Name-Place Effect 1

Running Head: THE NAME-PLACE EFFECT

Attachment to Place:

Cultural Underpinnings of the Name-Place Effect

Kerry S. Kleyman Markus Kemmelmeier

Metropolitan State University University of Nevada, Reno

Minneapolis, MN Reno, NV

Name-Place Effect 2

Abstract

Research on implicit egotism indicates that people disproportionately reside in places whose

name matches theirs—a pattern which we termed the name-place effect. The present research

tested the hypotheses derived from the cultural psychology literature that the name-place effect

reflects individuals’ attachment to their community and place of residence, and that it should be

stronger in collectivist societies and among individuals high in interdependence. Using archival

data from collectivist and highly individualist U.S. states, Study 1 found consistent support for

the attachment to place hypothesis. Using an experimental task, Study 2 showed that the name-

place effect is associated with higher level of interdependence. Our discussion focuses on

possible processes that are responsible for the name-place effect and argues that it likely the

result of multiple processes, rather than a single process.

Name-Place Effect 3

Attachment to Place:

Cultural Underpinnings of the Name-Place Effect

Psychologists have long demonstrated that judgments and decisions are guided by subtle

but pervasive biases. People are often unaware of how characteristics of a stimulus influence the

judgments and choices they make. For instance, individuals prefer letters that are part of their

own name compared to letters that do not appear in their name (Hoorens, Nuttin, Herman, &

Pavakanun, 1990; Nuttin, 1985, 1987). Further, people tend to be partial toward stimuli that

remind them of their valued group identities (cf. Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The present research

discusses competing origins of the observation that the names of cities and town, as well as the

names of their residents are disproportionately similar to each other. We examine this

phenomenon from a cultural psychology perspective, and argue that this name-place effect

signals greater attachment to one’s place or community and, thus, should be associated with

collectivism.

Personal self-similarity: Implicit Egotism

Pelham, Mirenberg and Jones (2002) argued that implicit egotism plays a role in major

life decisions, which shapes patterns of everyday life. In several studies the authors demonstrated

the name letter effect (Nuttin, 1985), namely that the similarity between one’s name affects

where people decide to live, which profession they choose, and even whom to date (e.g., Paulhus

& Levitt, 1987; Pelham et al., 2002; Pelham, Carvallo, DeHart & Jones, 2003). For example,

Pelham et al. (2002) found that women named Mildred and Virginia resided in cities that

resembled their names (i.e. Milwaukee and Virginia Beach, respectively) with a probability that

clearly exceeded chance levels. Likewise, men named Jack were more likely to live in

Jacksonville and men named Philip were more likely to live in Philadelphia. Another of their

studies found that individuals with similar names to their state were more likely to reside in said

Name-Place Effect 4

city, such as Florence in Florida, or Georgia and George in Georgia. These results reflect

multiple findings that provide support for a name-letter effect applied to place, which we term

the name-place effect (cf. Gallucci, 2003).

The assumption by Pelham and colleagues is that name-place effects occur because

individuals seek to enhance or maintain their personal self-esteem (Pelham et al., 2002). From a

cultural perspective it appears that individualist societies, rather than collectivist societies, put

greater emphasis on individual uniqueness and personal self-enhancement (e.g., Vandello &

Cohen, 1999). Further, researchers (e.g., Heine, Lehman, Markus & Kitayama, 1999) have

argued that self-serving biases tend to be more prevalent in Western as compared to Eastern

societies. Thus, it is tempting to expect that phenomena such as the name-letter effect or the

present name-place effect would be stronger in individualist contexts. Consistent with this, Hetts,

Sakuma, and Pelham (1999) found not only cultural differences in implicit self-esteem, but also

that Asian immigrants to the U.S. developed increasingly positive implicit self-associations the

longer they were exposed to this individualist culture. However, research has documented that

implicit self-esteem biases occur across all kinds of cultures, including those that are considered

collectivist (e.g., Hoorens et al., 1990; Kitayama & Karasawa, 1997; Nuttin, 1987; Pelham et al.,

2005). Yet, other theorists argue that self-enhancement is a universal motive and that a priori

little cultural variability might be expected (e.g., Gaertner, Sedikides & Chang, 2008). In brief, it

can be doubted that the name-place effect varies between individualist and collectivist societies,

if it serves to enhance personal self-esteem.

