Magical Contagion: a Review of Contagion Effects in Consumer Contexts

EMBODIED COGNITION AND SENSORY MARKETING

Catching (Up with) Magical Contagion: A Review of Contagion Effects in Consumer Contexts

JULIE Y. HUANG, JOSHUA M. ACKERMAN, AND GEORGE E. NEWMAN

ABSTRACT Over 20 years have passed since magical contagion was first introduced to psychology; we discuss how psychological and consumer behavior findings since then have deepened our understanding of this phenomenon. Re- cent research has shed light on the psychological mechanisms that underlie consumers’ contamination concerns (e.g., the behavioral immune system, disgust), confirming that people’s germ-related intuitions affect a wide variety of consumer judgments in areas that are only indirectly linked to disease-related threats (used products, [un]]familiar products, products contacting each other). Moreover, recent findings have also documented the ways that nonphysical essences might transfer from people to objects (celebrity products; positive consumer contagion). This recent body of work extends contagion research by demonstrating that physical contact is not a prerequisite for essence transfer and that the types of essences that are contagious are broader than originally conceived. We close by discussing future research into how magical contagion affects consumer and firm decision making.

he concept of contagion was first articulated by an- ior that can be observed in actual market contexts (New- T thropologists in the late nineteenth century to de- man and Bloom 2014). For instance, contagion has been scribe a set of cultural practices related to the trans- used to explain behaviors across many different domains, fer of unseen properties (Frazer 1890/1959; Mauss 1902/ including the valuation of consumer products (Argo et al. 1972). In particular, people across several different cul- 2006, 2008; Morales and Fitzsimons 2007; Newman and tures seemed to hold the belief that objects could acquire Dhar 2014), celebrity possessions (Newman et al. 2011; the aura or “essence” of a particular source through phys- Newman and Bloom 2014), the choice of organ transplant ical contact with that source (Rozin, Millman, and Nemer- donors (Hood et al. 2011; Meyer et al. 2013), preferences off 1986). for sacred land (Rozin and Wolf 2008), the valuation of The seminal research of Paul Rozin, Carol Nemeroff, and original artworks (Newman and Bloom 2012), cross-cultural colleagues (e.g., Rozin et al. 1986, 1989; Rozin and Nemer- differences in collecting behavior (Gjersoe et al. 2014), off 1990; Nemeroff and Rozin 1994) is arguably respon- gambling decisions (Wohl and Enzle 2002; Mishra, Mishra, sible for importing concepts about this transfer, or “conta- and Nayakankuppam 2009), ability and performance (Lee gion,” into the behavioral sciences, in particular social and et al. 2011; Kramer and Block 2014), and even romantic cognitive psychology. Over 20 years have passed since this relationships (Niemyjska 2014). initial flurry of research was conducted. Since then, work Given these recent advances, we believe it is an oppor- on contagion has surged. tune time to revisit research on contagion processes in light In particular, a growing body of research within psychol- of what these new approaches have discovered and their ogy and consumer behavior (e.g., Rozin et al. 1986, 1989, contribution to consumer psychology. We begin by briefly 2007; Argo, Dahl, and Morales 2006, 2008; Hood et al. reviewing earlier work by Rozin and colleagues, which pro- 2011; Kim and Kim 2011; Newman, Diesendruck, and Bloom vided useful frameworks to identify contagion beliefs. We 2011; Gjersoe et al. 2014; Newman and Dhar 2014; Smith, then summarize advances in consumer behavior since then, Newman, and Dhar 2015; Stavrova et al. 2016) has demon- specifying when and how such developments support or strated that contagion beliefs influence modern day behav- expand original conceptualizations of contagion effects. Fi-

Julie Y. Huang is an assistant professor at the College of Business, Stony Brook University. Joshua M. Ackerman is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. George E. Newman is an associate professor at the School of Management, Yale University.

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Volume 2 Number 4 2017 431 nally, we propose future research directions that extend our Early findings in the contagion literature established understanding of magical contagion, focusing on the impli- the breadth and ubiquity of contagion-related beliefs.1 For cations for consumers and products alike. example, people reported wanting to avoid touching previously neutral items if they were contacted by a range of neg- MAGICAL CONTAGION: A LITTLE CONTACT ative sources, including “disliked” peers (Rozin et al. 1986, GOES A LONG WAY 1989) and individuals for whom they held negative impres- Part of a larger conceptual framework known as the “laws of sions (“unsavory character, bum, or streetperson”; Rozin sympathetic magic” (Frazer 1890/1959), the law of conta- et al. 1989). Conversely, participants showed a preference gion holds that “people, objects, and so forth that come into for items that had contacted positive sources, like close contact with each other may influence each other through friends, lovers, or people to whom they were most sexually the transfer of some or all of their properties” (Nemeroff attracted (Rozin et al. 1986, 1989; Nemeroff and Rozin and Rozin 1994, 159). This law describes the notion that ob- 1994). Taken together, these phenomena suggested that objects may acquire unseen characteristics including a “soul” jects can be meaningfully understood as having a contact or “essence” of an entity through physical contact (Frazer history, and that this history has potential implications for 1890/1959; Mauss 1902/1972; Rozin et al. 1986). For ex- others who evaluate or come into contact with them. ample, Frazer discusses populations in New Guinea where It is important to note that much of the early work estab- individuals believe “everything with which a man comes lishing magical contagion appears to emphasize the phys- in contact retains something of his soul-stuff” (1890/ icality of contagion effects. According to earlier concep- 1959, 68; Nemeroff and Rozin 1994). tualizations of contagion, the most “contagious” objects are Contagion beliefs are thought to be conceptual analogues actual physical remnants of a person, such as clippings of to, and perhaps derived from, an understanding of how hair, fingernails, or umbilical cords, but such beliefs also pathogenic and parasitic agents infect the body through extend to inanimate objects, such as possessions. As Rozin contact (Rozin and Nemeroff 1990, 2002; Nemeroff and and Nemeroff (1990) write, “Essence has a number of char- Rozin 1994). Such conceptual systems that track the spread acteristics that suggest that it is a physical substance. of disease contaminants extend to the judgment of physical Most critically, it is passed on by physical contact” (210), traces and moral essences which originate from specific peo- thereby stressing the quasi-physical properties common to ple (e.g., Nemeroff and Rozin 1994). Phenomena attributed many contagious substances, including their transferability to the law of contagion are characterized by a number of from source to object. Similarly, initial demonstrations of specific features, including permanence, holographic prop- contagion beliefs relied heavily on people’sintuitionsregard- erties, and dose insensitivity (see Rozin and Nemeroff [1990, ing the prospect of physical contact with contaminated ob- 2002] for a review). Specifically, permanence indicates that jects. In a prototypical study (e.g., Rozin et al. 1986, 1989; a direct physical encounter with a source or a contaminated Nemeroff and Rozin 1994), participants would rate their object—however brief—is sufficient enough to result in willingness to contact a neutral object (e.g., sweater; hair- long-term transfer of properties from a source to a recipient brush) on a scale anchored by 2100 (“the most unpleasant (colloquially described as “once in contact, always in con- thing you can imagine”)to1100 (“the most pleasant thing tact”; Rozin et al. 1986). The holographic principle, or “the you can imagine”). Using the same scale, participants then part equals the whole,” suggests that even a small amount re-rated the object, this time imagining that it had been con- of an essence contains all or most of the characteristics of tacted by various sources. These ratings where then com- its source (e.g., a lock of hair contains the essential nature of person; Rozin and Nemeroff 1990, 219). Finally, dose insensitivity (also known as dose independence) suggests that 1. Earlier work on contagion also distinguished between forward contagion versus backward contagion. With forward contagion, an essence (ei- essence transmission does not require a large amount of con- ther contained in a medium or transferred directly by the source) influ- tamination (Rozin and Nemeroff 1990). Indeed, even small ences a recipient; in backward contagion, acting on an essence that has quantities of negative residue are capable of producing com- been imparted in a medium has the power to act back on its original source paratively large effects on the object or person touched, as (as when one enacts harm on a voodoo doll in order to cause harm to the person represented by the doll; Rozin et al. 1989; Rozin and Nemeroff when brief contact with a roach spoils a glass of juice (Rozin 1990). Since the majority of research conducted in consumer behavior fl et al. 1986) or contact with a small y effectively ruins an has focused on instances of forward contagion (cf. Kramer and Block entire plate of food. 2011), this article does not further address this issue.

