4.7 Article

Just my luck: Narcissistic admiration and rivalry differentially predict word of mouth about promotional games

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
Volume 150, Issue -, Pages 374-388

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.004

Keywords

Narcissism; Narcissistic admiration; Narcissistic rivalry; Hubris; Pride; Word of mouth; Serendipity; Luck

Categories

Funding

  1. New York Institute of Technology Institutional Support for Research and Creativity (ISRC) Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the influence of narcissistic admiration and rivalry on consumers' word of mouth about promotional games. The results show that when consumers lose, narcissistic admiration is associated with more favorable word of mouth, while narcissistic rivalry is associated with less favorable word of mouth. These effects vary depending on consumers' effort and sense of pride.
We examine the role of narcissistic admiration and rivalry in consumers' word of mouth about promotional games. We show that, although narcissistic admiration and rivalry are both positively associated with belief in good luck (Study 1), their associations with word of mouth in reference to a retailer diverge when consumers lose a chance-based promotional game (Study 2). Specifically, when consumers lose (but not win), narcissistic admiration is associated with more favorable word of mouth (i.e., leaving a positive review on a website), whereas narcissistic rivalry is associated with less favorable word of mouth. These diverging effects vary depending on the effort that consumers exert to participate in the game (Study 3), and are informed by authentic and hubristic pride (Study 4). Positive and negative affect do not account for the findings. The results provide further evidence of the distinct processes motivating self-enhancement among consumers higher in narcissistic admiration and rivalry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available