Note also that recent research has questioned whether any of the name-letter effects

demonstrated by Pelham et al. (2002) and Pelham et al. (2003) in archival data, including name-

place effects, are indeed the result of egotistic choices on the part of individuals, such as the

decision of Allen to move to Allentown or, Denis to become a dentist. Simonsohn (2011a)

Name-Place Effect 5

argued that that there are often confounding factors that render such name-place matches likely

without the involvement of egotism, such as when the descendants of the Morris clan live in

Morristown, the city founded by their ancestor. At present, we do not take any position in this

dispute (see also Pelham & Carvallo, 2011; Simonsohn, 2011b). However, we hold that name-

place effects can be the result of a variety of different processes, which may include implicit

egotism given that experimental studies have consistently demonstrated it (e.g., Jones, Pelham,

Carvallo & Mirenberg, 2004).

Collective self-similarity: Symbolic Attachment to Place

Research in intergroup relations (e.g., Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) and cultural

psychology (e.g., Trafimow, Triandis & Goto, 1991) remind us that people do not only value

their personal self, but also the groups in which they are a member (see also Simon, 1999). As

documented by much of the social identity literature, people engage in various biases to enhance

the distinctness and favorability of their own group vis-à-vis others (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This

offers a slightly different perspective on some of the name-letter effects studied in the literature.

Whereas often research on implicit self-esteem seems to assume that name-letter effects reflect a

personal preference for an object that resembles the personal self (e.g., Pelham et al., 2002;

Kitayama & Karasawa, 1997), it may also reflect an affinity between one’s collective sense of

self and a group of community. This view may provide an alternative explanation for some of the

name-place effects documented by Pelham et al. (2002, 2003). Rather than Dan moving to

Danville because this strokes his ego, people might move to a particular city because it allows

them to feel part of the community. High identification with and attachment to the community

might also lead them to name their children in ways that resembles the name of the community.

This analysis gives rise to the expectation that the name-place effect should be stronger in

collectivist societies, not individualist ones, simply because group identities tend to be more

Name-Place Effect 6

central to the members of collectivist societies (cf. Chen, Brockner & Katz, 1998; Triandis,

Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Likewise, individuals with interdependent self-

construals are more likely to emphasize that they are embedded in collectives and relationships

(e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991); hence, if the name-place effect does reflect an attachment to

place, then it might be stronger among interdependent people. Support for this hypothesis comes

from Hetts et al. (1999) who documented that, compared to individualist societies, people in

collectivist societies had greater spontaneous associations between the self and social or

collective identities.

The present research

Our attachment to place hypothesis of the name-place effect is tested in two very

different studies. Study 1 relies, similar to Pelham et al. (2002) or Simonsohn (2011a), on an

archival approach, but seeks to document cross-cultural variability in the degree to which the

names of cities and their residents match. Study 2 then examines the same hypothesis in an

experimental task in which individuals varying in independent and interdependent self-construals

are being asked to spontaneously suggest the name of a new town.

A concern in both studies was whether attachment to place effects would be stronger for

first names or surnames, which might provide clues as to the nature of the specific nature of the

process that brings about the name-place effects. Name-place effects for surnames are quite

plausibly the result of residents being descendants of the founder of a town or city and do not

necessarily require the operation of implicit egotism (Simonsohn, 2011a). But even though first

names can also be rooted in family tradition, there is typically greater variability and choice

when parents name their children or when individuals choose names for themselves. Thus, a

priori name-place effects for first names might be more plausibly diagnostic of potential biases,

regardless of whether they are aimed at boosting one’s ego or expressing one’s connection to the

Name-Place Effect 7

community.