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). 432 Catching (Up with) Magical Contagion Huang, Ackerman, and Newman pared to the initial ratings as an index of whether conta- firm that people’s intuitions about physical, transmissible gion effects were operating to increase or decrease partic- essences underlie a wide variety of consumer judgments, ipants’ inclinations to interact with the objects. even in areas which are only indirectly linked to disease- Despite the emphasis on the presumed physicality of the related threats. Moreover, recent research shows that noncontagious essence, researchers identified a number of nonphysical contagion effects exert unique and important in- corporeal essences that were transmissible through physical fluences, even in actual market contexts. We map where contact. Specifically, essences could be of an “interpersonal- these phenomena are consistent with earlier conceptuali- moral” nature (containing “some nonmaterial essence of zation of contagion effects. Additionally, we observe that the source,”“akin to ‘vibes,’” “personal energy,” or “soul- these findings address features of contagion that were not stuff”), or they could be meaningfully identified as having specifically addressed by earlier models—namely, that phys- a physical substance (microbial or “dependent on sensible, ical contact is not a prerequisite for essence transfer, and perceptible residues”; Nemeroff and Rozin 1994). In gen- that an increasingly broad variety of essences have been eral, cleansing actions were believed to be most effective found to transfer. In the next sections, we discuss research at negating contamination by physical essences, while sym- focusing both on physical and nonphysical models of con- bolic activities (e.g., “canceling out” negative contamination tagion. on an object by exposing it to the essence of a positively valenced source) were believed to be more successful for Developments regarding Physical Models of Contagion interpersonal-moral substances. (Note, however, that even Advances in understanding processes relevant to physical in these earlier publications, Nemerfoff and Rozin [1994] contagion have been made within two fields—consumer be- observe the many similarities between these physical and havior and evolutionary psychology. Both approaches posit interpersonal-moral dimensions and the “blurry” bound- forms of contagion with similar mechanistic properties. aries between.) Based on this work, Rozin and colleagues These include the importance of physical contact for trans- argued for the pervasiveness of contagion effects in modern- ferring essences and a central role of disgust as a mediating day contexts. Their initial insights set the stage for a deeper emotion. However, there are key differences in the types and more precise understanding of the psychology of con- of processes and outcomes investigated. The consumer ap- tagion and, in so doing, helped to orient an abstract and proach has tended to focus on outcomes related to val- seemingly associative process (e.g., avoiding a serial killer’s uation and choice, whereas an evolutionary approach has sweater) as a derivation of a more concrete and biological tended to focus on cues relevant to actual contaminants process (germ-relevant contagion). (i.e., germs) and on outcomes that range from direct avoid- Since then, interest in contagion effects has surged, par- ance to stereotype activation to changes in social percep- ticularly in studies of consumer behavior. Moreover, a new tion. area of psychological research has developed, recasting germ-relevant processes as a suite of biological defense Consumer Behavior Literature. In the consumer litera- strategies, which has implications for our understanding ture, contagion is typically considered in terms of its rele- of contagion effects. Consequently, we conduct a broad re- vance for manager and marketer decision making and the view of the consumer behavior and psychological research factors that predict consumer reactions to product of- which has been conducted since foundational work on ferings. A common finding is that consumers devalue prod- magical contagion. Starting from the conceptual frame- ucts that have been “contaminated” through touch with work offered by Rozin and colleagues (e.g., Nemeroff and disgust-eliciting agents, an effect that becomes stronger Rozin 1994), we organize recent research into physical the more direct and intimate the contact is presumed to and interpersonal-moral dimensions and focus on advance- be between product and consumer. For instance, contagion ments that have the potential to expand the field’sunder- effects have been shown to play a role in people’s willing- standing of contagion processes. ness to pay less for used products compared to new ones (O’Reilly et al. 1984; Rozin, Markwith, and McCauley 1994). CATCHING UP WITH CONTAGION This secondhand aversion can occur because of contact be- Recent research has shed light on the psychological mecha- tween a consumer and a product, leading a second con- nisms which drive people to be concerned with contagious sumer to treat the product as though it has been negatively substances in the first place. Specifically, these findings con- altered. Supporting this idea, Argo and colleagues (2006)

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Volume 2 Number 4 2017 433 found that shoppers rated clothing that had been tried on and an overperception bias (the tendency to treat certain by other shoppers as worse than clothing on the regular innocuous features as cues to pathogen threat). This model store rack, and they were less likely to buy previously worn contributes to the work on contagion beliefs by identifying but new clothing. This “consumer contamination” effect specific types of physical and behavioral features likely to was stronger when the other shoppers had interacted with be seen as dangerous and by strongly emphasizing the phys- the product more extensively and within a shorter time ical nature of contaminating essences (germs) and the ac- frame from when raters judged the product. Consistent tions people might take to weaken these essences. with the belief that some physical essence had been trans- Some of the most famous visual cues associated with ferred through contact, this effect was mediated by the dis- pathogen threat and aversion include signs of food spoilage gust that raters felt toward the product. Indirect indicators and other disgust-relevant characteristics (e.g., Rozin et al. of prior contact, including disorganized shelves, may elicit 1986; Curtis et al. 2004; Vogt et al. 2011; van Hooff et al. similar reactions (Castro, Morales, and Nowlis 2013). 2013), but many infectious diseases are also accompanied A related finding highlighted the relatively intangible by visibly anomalous physical features that elicit disgust, nature of this essence. In one set of studies (Morales and including “markers, lesions, discoloration of body parts ... Fitzsimons 2007), participants viewed shopping carts con- and behavioral anomalies” (Kurzban and Leary 2001, 198). taining a target product that was either touching or not Notably, however, microbes are themselves invisible to the touching a different, disgust-associated product (e.g., a box eye and can result in a virtually unlimited set of outcomes of cookies resting against a box of tampons). When the upon infection. An evolved threat management system de- products were touching, participants rated the cookies as veloped a way of minimizing the potential costs associated worse (even at the attribute level) and were less willing to with pathogenic infection, and one way of doing so was to taste them. This result was also driven by disgust reactions. encourage individuals to perceive a wide array of anomalous Given the design of these studies, no cross-product contam- features (even harmless ones) as dangerous. Indeed, behav- ination was possible, highlighting the intangibility of the ioral immune research indicates that people respond to fea- contagious essences to which people were responding. tures like birthmarks as though they signaled infection threat (Ackerman et al. 2009). The same is true for other Evolutionary Psychology Literature. The original work on interpersonal features such as abnormalities, old age, obe- magical contagion framed it as stemming from a functional sity, foreignness, mental illness, homosexual orientation, “defense against microbial contamination” (Nemeroff and and physical attractiveness (e.g., Faulkner et al. 2004; Inbar Rozin 1994, 61). From an evolutionary perspective, manag- et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2011; Park, van Leeuwen, and Ste- ing pathogenic and parasitic threats has been a central se- phen 2012; Lund and Miller 2014; Wang, Michalak, and lection pressure over the course of human evolution (Ack- Ackerman, forthcoming). erman, Huang, and Bargh 2012). Contagion beliefs may The difficulty inherent in verifying disease agents may facilitate adaptive responding to vectors of infectious dis- have contributed to the distorted perceptions of risk regard- ease by promoting treatment or avoidance of potential ing the spread of negative essences found in the contagion sources of infection. Since magical contagion was first in- literature. One consequence of this overreaction can be seen troduced to the psychological literature, an emerging model in the “dose independent” (Rozin and Nemeroff 1990) na- of psychological disease management has indicated that ture of classical contagion effects. Small amounts of neg- humans have evolved not only a sophisticated physiologi- ative residue are believed to produce comparatively large cal immune system to combat the threat of pathogens, but effects on the object or person that they touch—as when also an additional suite of responses that help to prevent a plate of food is contaminated by “touching” dog feces pathogenic threats from first entering the body. via a long piece of thread (Rozin et al. 1986). Relatedly, par- This “behavioral immune system” is composed of psy- ticipants in one study perceived that relatively small, low- chological and behavioral processes that use sensorimotor calorie amounts of unhealthy snacks (e.g., bacon or candy) inputs to facilitate infection avoidance (Schaller and Park would produce much greater weight gain than larger, high- 2011; Murray and Schaller 2016). The system has a number calorie amounts of healthy snacks (e.g., cottage cheese with of unique features, including functional flexibility (the ten- carrots and pears; Oakes and Slotterback 2005). Although dency for greater responding to occur in situations of high the unhealthy snack study is different from the “tainted” pathogen threat and for people chronically averse to germs) food studies in a number of respects, it is possible that con-

