “How to administer the Initial Preference Task”. European Journal of Personality. 26: 63–78. doi:10.1002/per.823. S2CID 144719071.
  • Taylor, Shelley E.; Brown, Jonathon D. (1988). “Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health”. Psychological Bulletin. 103 (2): 193–210. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.385.9509. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193. PMID 3283814.
  • Verplanken, Bas; Friborg, Oddgeir; Wang, Catharina E.; Trafimow, David; Woolf, Kristin (2007). “Mental habits: Metacognitive reflection on negative self-thinking”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 92 (3): 526–541. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.526. PMID 17352607.
  • Wang, Tong V.; Potter van Loon, Rogier J.D.; van den Assem, Martijn; van Dolder, Dennie (2016). “Number preferences in lotteries”. Judgment and Decision Making. 11 (3): 243–259. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2657776. hdl:1871.1/1e7b6f50-61b0-4893-bdad-c54f906d74d1. S2CID 54701125.
  • Wells, David (1997). The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers (ấn bản 2). London: Penguin books. ISBN 978-0-14-026149-3.
  • Wiegersma, S. (1979). “No "seven phenomenon" in eight-and nine-year-old children”. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 49 (2): 472–474. doi:10.2466/pms.1979.49.2.472. S2CID 143668952.
  • Zajonc, Robert B. (1968). “Attitudinal effects of mere exposure”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 9 (2, Pt.2): 1–27. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.453.9341. doi:10.1037/h0025848.
  • Zajonc, Robert B. (1980). “Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences”. American Psychologist. 35 (2, Pt.2): 151–175. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151.
Lấy từ “https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thành_viên:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/Birthday-number_effect&oldid=67903176”