Study 1

The first study sought to establish the extent of the name-place effect in U.S. states high

or low in collectivism. Because they form part of the same polity and speak the same language,

the focus on U.S. states reduced the threat of confounds that inevitably plague other cross-

cultural comparisons. For every state we sought to gauge the extent of name-place effects by

looking for matching cities and names (e.g., William in Williamsburg) and then estimating the

extent to which this name was overrepresented in this town compared to the rest of the state. To

identify U.S. states high and low in collectivism we relied on Vandello and Cohen’s (1999)

index of state-level collectivism, which was generated based on seven structural aspects of the

state (percentage of people living alone; percentage of elderly people living alone; percentage of

household with grandchildren in them; divorce to marriage ratio; percentage of people with no

religious affiliation; percentage of self-employed workers; ratio of people carpooling to work to

people driving alone) as well as one aspect of a state’s political culture (percentage of people

voting Libertarian over the last four presidential elections). Past research has demonstrated that

these combined characteristics predict the attitudes and behaviors of the residents of the state

(e.g., Allik & Realo, 2004; Conway, Sexton & Tweed, 2006; Kemmelmeier, Wieczorkowska,

Erb & Burnstein, 2002). With Varnum and Kitayama (2011) also documenting systematic

variation in naming patterns across U.S. states, it was plausible to expect that state differences

identified by Vandello and Cohen (1999) would be reflected in the name-place effect as well.

Method

The Name-Place Effect

A complete list of male names, female names and surnames were collected from the U.S.

Census Population Division (United States Census Bureau, 1994). To allow for a stricter test of

Name-Place Effect 8

whether the name-place effect would be stronger first names or surnames, we aimed at matching

first names and surnames as much as possible (e.g., first name Adam, surname Adams). Initially,

we identified the top 100 U.S. surnames and matched them to male and female first names to

create a name-cluster for the various ways in which the same name might be used. First names

that ranked in the top 200 of both male and female names were identified as gender-neutral first

names. The final sample of names included 79 male, 73 female, 18 gender neutral, and 124

surnames, with every surname at least one matching first name by a minimum of the first three

consecutive letters (e.g. Dan, Daniels). For example, a full name match included Joseph (male

first name), and Joseph (surname). A partial name match would include Jack (male), Jackie

(female), and Jackson (surname).

A comprehensive list of cities was collected from www.IDcide.com, an information

system on U.S. municipalities (IDcide, 2007). Cities were matched to the first name-surname

clusters based upon a minimum of the first three consecutive letters, and full matches were used

whenever available. Cities were selected from states that ranked either high or low on Vandello

and Cohen’s (1999) collectivism index. States that ranked high on collectivism with possible

confounding factors were not included in the current research, such as Utah (dominated by one

religious group), Hawaii (strong Asian influences), and California (high migration) (cf.

Kemmelmeier et al., 2006). Thus, the current research identified states as collectivist if the

collectivism score exceeded 54, and individualist if the score was less than 40. A sample of ten

collectivist states (AL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA) and nine individualist states

(CO, IA, KS, MT, ND, NE, OR, SD, WY) were utilized for city matches. This resulted in 637

city names that could be matched to the above first and surnames. Of these, 175 city names only

occurred in individualist states, 354 only occurred in collectivist states, and 108 occurred in both

types of states. Each of these city names began with one of 90 distinct three-letter combinations,

Name-Place Effect 9

which could be matched with a name.1 Seventy-seven of three-letter strings were shared between

cities in individualist and collectivist states, two were unique to individualist states and 11

unique to collectivist states.2

The name-place effect is defined as a full or partial match between a name (first name,

surname) and the name of a city, and represents the likelihood of living in a specific city as a

function of one’s name. For example, the male name William and the city of Williamson, VA is

a partial name-place match, while the surname of Allen and the city of Allen, TX is a full name-

place match. Overall, 3,007 name-place matches were identified for analysis, including 793 male

names, 742 female names, 206 gender-neutral names, and 1,266 surname-place matches.

Data Collection

All name-place matches were compiled in a database along with their respective city and

state population numbers. An electronic telephone directory was identified that was ideal for the

purposes of the present research. We chose to use Lycos People Search (LPS;

http://peoplesearch.lycos.com/) directory due to the capability to conduct searches based on only

first name or surname, whereas most other directories required both first name and surname to

conduct a search. At the time when this study was conducted, the LPS provided the total number

of directory listings, while other directories (e.g. whitepages.com, switchboard.com) provided

only an approximate for listings over a certain number, such as 100+. Additionally, LPS was

comparable to other sources (e.g., Yahoo People Search). LPS was utilized to collect all

observed matches of the name-place standard, that is, all name-place matches, as well as locating

the number of names within a state.