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). 434 Catching (Up with) Magical Contagion Huang, Ackerman, and Newman sumers’ reactions are traceable to lay beliefs about contami- tended to ameliorate the consequences of contagion. For nation, as failures to manage these threats would have in- example, feelings of disgust can promote increased washing flicted high costs on ancestral people. behavior (Porzig-Drummond et al. 2009) and acts of hand In sum, when individuals are chronically concerned with washing can interrupt downstream effects of pathogen con- pathogens or situational cues suggest a heightened threat cerns such as risk aversion and prejudice expression (e.g., of pathogens, people begin acting in ways that help mini- Huang et al. 2011, 2017; Prokosch et al. 2017). Magical con- mize their infection risk, even when the targets of their be- tagion studies have shown that interventions that address haviors are not true hazards. These threats also need not material substances (e.g., washing, laundering, purifying) be explicitly linked to targets of evaluation. Environmental are also capable of removing at least some nonphysical cues to infectious disease can carryover onto decisions that traces of its previous user (Argo et al. 2008; Newman and consumers make in a variety of domains, including food Bloom 2014). Moreover, people perceive that even cold, hard preferences (Li et al. 2017), risky decision making (Pro- cash contains the essence of its rightful owner, but sub- kosch, Ackerman, and Hill 2017), community-level dispa- sequently wiping the currency clean (a physically based in- rities in used merchandise sales (Huang, Ackerman, and tervention) diminishes its intuitive link with its owner Sedlovskaya, forthcoming), and openness to innovative prod- (Uhlmann and Zhu 2013). uct design (Huang, Ackerman, and Williams 2017). For exam- This work has direct implications for consumer choice. ple, Huang and colleagues (2017) showed that people devalue Engaging in physical cleansing behavior reduces decision bi- secondhand products more when an online banner adver- ases including the endowment effect (Florak et al. 2014) and tisement indicated the presence of flu season. cognitive dissonance (Lee and Schwarz 2010a), the feeling Such findings are consistent with work in the magical of good or bad luck following decision outcomes (Xu, Zwick, contagion literature that emphasizes touch as a means of and Schwarz 2011), and guilt from past decisions (Zhong transferring essences (Rozin et al. 1989; Nemeroff and and Liljenquist 2006). It appears that even the way in which Rozin 1994). Given the intimate relationship between dis- choices are made (morally relevant choices in particular) can gust and physical avoidance (and thus successfully evading differentially affect the desirability of products. For in- parasitic or pathogen transmission), this makes sense. Other stance, telling a lie orally makes mouthwash seem more pos- tactile properties that elicit disgust (e.g., mushiness, sticki- itive, whereas writing a lie makes hand sanitizer seem more ness, and sliminess) also correlate strongly with moist, warm positive (Lee and Schwarz 2010b). It is not much of a stretch conditions where pathogenic substances thrive (Curtis and to infer that similar effects might emerge in contexts where Biran 2001; Curtis et al. 2004; Oum, Lieberman, and Aylward consumers make decisions about products that conflict with 2011); we note that people appear to react with strong re- their long-term goals or self-image (e.g., choosing to pur- vulsion when touching the types of organic matter that chase indulgent foods while on a diet). spread easily upon contact (blood, pus, fecal matter) and This research in consumer behavior and evolutionary are most likely to remain on their bodies. Research indi- psychology offers insights into the processes underlying cates that such reactions develop over time but may be pres- magical contagion effects. While these separate fields may entataveryearlyage.Even18-month-oldinfantsavoid have approached the underlying mechanisms of contagion foods that have been in contact with another disliked food from different angles, they both appear to rely on a germ- (Brown and Harris 2012; Brown et al. 2012), and the urge based model, and they both extend the argument about to avoid food that has been contaminated by another physical essences and transfer highlighted in early conta- person licking or sneezing on it has been demonstrated gion work (Rozin and Nemeroff 1990). in 5-year-old children but not younger (DeJesus, Shutts, and Kinzler 2015), which suggests that children’ssensitiv- Developments regarding Interpersonal-Moral itytocontactmayincreasewithage.Presumably,these Contagion Processes early concerns draw on adaptive, potentially innate, cogni- Over the past two decades, consumer behavior research has tive systems that subsequently bloom into the more ma- steadily documented how nonphysical essences are believed ture manifestations of contagion concerns that we have re- to transfer from a particular source to an object or person. viewed here. For example, contagion effects “not carried by a living in- Finally, the relevance of tactile sensation and disgust visible entity” nor “dependent on sensible, perceptible resi- for physical contagion can help to inform interventions in- dues” (Nemeroff and Rozin 1994, 172) have been shown

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Volume 2 Number 4 2017 435 to drive consumer behavior across diverse domains includ- by beliefs about the transfer of essence, rather than feeling gambling contexts (Mishra 2009; Mishra et al. 2009), ings of disgust (e.g., Argo et al. 2008; Newman and Bloom purchasing decisions (Argo et al. 2008), and auctions (New- 2012). For example, disgust arguably plays no role in stud- man and Bloom 2014). These effects are concentrated on ies that show that consumers’ perceptions of their own processes with interpersonal and moral implications, thus athletic abilities increase if they briefly touch a ball which the name of this contagion dimension. Further, unlike con- was presumably once in contact with a star athlete (Kramer tagion effects associated with the concept of disease con- and Block 2014). Similarly, when amateur athletes perform taminants, this research indicates that both negative and better at a golf exercise if they use a golf club that they believe positive outcomes can result from essence transfer. In this was once owned by a professional putter (Lee et al. 2011), section, we focus on recent empirical research that (1) high- presumably the contagion effects are driven not by negative lights a strong effect of positive contagion, (2) showcases attitudes toward the object or source but rather by the belief the diversity of interpersonal-moral essences, thereby broad- that some desired ability of the source has been transmitted ening and deepening our understanding of contagion- and can subsequently be acquired by the new user. related processes. More and more, the literature is accruing evidence wherein positive properties spread from a source to a target object, Much Greater Effect of “Positive” Contagion than Ini- rendering that object more valuable in some way in the ab- tially Anticipated/Observed. Whereas the earlier work on sence of negative mechanisms like disgust. For example, con- magical contagion observed that negative contagion appears sumers are more willing to purchase a sweater if it has been to be “both more common and more salient” than analogous worn by an attractive person of the opposite gender due to positive effects (Rozin et al. 1989, 209; see also Rozin et al. general attraction to the previous wearer, not disgust (Argo 1986; Nemeroff and Rozin 1994), recent research suggests et al. 2008). a robust and consequential effect of positive contagion. For Moreover, instances of positive contamination appear example, in a retail context, individuals are more likely to to be more dose sensitive compared to cases of negative con- purchase a tee-shirt if it was tried on by an attractive contagion, such that increases in the amount of contact be- federate of the opposite sex (Argo et al. 2008). Celebrity pos- tween a valued source and a target object translate into in- sessions increase in value if they were physically touched by creases in perceived value. Items at auction (e.g., a pen) that those individuals (Newman et al. 2011; Newman and Bloom are perceived to have had more contact with a well-regarded 2014). And, in a gambling context, people preferentially bet celebrity (e.g., John F. Kennedy) sell for more money than on objects that are in close physical proximity to previously similarly priced items that are perceived to have less con- “lucky” objects (Mishra et al. 2009). tact. Importantly, this effect was much stronger for well- Such findings reinforce not only the unexpected perva- regarded celebrities compared to negatively viewed celebri- siveness of positive contamination; in so doing, they also ties (e.g., Bernie Madoff; or put another way, the influence highlight intriguing differences between positive contagion is more “dose dependent”; Newman and Bloom 2014). While and negative contagion. Cases of positive contagion (where initial studies observed a similar “asymmetry” in influence mundane objects increase dramatically in value if touched (Rozin et al. 1986; Nemeroff and Rozin 1994), we note that by well-regarded sources) are not easily explained by tradi- it is the more recent findings that directly address the spec- tional accounts of contagion effects stemming from intui- ificity of positive contagion effects (e.g., the ways in which tions about microbial contamination. For example, in cases they differ from negative contagion effects). of positive contagion, observers do not feel visceral disgust toward the source, but rather attraction, liking, and admi- Many Different Types of Essences That Transfer (Not ration (Newman et al. 2011; Marchak and Hall 2017). Just Moral Qualities). While the original contagion find- And conceptually, positive characteristics (e.g., healthful- ings focused on the influence of essences that were related ness of a substance) have little means of “infecting” objects to disease, bodily traces, or moral qualities (e.g., Rozin and in the way that toxins or diseases might. Nemeroff 1990; Nemeroff and Rozin 1994), recent inquiries Instead, the transmission of positive essences may be have increasingly found that a surprising variety of inter- driven by different processes from those involved in the personal essences can transfer via contact. Eskine et al. spread of negative contaminants. Research suggests that in- (2013) found that direct and indirect physical contact with stances of positive contagion appear to be primarily driven a moral transgressor leads participants to feel contaminated

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). 436 Catching (Up with) Magical Contagion Huang, Ackerman, and Newman by the transgressor’s immoral nature, such that they sub- an Andy Warhol print with a serial number of no. 3/10,000 sequently feel more guilty. However, even nonmoral quali- compared to a serial number of no. 6,532/10,000. This oc- ties of a person, such as perceived traits and abilities, have curs because earlier numbers are perceived as being tempo- been shown to transfer. As mentioned earlier, perceived es- rally “closer” to the creator (Smith et al. 2015). Importantly, sence transfer can affect participants’ athletic self-confidence consumers’ increased preferences for earlier creations hold (Kramer and Block 2014) and performance (Lee et al. 2011). even when controlling for the extent to which the creator Similarly, participants’ intuitions about luck can be influ- physically contacted the object. Moreover, if an inventor enced by contagion processes (Mishra et al. 2009). This work is described as immoral, participants perceive his or her in- makes a case for redefining contagion involving nonphys- ventions as similarly immoral—even if the inventor never ical essences along broader dimensions than the moral or touched the object (and even if the object itself is nonphys- interpersonal. ical, such as a piece of music; Stavrova et al. 2016), reinforc- Further, even very ineffable qualities, such as emotions, ing the notion that interpersonal-moral contagion can occur the essence of a luxury brand, or the authentic spirit of an through pathways operating independently from physical artist, have been found to psychologically transfer. Research contact. suggests that across cultures, people infer that strong emo- Note, however, that the nascent research into intention- tions can rub off on physical spaces, leaving an emotional based contagion suggests that boundary conditions exist to residue that new people in those places can contract, thereby what types of essences can transfer through non–contact- influencing the decisions that they make (Savani et al. 2011). based pathways. While studies suggest that the essence of Luxury products that are manufactured in a company’slong- a luxury brand can transfer via contact with factory source standing factory are perceived as retaining the “essence of the (Newman and Dhar 2014), other companies or brands may brand” and thus valued more (Newman and Dhar 2014). Sim- not have a strong essence to be transferred in the first place. ilarly, individuals tend to value an artwork more if its crea- For example, participants of one study valued jackets with tion involved physical contact with the artist than if it was earlier serial numbers if they were made by an individual de- created using a hands-off procedure because handled artwork signer (Alexander Wang) but not if they had been made by a was perceived to contain more of the “spirit” or authentic es- branded company (H&M; Smith et al. 2015). sence of the artist (Newman and Bloom 2012). Additional boundary conditions to non–contact-based essence transfer were demonstrated in Stavrova et al. (2016). Many Different Means of Transfer (Not Just Physical Consistent with prior magical contagion work, consumers Contact). In addition to increasing the catalog of essences devalued a coat when it had been worn by a person who suf- that can transfer, recent research has also examined how fered from an infectious disease (vs. when it had been con- these essences transfer. While Nemeroff and Rozin’s origi- tacted by a healthy person); they similarly devalued the coat nal contagion model arguably relied upon perceptions that when it had been worn by an immoral person (compared to physical contact has occurred between source and object, re- when it had touched a moral person). However, different cent research suggests that physical contact is not a prereq- patterns emerged when participants were asked to judge a uisite for transfer of interpersonal-moral essences. In one coat that had been designed by (but not touched by) the example of contact-free contagion, participants were averse same sources. Consumers devalued a coat designed by (but to contact with people or objects who had simply been in the not touched by) an immoral person; the same devaluation physical vicinity of (but not touching) a contaminating did not occur for a coat designed by (but not touched by) source (Kim and Kim 2011). Similarly, as described earlier, an unhealthy person (vs. heathy person), which suggests that emotional residue can be perceived to exist within a general intention-based contagion can transfer only some contagious space, and transfer by entering that space, without obvious qualities (soul-stuff like moral values) but not others (germs). direct contact (Savani et al. 2011). Other forms of proximity to sources also appear to trig- Going beyond the Physical: Implications for a Model ger contagion beliefs. The phenomenon of ‘intention-based of Magical Contagion contagion’ describes how the simple act of creation has been To sum up, recent findings offer additional insights into shown to imbue an object with a person’s essence (Stavrova original conceptualizations of contagion—addressing issues et al. 2016). For example, consumers prefer commemora- such as which essences are perceived to transfer, why they tive or artistic items with earlier serial numbers such as may be perceived as doing so, and how those essences trans-

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Volume 2 Number 4 2017 437 fer (through which mechanistic and functional pathways). which we measure their influence in future models. One Specifically, this newer body of work contributes by (1) rat- could differentiate between a contaminated object’s contact ifying the processes that lead to the development of both value (e.g., one’s desire to physically touch the contaminated physical and nonphysical contagious entities, (2) continuing object), personal value (e.g., the symbolic value of owner- to document the wide variety of nonphysical essences which ship, where the object is perceived to have self-relevance), can transfer, and (3) demonstrating that physical contact is and market value (e.g., the extent to which one perceives not a prerequisite for interpersonal-moral transfer as previ- the object to be of monetary worth), as all three may be dif- ously thought. ferentially affected by the specific process underlying the From the very beginning, one might argue that people’s contagion effect. For example, most of the negatively con- beliefs regarding magical contagion—and our field’s study taminated objects explored in the literature thus far are low of it—have been fundamentally rooted in the physical in contact value, personal value, and market value (e.g., dog- world. Magical contagion was originally conceptualized as doo; a sweater worn by a disliked person; Nemeroff and an adaptation against physical disease-related threats, be- Rozin 1994). In certain cases, however, negatively contami- fore findings from evolutionary psychology supported the nated objects can also be of high market value (e.g., posses- claim. Original models identified different types of conta- sions of Adolf Hitler or Bernie Madoff; Newman and Bloom gion—including those of a nonphysical nature—by quasi- 2014). Based on this alternate perspective, it becomes less physical properties such as transmissibility via physical clear that the three instances of contagion belong to the contact. And finally, early studies used methodology that same category, since in the latter case, people retain physical highlighted the importance of physical contact by explicitly aversions to a celebrity possession but nevertheless perceive measuring participants’ reactions to physical contact with the object to be of elevated value (i.e., they are not rejecting contaminated objects (Nemeroff and Rozin 1994). the object in its entirety and, in fact, apply contagion-related Given, however, that recent research suggests that phys- reasoning to enhance its monetary worth). Similarly, conta- ical contact is not a prerequisite for perceptions of essence gion effects have been shown to operate in beliefs about sen- transfer (Smith et al. 2015; Stavrova et al. 2016), we suggest timental objects (Grayson and Shulman 2000; Gjersoe et al. that it may be important for future models to distinguish 2014), which are presumably high in personal value but low between different types of contagion based on the dominant in perceived market value. underlying process. As mentioned, most negative forms of Indeed, recent advances in contagion research suggest contagion appear to be driven by disgust (e.g., Argo et al. intriguing lines forward to help understand how magical 2006; Morales and Fitzsimons 2007), and one might predict contagion beliefs structure consumer judgments. Specifi- that these forms of contagion would be most likely to affect cally, rather than classify contagion effects via various ty- very “physical” dependent measures such as one’s willing- pologies or valence, it may be more useful to classify them ness to contact a contaminated object. In contrast, many in- according to the underlying psychological processes (e.g., stances of positive contagion appear to hinge on arguably disgust, identity, essentialism) and the dependent measure less visceral factors, such as whether participants are moti- of interest (e.g., desires for physical contact, personal valua- vated to value the target in the first place. For example, lux- tion, and market valuation). We surmise that, moving for- ury products manufactured in a company’s long-standing ward, focusing on the processes that drive different types factory are perceived as retaining the ‘essence of the brand’ of contagion effects (as opposed to their valence, or physical- and thus valued more, but only if participants liked the ity) may broaden and deepen existing models of contagion. brand (i.e., they deemed the essence self-relevant; Newman and Dhar 2014). Consumers were more likely to prefer a FUTURE DIRECTIONS print of a Barack Obama presidential campaign poster that Two decades ago, Paul Rozin and his colleagues codified the had an earlier serial number (2nd out of 1,500) rather than a varieties of magical contagion by examining how Americans later serial number (1,457th out of 1,500) but only if they think about people and objects which come into contact held a favorable opinion of Obama (Smith et al. 2015). For with each other. Here, we have reviewed how the wealth these effects, other mechanisms besides disgust are argu- of empirical studies conducted since this early work largely ably operating to link contagion beliefs with positive valuation. comport with original conceptualizations of contagion be- These findings suggest that it might be important to dis- liefs. Research conducted in the intervening years has high- tinguish between the type of essences and the manner with lighted two basic domains of contagion beliefs, those involv-