The final dataset also included state-level demographic data, such as the size of the city 1 Five percent of our matches were based on three-word syllables that sound the same but are spelled different (e.g., Lewis and Louis). Excluding these matches did not alter our results. 2 Maximizing experimental control by only focusing on shared three-letter strings did not alter results.

Name-Place Effect 10

(i.e. rural, urban, etc.), the population change in last decade (to indicate patterns of mobility), the

Gross State Product (GSP), and other demographic variables.

Results

For each name-place match we computed the proportion of people with a particular name

in the matching place (e.g., the proportion of Williams in the population of Williamsburg, VA).

Subsequently, we computed the proportion of people with the name in the state in which the

matching place was located (e.g., proportion of Williams in the population of Virginia, excluding

Williamsburg, VA). By subtracting the first proportion from the second proportion we obtained a

measure as to whether people with matching names were over- or under-represented in the place

compared to the remainder of the state.3 The resulting difference served as main dependent

variable. We repeated this calculation for every name-place match.

Subsequent analysis focused on four different types of names: male first names, female

first names, gender-neutral first names (e.g., Chris, Terry), as well as surnames. Simple

comparisons of means revealed that, as shown in Figure 1, for each type of name, the percentage

of name-place matches was higher in collectivist states.

Correspondingly, a series of mixed models was run. Because city names differ in the

extent to which they invite matches with the names of their residents, and with multiple first

names matching the same city name (e.g., Carlisle matches Carl, Carla, Carlson, Carol etc.), city

name was modeled as a random factor. Further, because multiple cities were located within the

same state, state was also modeled as a separate random factor to account for the resulting

interdependence in the data, resulting in a cross-classified mixed model. We included state-level

collectivism (high vs. low) as well as the size of the place in question and mobility (identified as

% change in last decade) as fixed factor predictors. There were no differences between full- and

3 A ratio measure produced the same findings, but model estimations did not always converge.

Name-Place Effect 11

partial-name matches; hence, this factor is not discussed further. Furthermore, the inclusion of

state’s GSP or overall state population either were not reliable predictors or did not qualify the

findings reported here; therefore, they were excluded from the final model.

We found that state-level individualism was negatively related to the name-letter effect in

all four models, male first names, b = -.0024, p = .059, female first names b = -.0004, p = .036,

gender-neutral first names, b = -.0006, p = .049, and surnames, b = -.0025, p = .012, although the

coefficient only approached significance for male first names. Results also indicated that the

name-place effect was occasionally stronger in rural regions and very small towns (see Table 1).

The inclusion of an interaction terms did not improve the model fit. Thus, the results indicate

overall that first names and size of town produce the greatest differences in the name-place effect

in individualist and collectivist cultures.

Discussion

The Study 1 showed that the name-place effect varied systematically between

individualist and collectivist states, and this finding was consistent for surnames as well as

different types of first names. This pattern is consistent with the notion that the name-place effect

reflects an attachment to place. Also, as one might expect under this hypothesis, the name-letter

effect was consistently greater in rural areas and smaller towns than in bigger cities. On the one

hand, name-place effects are more likely to occur because there are many more towns which may

have been found by residents’ ancestors (cf. Simonsohn, 2011a). On the other hand, the stronger

effect in rural areas might simply be an expression of the greater interdependent orientation of

the local population (cf. Kashima et al., 2004).