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). 438 Catching (Up with) Magical Contagion Huang, Ackerman, and Newman ing physical and nonphysical essences. Physical beliefs ap- of machines (Job et al. 2017), while consumers purchase pear most strongly linked to a suite of adaptive psycholog- handmade products as gifts for those they care about be- ical processes grounded in concepts relating to germ trans- cause such products symbolically “contain love” (Fuchs, fer and mechanisms such as disgust (e.g., Argo et al. 2006; Schreier, and van Osselaer 2015). Whether a product is truly Morales and Fitzsimons 2007; see also Rozin et al. 1986; seen to contain this essence, however, may depend on Rozin and Fallon 1987; Rozin and Nemeroff 1990; Rozin, whether the intender (gift giver) versus the creator (gift Haidt, and McCauley 1993). However, recent empirical de- maker) has imbued the gift with love. In such cases, the per- velopments have demonstrated how nonphysical beliefs re- ceived relationship between the source (of the love) and the garding the transfer of interpersonal-moral essences both gift should be dose-sensitive and contingent on identity- overlap, and are distinct from, those involved in physical relevance for the involved parties, such that a giver may per- contagion. Much of this latter work has been conducted ceive a gift as embodying more love if it has personal (i.e., within the field of consumer behavior and has expanded self-concept) relevance for both giver and recipient. thinking on how and when magical contagion effects apply The incorporation of essences into the self-concept also to valuation and decision making. In the remaining sections, introduces self-presentation and social inclusion concerns we consider open questions and implications of this work as relevant psychological processes. To the extent that other for consumer research and practice. people can be incorporated into one’s own self-concept (Aron, Aron, and Smollan 1992; Gardner, Gabriel, and Lee Mapping the Extended Self and Interaction 1999), people who experience social rejection may be subse- with Consumer Products quently more likely to perceive essences in branded prod- Some of the original work by Nemeroff and Rozin (1994) ucts and nonmaterial objects like music. Such a finding suggested that magical contagion might offer “a useful would be consistent with research which suggests that peo- way of studying self-concepts, ego-boundaries, and desires ple who are chronically lonely or induced to feel lonely tend to merge with or separate from others, and mapping the to perceive nonhuman agents as more humanlike (Epley, limits and flexibility of the extended self” (183). We agree Waytz, and Cacioppo 2008), while individuals high in the that future research could profitably apply the contagion need to belong show greater valuation of celebrity memora- approach to better understand such concepts, particularly bilia (Newman and Smith 2016) and consumers facing rejec- with regards to how possessions reflect consumers’ extended tion value symbolic and aspirational products (Mead et al. selves (Belk 1988). As mentioned earlier, existing research 2011; Ward and Dahl 2014). Research suggests that envi- offers preliminary support for this notion, as when only ronmental triggers are capable of triggering goals that then individuals who held a favorable opinion of Barack Obama unconsciously shift people’s perceptions, evaluations, and preferred a presidential campaign poster with an earlier behaviors (Dijksterhuis et al. 2005; Huang and Bargh 2014); (vs. later) serial number (Smith et al. 2015). Presumably, indeed, exposing participants to specific external cues can participants who voiced lower approval ratings of Obama affect whether they perceive essences to spread (Newman found his essence to be less in alignment with their own et al. 2011; Hingston, McManus, and Noseworthy 2016). identities, and subsequently placed a smaller premium on For example, participants who were made to feel socially re- temporal proximity to him. Similarly, products manufac- jected during a computerized ball toss game were more likely tured in a company’s long-standing factory were perceived to prefer items which had been contacted by their favorite as retaining the “essence of the brand” and thus preferred celebrity, compared to participants who had not been ex- more but only if participants liked the brand (in other cluded (Newman and Smith 2016). It stands to reason that words, deemed the essence self-relevant and thus valued some triggers, particularly those that threaten the self, may it; Newman and Dhar 2014). For brands that seek to create be particularly effective for encouraging consumers’ percep- identities that overlap or connect with consumer identities, tions that an essence exists and is transferable within prod- contagion may provide a means of psychologically shaping ucts. both the brand and consumers themselves. Additional open questions remain regarding the extent This research suggests important boundary conditions, to which contagion effects follow original observations that however, in the types of sources used to initiate contagion their influence “continues after physical contact has ended perceptions. For example, consumers value objects more if and may be permanent” (Rozin and Nemeroff 1990, 159). they are labeled as being made by generic strangers instead Indeed, research relevant to essence contagion tends to fo-

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). Volume 2 Number 4 2017 439 cus not only on the valence of an essence and how it trans- sion of outgroup members, foreign cuisines, and physical in- fers from a source to another object or person, but also on teractions with products touched by strangers (Huang et al. the consequences of that transfer for individuals (see Rozin 2011, 2017; Li et al. 2017). Yet they also motivate desires et al. 1986). That is, a person may be fundamentally changed for increased connection with ingroup members, domestic by the contaminating essence of another person. Consider cuisines, and adherence to social norms (see Murray and the classic example from Rozin and Nemeroff (2002) about Schaller [2016] for a review). These latter effects can culmi- people’s unwillingness to touch a sweater worn by Hitler. nate in patterns of behavior such as decreased extraversion Contact with (and perhaps even simple ownership of) such but increased collectivist tendencies (Fincher et al. 2008; an object can symbolically pollute the recipient, essentially Schaller and Murray 2008). Use of contagion concepts could making him or her a worse person. In other words, to what therefore help inform both specific and broad consumer extent are people are imbued (or not) permanently with the propensities and may even play a role in cultural differences transformational “soul-stuff ”?Whenparticipants’ confidence in consumer decision making (e.g., to the extent that cul- at their own basketball abilities increased after touching a tures differ in ecological or normative cues to germ expo- ball they were told had previously been in contact with a star sure). athlete (Kramer and Block 2014), how long does this invisible enrichment persist? If people experience guilt from physical Practical Implications contact with a moral transgressor (Eskine et al. 2013), how Imparting Brand Essences into Products. Organizing the long does this guilt remain? It is possible that these down- contagion literature along physical versus nonphysical meth- stream influences on self-perception likely involve more ods of transference suggests novel possibilities for real- than changes for the single characteristic in question and world application. Firms may benefit from exploring multi- are ultimately capable of spreading to individuals’ broader ple ways with which to build consumer perceptions that a self-concepts. Indeed, Nemeroff and Rozin speculated that desired essence has been imparted onto a product. If prod- the study of personality may usefully draw on an under- ucts manufactured in a company’s original factory are seen standing of contagion as an agent of long-lasting change. as possessing the essence of the brand (Newman and Dhar Additional future research may explore the consequences 2014), presumably product and category extensions could of third-party perception, when people observe others in- also benefit from physical or symbolic connection to the teracting with essence-laden objects. For instance, studies brand’s origin. Similarly, brands whose essences are inti- suggest that people expect consumers who come into con- mately connected with highly publicized founders (i.e., Ap- tact with a celebrity-owned product to behave in a manner ple and Steve Jobs; Walmart and Sam Walton) may leverage consistent with the traits of that celebrity (Hingston et al. contagion effects as well. Product extensions may appear 2016). Even perceiving that a person has contacted an ev- more authentic if the founder envisioned that the company eryday object like currency has been shown to affect con- would one day carry such a product, or if the founder is used sumers’ intuitions that the object somehow belongs to that in advertising for that extension, highlighting the notion person (Uhlmann and Zhu 2013), reinforcing the notion that connections to a great company’s origins offer a strate- that perceiving contagion between an object/source and an- gic asset (Zook 2016). other person has interesting and potentially important con- Future research might consider the varying conditions sequences for marketing research. Products, or perhaps even under which brands are perceived to have an essence capa- larger brands, may come to be seen as symbolically “owned” ble of transfer in the first place. An implicit assumption of by people or groups who have acted as essence sources (or re- the interpersonal-moral contagion literature is that the es- cipients), with implications for how subsequent consumers sence should have self-relevance; it therefore may be the seek to acquire or avoid such items. case that more anthropomorphic brands are better candi- Finally, existing research suggests ways in which conta- dates for contagion effects. Whether contagion effects from gion beliefs or concerns can trigger desires to connect with brand essences exert a permanent or fleeting influence over or separate from others. Findings from behavioral immune associated products, however, remains an open question. studies show that cues to pathogen threat do not universally lead people to shun to contact with objects or others. In- Imparting Consumers’ Essences into Products. Firms may stead, familiarity and prior interaction seem to play key additionally benefit from exploring different ways to build roles. Germ-relevant cues motivate devaluation and aver- consumer perceptions that a desired essence has been im-

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). 440 Catching (Up with) Magical Contagion Huang, Ackerman, and Newman parted on a particular product. For example, research sug- into the owned product. Instead, these brands should seek gests that consumers value replicas of famous musicians’ to frame contagion as proceeding only from product to con- instruments, even if those instruments have never been sumer. in contact with the celebrity (Fernandez and Lastovicka 2011). Such research suggests additional pathways through Removing Essences from Products to Reduce Owner At- which to infuse consumer products with symbolic or asso- tachment. Because objects can be contaminated by their ciational value. previous owners (and consumers realize this), firms en- Indeed, merely touching an object has been shown to in- gaged in secondhand markets (e.g., estate sales, used prod- crease perceptions of ownership (Peck and Shu 2009), uct retailers) may benefit from knowledge regarding how while Peck, Barger, and Webb (2013) show this is true even to disrupt contagion processes. Often, these markets may with imagined touch (which can be seen as a symbolic form be dominated by physical contagion effects (see Huang et al. of contact with a product). Similarly, browsing online as- 2017), though the symbolic nature of many associated prod- sortments of products through touch-based devices like ucts may also implicate interpersonal contagion effects. tablets (vs. traditional computers) leads to higher product Knowing how people can dissociate themselves (or loved valuations through increased psychological ownership of ones) from objects may be useful for firms wishing to facil- those products (Brasel and Gips 2014). Even everyday ob- itate smooth transitions for their clients (Lastovicka and jects like currency can be seen as possessing “essences” that Fernandez 2005). In cases where possessions are seen as can become associated with their owners via contact (Uhl- containing physical traces of a departed loved one, a firm mann and Zhu 2013). It is possible that increased connec- may recommend purification services; if the object is im- tion to touched objects may be driven in part by contagion bued with more abstract essences, a firm may help the owner processes, where the consumer imparts an essence to an create a meaningful narrative around divestment (e.g., “Let- object, changing it to be more self-similar (and thus more ting others enjoy the gift is a way for my loved one to live preferred). If so, firms may want to leverage this process on”). for some brands and product categories more than others. Moreover, understanding processes that encourage re- Consider products that are intended to be highly custom- moval of essences from products would be useful infor- izable by individual consumers. Presumably, these products mation for firms interested in having owners dispose of, are “open” to essence transfer by owners more than pre- upgrade, or resell products. If consumers feel like their es- defined products. Sellers of customizable products may see sences have been imparted to an owned product (or that heightened consumer attachment to the extent that consum- product is a “part” of them), this can create attachment and ers perceive indicators of contact (or other essence transfer aversion to product disposition. For instance, IKEA created a mechanisms) with these products during the customization popular commercial titled “Death of a Lamp” that highlighted process. the attachment consumers feel with owned products and sought to interrupt this feeling by labeling it as misguided. This Imparting Essences into Owners. Given that contagion ef- type of approach is relevant to firms that wish to spur in- fects presume that something (tangible or intangible) can creased consumption as well as those which regularly intro- transfer from object to owner, consumers may seek partic- duce upgraded products to the market (Bellezza, Ackerman, ular products with the explicit goal of incorporating that es- and Gino 2015). It remains possible, for instance, that meth- sence into his or her self (for example, a new owner may ods of alleviating contagion effects (e.g., cleansing a sense of acquire artwork which embodies an artist’s essence, and connection with owned products) may support increased con- subsequently perceive him- or herself as more creative). sumer openness to new product offerings. Moreover, perceptions of interpersonal contagion may be colored by targets’ physical proximity to locations that rep- Conclusion resent desired self-relevant values (such as New York’s Wall The topic of magical contagion continues to fascinate schol- Street and economic achievement) or emotional events ars from many different fields. Recent research continues to (Savani et al. 2011). One interesting prediction is that, un- deepen and extend original conceptualizations of contagion like that described above for customizable products, brands and, ultimately, provides useful lines forward to enhance that intend to impart authenticity as an essence should our understanding of this captivating and prevalent phe- want to minimize the backward transfer of owner essence nomenon.