Study 2

The second study examined the generalizability of the archival name-place effect

documented in Study 1 to individual behavior. Specifically, would individuals with different

Name-Place Effect 12

cultural orientations create a connection between name and place by naming a new place after

themselves? Though individuals rarely face the opportunity to name a town, doing so is one

mechanism to bring about the name-place effect (cf. Simonsohn, 2011a, Study 11). To the extent

that the correspondence between one’s own name and one’s place of residence reflects

attachment to place, one would expect individuals with a more collectivist orientation to be more

inclined to name a new town after themselves, perhaps because for them this signifies their own

commitment to an emerging community. Conversely, to the extent that founders want to create a

personal mark of distinction for themselves one can expect that people with a more individualist

orientation are more likely to name a town after themselves. The present study assesses

individual differences in independent and interdependent self-construals, which have been linked

to cultural differences between individualist and collectivist societies (e.g., Markus & Kitayama,

1991; Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2002). If the name-place effect reflects attachment to

place, individuals high in interdependence should be most likely to name a new town after

themselves.

Method

Participants

A total of 221 undergraduate students from two different public universities (62%

female) participated in the present study. Twenty-eight participants had to be excluded because

they did not provide their name, and one did not propose any town name. An additional 11

international students were removed mostly because they provided English-language names

when their own names were of a different language, thus a priori reducing the possibility of a

match. We retained 181 participants who indicated their hometown to be in the U.S.

Procedure

Participants received a questionnaire that asked them to imagine themselves as explorer

Name-Place Effect 13

of the American West:

Imagine that you are an explorer in the early 1840s. You set out to discover new lands in the American West. You, however, take a slightly different route, and stumble upon a pristine valley full of great land for agriculture, fresh water sources, and mountains and forests for sustenance and building materials. You decide to claim as much land as you are allowed by law, and you build a house for your family. Eventually, you send word of the valley to the people back East. You know that soon there will be a thriving town with possibly hundreds of people.

At this point participants received a one-sentence description of the town that they might

create, either emphasizing personality freedom and excellence, or emphasizing cooperation and

unity. But because this variation did not affect results, it is not reported further. Participants were

told: “As founder of this new town, your first order of business is to come up with a suitable

name. Please provide up to 5 names for the new town.” Participants then listed up to five names

(average of 4.79; range 1-5).

As a distractor task, participants worked on the Neuberg and Newsom (1993) personal

need for structure scale, before they completed Singelis’s (1994) two-factorial self-construal

scale, both independence and interdependence Cronbach’s = .70. After another brief task

unrelated to the present study, participants were asked to provide their own first and surname, the

name of their hometown and home state, as well as their gender and race/ethnicity.

Results

To determine whether participants’ first name or surname matched a name they had

proposed for their hypothetical town, at least first three letters had to match. For each participant

we counted the number of matches and divided them by the number of town names proposed (up

to five). This proportion served as our main dependent variable. A total of 6.8% of all matches

were name-place effects were due to the town’s name matching participants’ first name, and

8.9% name-place effects were due to surname matches, Wilcox Z = -1.20, p = .23.4

4 There was only one participant whose first and surname partially matched.

Name-Place Effect 14

Both scores were then correlated with participants’ independence and interdependence

scores. Because the proportion-of-matches variable was nonnormally distributed, we provide

Kendall rank correlations in addition to Pearson correlation coefficients. Table 2 shows that only

for first names, individual differences in interdependence correlated with the proportion of name-

place matches. No significant relationships emerged for surnames, and independence was never

statistically related to name-place matches.

Discussion

Study 2 demonstrates that highly interdependent individuals are more likely to generate a

name-place match than individuals low in interdependence. Further, individual differences in

independence were unrelated to name-place matches. With interdependence referring to the type

of self-construal that research has associated with collectivist societies (e.g., Gardner et al., 1999;

Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Trafimow et al., 1991), this second study represents a conceptual

replication of our Study 1 in an experimental setting. However, Study 1 and Study 2 differed in

that the latter only found name-place matches for first names, not for surnames. Potentially, this

was due to their personal identities, rather than their family identities, being more salient to our

student participants.

General Discussion

The present series of studies supports the prediction that the name-place effect is more

pronounced in collectivist societies and among highly interdependent individuals. Assuming that

collectivism and interdependence to reflect a commitment to one’s group or community, this

finding is consistent with our notion that the name-place effect can be understood as a reflection

of individuals’ symbolic attachment to their place of residence.