REFERENCES Xenophobic Attitudes,” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations,7 (4), 333–53. Ackerman, Joshua M., D. Vaughn Becker, Chad R. Mortensen, Takao Fernandez, Karen V., and John L. Lastovicka (2011), “Making Magic: Fetishes Sasaki, Steven L. Neuberg, and Douglas T. Kenrick (2009), “A Pox on in Contemporary Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), the Mind: Disjunction of Attention and Memory in the Processing of 278–99. Physical Disfigurement,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45 Fincher, Corey L., Randy Thornhill, Damian R. Murray, and Mark Schaller (3), 478–85. (2008), “Pathogen Prevalence Predicts Human Cross-Cultural Variabil- Ackerman, Joshua M., Julie Y. Huang, and John A. Bargh (2012). “Evolu- ity in Individualism/Collectivism,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, tionary Perspectives on Social Cognition,” in Handbook of Social Cogni- 275 (1640), 1279–85. tion, ed. S. T. Fiske and C. N. Macrae, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 451– Florak, Arnd, Janet Kleber, Romy Busch, and David Stohr (2014), “Detach- 74. ing the Ties of Ownership: The Effects of Hand Washing on the Ex- Argo, Jennifer J., Darren W. Dahl, and Andrea C. Morales (2006), “Con- change of Endowed Products,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (2), sumer Contamination: How Consumers React to Products Touched 284–89. by Others,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), 81–94. Frazer, James G. (1890/1959), The New Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and ——— (2008), “Positive Consumer Contagion: Responses to Attractive Religion, ed. T. H. Gaster, New York: Macmillan. Others in Retail Contexts,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (Decem- Fuchs, Christoph, Martin Schreier, and Stijn M. J. van Osselaer (2015), ber), 690–701. “The Handmade Effect: What’s Love Got to Do with It?” Journal of Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan (1992), “Inclusion of Marketing, 79 (2), 98–110. Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness,” Gardner, Wendi L., Shira Gabriel, and Angela Y. Lee (1999), “‘I’ Value Free- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 596–612. dom, but ‘We’ Value Relationships: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Cultural Differences in Judgment,” Psychological Science, 10 (4), 321– Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68. 23. Bellezza, S., Joshua M. Ackerman, and Francesca Gino (2015), “Be Careless Gjersoe, Nathalia L., George E. Newman, Vlad Chituc, and Bruce Hood with That! Availability of Product Upgrades Increases Cavalier Behav- (2014), “Individualism and the Extended-Self: Cross-Cultural Differ- ior toward Possessions,” Journal of Marketing Research, forthcoming. ences in the Valuation of Authentic Objects,” PLoSONE, 9, e90787. Brasel, S. Adam, and James Gips (2014), “Tablets, Touchscreens, and Grayson, Kent, and David Shulman (2000), “Indexicality and the Verifica- Touchpads: How Varying Touch Interfaces Trigger Psychological Own- tion Function of Irreplaceable Possessions: A Semiotic Analysis,” Jour- ership and Endowment,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (2), 226– nal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 17–30. 33. Hingston, Sean T., Justin F. McManus, and Theodore J. Noseworthy Brown Steven D., and Gillian Harris (2012), “Disliked Food Acting as a (2016), “How Inferred Contagion Biases Dispositional Judgments of Contaminant during Infancy: A Disgust Based Motivation for Rejec- Others,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (2), 195–206. tion,” Appetite, 58 (2), 535–38. Hood, Bruce M., Nathalia L. Gjersoe, Katherine Donnelly, Alison Byers, Brown Steven D., Gillian Harris, L. Bell, and L. M. Lines (2012), “Disliked and Shoji Itajkura (2011), “Moral Contagion Attitudes towards Poten- Food Acting as a Contaminant in a Sample of Young Children,” Appe- tial Organ Transplants in British and Japanese Adults,” Journal of Cog- tite, 58 (3), 991–96. nition and Culture,11(3–4), 269–86. Castro, Iana A., Andrea C. Morales, and Stephen M. Nowlis (2013), “The Huang, Julie Y., Joshua M. Ackerman, and Alexandra Sedlovskaya (forthcom- Influence of Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quan- ing), “(De)Contaminating Consumer Biases: Protection from Disease on tity on Consumer Purchase,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 118–33. Evaluation of Used Goods,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Curtis, Valerie A,, Robert Aunger, and Tamer Rabie (2004), “Evidence that Huang, Julie Y., Joshua M. Ackerman, and Lawrence E. Williams (2017), Disgust Evolved to Protect from Risk of Disease,” Proceedings of the Royal “Threatened by Technological Progress: Disease Avoidance and Inno- Society of London B,271(S4),S131–33. vation,” Working Paper, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY. Curtis, Valerie A., and Adam Biran (2001), “Dirt, Disgust, and Disease: Is Huang, Julie Y., and John. A. Bargh (2014), “The Selfish Goal: Autono- Hygiene in Our Genes?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine,44(1),17–31. mously Operating Motivational Structures as the Proximal Cause of DeJesus, Jasmine M., Kristin Shutts, and Katherine D. Kinzler (2015), Human Judgment and Behavior,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences,37 “Eww She Sneezed! Contamination Context Affects Children’s Food (2), 121–75. Preferences and Consumption,” Appetite, 87 (April), 303–9. Huang, Julie Y., Alexandra Sedlovskaya, Joshua M. Ackerman, and John A. Dijksterhuis, Ap, Pamela K. Smith, Rick B. van Baaren, and Daniel H. J. Bargh (2011), “Immunizing Against Prejudice: Effects of Disease Pro- Wigboldus (2005), “The Unconscious Consumer: Effects of Environ- tection on Attitudes toward Out-groups,” Psychological Science, 22 (12), ment on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,15(3), 1550–56. 193–202. Inbar, Yoel, David A. Pizarro, Joshua Knobe, and Paul Bloom (2009), “Dis- Epley, Nicholas, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo (2008), “Creating So- gust Sensitivity Predicts Intuitive Disapproval of Gays,” Emotion, 9 (3), cial Connection through Inferential Reproduction: Loneliness and Per- 435–39. ceived Agency in Gadgets, Gods, and Greyhounds,” Psychological Sci- Job, Veronika, Jana Niktin, Sophia X. Zhang, Priyanka B. Carr, and Greg- ence, 19 (2), 114–20. ory M. Walton (2017), “Social Traces of Generic Humans Increase the Eskine, Kendall J., Ashley Novreske, and Michelle Richards (2013), “Moral Value of Everyday Objects,” Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, Contagion Effects in Everyday Interpersonal Encounters,” Journal of 43 (5), 785–92. Experimental Social Psychology, 49 (5), 947–50. Kim, Laura R., and Nancy S. Kim (2011), “A Proximity Effect in Adults’ Faulkner, Jason, Mark Schaller, Justin H. Park, and Lesley A. Duncan Contamination Intuitions,” Judgment and Decision Making, 6 (3), 222– (2004), “Evolved Disease-Avoidance Mechanisms and Contemporary 29.