At the same time, there are multiple processes that may be responsible for this

association, though realistically one should expect these processes to occur simultaneously. First,

Name-Place Effect 15

the association between residents’ names and their place of residents might be result of

traditional residence pattern, with the descendants of a town’s founder living in the same place.

Under this process the name-place effect is the result of a structural reality, and it is most likely

to apply to surnames, which indicates genealogical lineage. The effect for surnames found in

Study 1 is consistent with this possibility. Under this notion it is further expected that Study 2

failed to observe any name-place effects for surnames, simply because it did not tap residential

patterns. Overall, this process emphasizes tradition and heritage, values that are conceptually and

empirically linked with collectivism (e.g., Clay, Terrizzi & Shook, 2012); hence, it is very much

consistent with our attachment to place hypothesis.

Second, the name letter effect might be the result of residents either choosing their own

names, or naming their children in ways that is reminiscent of the town in which they live. That

is, residents or parents of residents freely choose a name from many possibilities, and hence this

process is more likely to occur for first names. Arguably, this free-choice aspect is being tapped

by Study 2, which did only find the name-place match for first names even though participants’

task was to name a town, not a person. Still, Study 2 results support the notion that, when left to

their own devices, individuals high in interdependence draw on their first name, not their

surname, to establish a symbolic link between themselves and their community.

Third, the name-place effect might be the result of individuals deciding to move to (or

away from) a place with whom they (do not) share letters in their first or surname (e.g., Pelham

et al., 2002). There is nothing to prevent this process from resulting in name-place matches for

both first and surnames. Multiple studies support the existence of both such- first and surname-

based effects (e.g., Pelham et al., 2002, 2003), though the evidence has been challenged by

Simonsohn (2011a). Unfortunately, the present research cannot contribute to this debate because

migration patterns were not examined; however, future research should test our attachment to

Name-Place Effect 16

place hypothesis from this perspective. Our prediction would be that individual high in

interdependence and members of communities that can be characterized as collectivist should be

less likely to move than this is the case for individuals low in interdependence and members of

communities that are pervaded by an individualist spirit. This prediction is consistent with

research by Oishi, Lun and Sherman (2007) who documented that individuals who moved a lot

were more likely to emphasize their personal self-concept rather than their collective identities

(cf. Hetts et al., 1999).

Regardless of whether any future research will support the present prediction or not, it

seems plausible that the name-place effect is the result of more than one simultaneous effect,

which might operate differentially on first name and surname matches. This perspective has thus

far been absent from the recent debate between Simonsohn (2011a, 2011b) and Pelham and

Carvallo (2011), but may help bridge some of the differences.

In closing, consider that, although our findings are emphasizing individuals’ attachment

to their communities rather than self-enhancement, the present research is not necessarily

incompatible with the notion of implicit egotism. After all, early formulations of social identity

theories emphasized that individuals rely on collective identities for the sake of personal self-

esteem (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Although this particular aspect of the theory has not always

received support (e.g., Rubin & Hewstone, 1998) it is possible that members of collectivist

societies and interdependent individuals take personal pride in their towns and communities.

This, in turn may lead individual to maintain a civic spirit and contribute to their communities—

and ultimately aid in the cultural reproduction of the spirit that keeps communities strong.

Name-Place Effect 17

References

Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2004). Individualism-collectivism and social capital. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 35, 29-49.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.

Chen, Y., Brockner, J., & Katz, T. (1998). Toward an explanation of cultural differences in in-

group favoritism: The role of individual versus collective primacy. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 75, 1490–1502.

Conway, L. G., Sexton, S. M., & Tweed, R. G. (2006). Collectivism and governmentally

initiated restrictions: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis across nations and

within a nation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 20–41.

Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Chang, K. (2008). On pancultural self-enhancement: Well-

adjusted Taiwanese self-enhance on personally valued traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 39, 463-477.

Gallucci, M. (2003). I sell seashells by the seashore and my name is Jack: Comment on Pelham,

Mirenberg, and Jones (2002). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 789 –

799.

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for

positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.

Hetts, J. J., Sakuma, M., & Pelham, B.W. (1999). Two roads to positive regard: Implicit and

explicit self-evaluation and culture. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 512-

559.