Kramer, Thomas, and Lauren Block (2011), “Nonconscious Effects of Pe- terpersonal Influence,” Ethos: Journal of the Society for Psychological An- culiar Beliefs on Consumer Psychology and Choice,” Journal of Con- thropology, 22 (2), 158–86. sumer Psychology, 21 (1), 101–11. Newman, George E., and Paul Bloom (2012), “Art and Authenticity: The ——— (2014), “Like Mike: Ability Contagion Through Touched Objects Importance of Originals in Judgments of Value,” Journal of Experimen- Increases Confidence and Improves Performance,” Organizational Be- tal Psychology: General, 141 (3), 558–69. havior and Human Decision Processes, 124 (2), 215–28. ——— (2014), “Physical Contact Influences How Much People Pay at Ce- Kurzban, Robert, and Mark R. Leary (2001), “Evolutionary Origins of Stig- lebrity Auctions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 matization: The Functions of Social Exclusion,” Psychological Bulletin, (11), 3705–8. 127 (2), 187–208. Newman, George E., and Ravi Dhar (2014), “Authenticity Is Contagion: Lastovicka, John L., and Karen V. Fernandez (2005), “Three Paths to Dis- Brand Essence and the Original Source of Production,” Journal of Mar- position: The Movement of Meaningful Possessions to Strangers,” keting Research, 51 (June), 371–86. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 813–23. Newman, George E., Gil Diesendruck, and Paul Bloom (2011), “Celebrity Lee, Charles, Sally A. Linkenauger, Jonathan Z. Bakdash, Jennifer A. Joy- Contagion and the Value of Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, Gaba, and Dennis R. Profitt (2011), “Putting Like a Pro: The Role of 38 (2), 215–28. Positive Contagion in Golf Performance and Perception,” PLOS ONE, Newman, George E., and Rosanna K. Smith (2016), “The Need to Belong 6 (10), e26016. Motivates Demand for Authentic Objects,” Cognition, 156 (November), Lee, Spike W. S., and Norbert Schwarz (2010a), “Washing Away Post- 129–34. Decisional Dissonance,” Science, 323, 709. Niemyjska, Aleksandra (2014), “How Does Love Magic Work? The Regula- ——— (2010b), “Dirty Hands and Dirty Mouths: Embodiment of the tion of Closeness and Affect by Magical Thinking,” Journal of Social and Moral-Purity Metaphor Is Specific to the Motor Modality Involved Personal Relationships, 32 (1), 55–77. in Moral Transgression Washing Away Post-Decisional Dissonance,” Oakes, Michael E., and Carole S. Slotterback (2005), “Too Good to Be True: Psychological Science, 21 (10), 1423–25. Dose Insensitivity and Stereotypical Thinking of Foods’ Capacity to Li, Jessica X., Joshua M. Ackerman, Stephen L. Neuberg, and Douglas T. Promote Weight Gain,” Food Quality and Preference, 16 (8), 675–81. Kenrick (2017), “We Eat What We Are: Disease Concerns Shift Prefer- O’Reilly, Lynn, Margaret Rucker, Rhonda Hughes, Marge Gorang, and Su- ences for (Un)Familiar Foods,” Society for Personality and Social Psychol- san Hand (1984), “The Relationship of Psychological and Situational ogy, forthcoming. Variables to Usage of a Second-Order Marketing System,” Journal of Lund, Erik M., and Saul L. Miller (2014), “Is Obesity Un-American? Dis- the Academy of Marketing Science, 12 (3), 53–76. ease Concerns Bias Implicit Perceptions of National Identity,” Evolu- Oum, Robert E., Debra Lieberman, and Alison Aylward (2011), “A Feel for tion and Human Behavior, 35 (4), 336–40. Disgust: Tactile Cues to Pathogen Presence,” Cognition and Emotion,25 Marchak, Kristan A., and D. Geoffrey Hall (2017), “Transforming Celebrity (4), 717–25. Objects: Implications for an Account of Psychological Contagion,” Jour- Park, Justin H., Florian van Leeuwen, and Ian D. Stephen (2012), “Home- nal of Cognition and Culture,17(1–2), 51–72. liness Is in the Disgust Sensitivity of the Beholder: Relatively Unattrac- Mauss, Marcel (1902/1972), A General Theory of Magic, trans. Robert tive Faces Appear Especially Unattractive to Individuals Higher in Brain, New York: Norton. Pathogen Disgust,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 33 (5), 569–77. Mead, Nicole L., Roy F. Baumeister, Tyler F. Stillman, Catherine D. Rawn, Peck, Joann, Victor A. Barger, and Andrea Webb (2013), “In Search of a and Kathleen D. Vohs (2011), “Social Exclusion Causes People to Surrogate for Touch: The Effect of Haptic Imagery on Perceived Own- Spend and Consume Strategically in the Service of Affiliation,” Journal ership,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (2), 189–96. of Consumer Research, 37 (5), 902–19. Peck, Joann, and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch on Meyer, Meredith, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Susan A. Gelman, and Sarah M. Stil- Perceived Ownership,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 434–47. well (2013), “Essentialist Beliefs about Bodily Transplants in the United Porzig-Drummond, Renata, Richard Stevenson, Trevor Case, and Megan States and India,” Cognitive Science,37(4),668–710. Oaten (2009), “Can the Emotion of Disgust Be Harnessed to Promote Mishra, Arul (2009), “Influence of Contagious Versus Noncontagious Hand Hygiene? Experimental and Field-Based Tests,” Social Science and Product Groupings on Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Re- Medicine, 68 (6), 1006–12. search, 36 (1), 73–82. Prokosch, Marjorie L., Joshua M. Ackerman, and Sarah E. Hill (2017), Mishra, Arul, Himanshu Mishra, and Dhananjay Nayakankuppam (2009), “Caution in the Time of Cholera: Disease Threat Decreases Risk Toler- “The Group Contagion Effect: The Influence of Spatial Groupings on ance,” Working Paper, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Perceived Contagion and Preferences,” Psychological Science, 20 (7), Rozin, Paul, and April E. Fallon (1987), “A Perspective on Disgust,” Psy- 867–70. chological Review, 94 (1), 23–41. Morales, Andrea C., and Gavan Fitzsimons (2007), “Product Contagion: Rozin, Paul, Heidi Grant, Stephanie Weinberg, and Scott Parker (2007), Changing Consumer Evaluations through Physical Contact with ‘Dis- “‘Head versus Heart’: Effect of Monetary Frames of Expression of Sym- gusting’ Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (May), 272–83. pathetic Magical Concerns,” Judgment and Decision Making, 2 (4), 217– Murray, Damian R., and Mark Schaller (2016), “The Behavioral Immune 24. System: Implications for Social Cognition, Social Interaction, and So- Rozin, Paul, Jonathan Haidt, and Clark McCauley (1993), “Disgust,” in cial Influence,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 53 (2016), Handbook of Emotions, ed. M. Lewis and J. M. Haviland, New York: 75–129. Guilford Press, 575–94. Nemeroff, Carol J., and Paul Rozin (1994), “The Contagion Concept in Rozin, Paul, Maureen Markwith, and Clark McCauley (1994), “Sensitivity Adult Thinking in the United States: Transmission of Germs and of In- to Indirect Contacts with Other Persons: AIDS Aversion as a Compos-

ite of Aversion to Strangers, Infection, Moral Taint, and Misfortune,” Smith, Rosanna K., George E. Newman, and Ravi Dhar (2015), “Closer to Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103 (3), 496–504. the Creator: Temporal Contagion Explains the Preference for Earlier Rozin, Paul, Linda Millman, and Carol J. Nemeroff (1986), “Operation of Serial Numbers,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 42 (5), 653–68. the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust and Other Domains,” Jour- Stavrova, Olga, George E. Newman, Anna Kulemann, and Detlef Fetchen- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (4), 703–12. hauer (2016), “Contamination without Contact: An Examination of Rozin, Paul, and Carol J. Nemeroff (1990), “The Laws of Sympathetic Intention-Based Contagion,” Judgment and Decision Making,11(6),554–71. Magic: A Psychological Analysis of Similarity and Contagion,” in Cul- Uhlmann, Eric L., and Luke Zhu (2013), “Money Is Essence: Ownership In- tural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development, ed. J. tuitions Are Linked to Physical Currency,” Cognition, 127 (2), 220–29. Stigler, G. Herdt, and R. A. Shweder, Cambridge: Cambridge University Van Hooff, Johanna C., Christel Devue, Paula E. Vieweg, and Jan Theeuwes Press, 205–32. (2013), “Disgust- and Not Fear-Evoking Images Hold Our Attention,” ——— (2002), “Sympathetic Magical Thinking: The Contagion and Simi- Acta Psychologica, 143 (1), 1–6. larity “Heuristics,” in Heuristics and Biases. The Psychology of Intuitive Vogt, Julia, Ljubica Lozo, Ernest H. W. Koster, and Jan De Houwer (2011), Judgment, ed. T. Gilovich, D. Grifﬁn, and D. Kahneman, Cambridge: “On the Role of Goal Relevance in Emotional Attention: Disgust Evokes Cambridge University Press, 201–16. Early Attention to Cleanliness,” Cognition and Emotion, 25 (3), 466–77. Rozin, Paul, Carol J. Nemeroff, Marcia Wane, and Amy Sherrod (1989), Wang, I. M., Nicholas M. Michalak, and Josh M. Ackerman (forthcoming), “Operation of the Sympathetic Magical Law of Contagion in Interper- “Threat of Infectious Disease,” in The SAGE Handbook of Personality and sonal Attitudes among Americans,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, Individual Differences, ed. G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, and D. H. Saklovske, 27 (4), 367–70. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rozin, Paul, and Sharon Wolf (2008), “Attachment to National and Sacred Ward, Morgan K., and Darren W. Dahl (2014), “Should the Devil Sell Land and Its Relation to Personal Land Attachment and Contagion,” Prada? Retail Rejection Increases Aspiring Consumers’ Desire for the Judgment and Decision Making, 3 (4), 325–34. Brand,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 590–609. Savani, Krishna, Satishchandra Kumar, N. V. R. Naidu, and Carol S. Dweck Wohl, Michale J. A., and Michael E. Enzle (2002), “The Deployment of Per- (2011), “Beliefs about Emotional Residue: The Idea that Emotions sonal Luck: Sympathetic Magic and Illusory Control in Games of Pure Leave a Trace in the Physical Environment,” Journal of Personality Chance,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (10), 1388–97. and Social Psychology, 101 (4), 684–701 Xu, Alison J, Rami Swick, and Norbert Schwarz (2012), “Washing Away Schaller, Mark, and Damian R. Murray (2008), “Pathogens, Personality, Your (Good or Bad) Luck: Physical Cleansing Affects Risk-Taking Be- and Culture: Disease Prevalence Predicts Worldwide Variability in havior,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141 (1), 26–30. Sociosexuality, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience,” Journal Zhong, Chen-bo, and Katie Liljenquist (2006), “Washing Away Your Sins: of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (1), 212–21. Threatened Morality and Physical Cleaning,” Science, 313 (5792), Schaller, Mark, and Justin H. Park (2011), “The Behavioral Immune Sys- 1451–52. tem (and Why It Matters),” Current Directions in Psychological Science, Zook, Chris (2016), “How Dell, HP, and Apple Rediscovered Their Found- 20 (2), 99–103. ers’ Vision,” Harvard Business Review, July 15.

This content downloaded from 141.213.173.215 on January 15, 2018 09:19:56 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).