Hoorens, V., Nuttin, J. M., Jr., Herman, I. E., & Pavakanun, U. (1990). Mastery pleasure versus

mere ownership: A quasi-experimental cross-cultural and cross-alphabetical test of the

Name-Place Effect 18

name letter effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 181-205.

IDcide. (2007, September 14). Local information data server. Retrieved September 14, 2007,

from http://www.idcide.com/index.htm.

Jones, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Mirenberg, M. C. (2004). How do I love thee? Let

me count the Js: Implicit egotism and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 87, 665–683.

Kashima, Y., Kokubo, T., Kashima, E. S., Boxall, D., Yamaguchi, S., & Macrae, K. (2004).

Culture and self: Are there within-culture differences in self between metropolitan areas

and regional cities? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 816-823.

Kemmelmeier, M., Jambor, E., & Letner, J. (2006). Individualism and good works: Cultural

variation in giving and volunteering across the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 37, 327-344.

Kemmelmeier, M., Wieczorkowska, G., Erb, H.-P., & Burnstein, E. (2002). Individualism,

authoritarianism and attitudes toward assisted death: Cross-cultural, cross-regional and

experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 60-85.

Kitayama, S., & Karasawa, M. (1997). Implicit self-esteem in Japan: Name

letters and birthday numbers. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 23, 736-742.

Nuttin, J. M., Jr. (1985). Narcissism beyond Gestalt and awareness: The name letter effect.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 353-361.

Nuttin, J. M. (1987). Affective consequences of mere ownership: The name-letter effect in

twelve European languages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 381–402.

Oishi, S., Lun, J., & Sherman, G.D. (2007). Residential mobility, self-concept, and positive

affect in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 131–141.

Name-Place Effect 19

Paulhus, D. L., & Levitt, K. (1987). Desirable responding triggered by affect: Automatic

egotism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 245-259.

Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., DeHart, T., & Jones, J. T. (2003). Assessing the validity of

implicit egotism: A reply to Gallucci (2003). Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85, 800–807.

Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, A., & Jones, J. T. (2005). Implicit egotism. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 14, 106–110.

Pelham, B. W., Mirenberg, M. C., & Jones, J. T. (2002). Why Susie sells seashells by the

seashore: Implicit egotism and major life decisions. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82, 469-487.

Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review

and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 40–

62.

Simon, B. (1999). A place in the world: Self and social categorization. In T. R. Tyler, R. M.

Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 47-69). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Simonsohn, U. (2011a). Spurious? Name similarity effects (implicit egotism) in marriage, job,

and moving decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1–24.

Simonsohn, U. (2011b). In defense of diligence: A rejoinder to Pelham and Carvallo (2011).

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 31–33.

Tajfel, H., &Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &

S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey,

CA: Brooks & Cole.

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the

Name-Place Effect 20

private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,

649-655.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and

collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.

United States Census Bureau (1994). 1990 United States Census: Male, Female and Surnames.

Retrieved August 8, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/.

Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the

United Status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 279-292.

Varnum, M. E. W., & Kitayama, S. (2011). What's in a name?: Popular names are less common

on frontiers. Psychological Science, 22, 176–183.

Name-Place Effect 21

Figure 1

Mean percentage difference of name-place effect in individualist and collectivist states

Name-Place Effect 22

Table 1

Estimates of Fixed Effects for Name-Place Match by Collectivism, Size of City and Population Change_____________________________________________________

b (SE)_____________________________________________________Male First Name Matches

Intercept -.0006 (.0023)Individualist (1; 0=Collectivist) -.0024+ (.0013)Rural (Less than 500) .0046+ (.0026)Rural (501-1000) .0012 (.0027)Town (1001-5000) .0013 (.0025)City (5001-20000) .0008 (.0028)

Female First Name MatchesIntercept .0001 (.0002)Individualist (1; 0=Collectivist) -.0004* (.0001)Rural (Less than 500) .0006* (.0003)Rural (501-1000) .0006* (.0003)Town (1001-5000) .0003 (.0003)City (5001-20000) .0001 (.0003)

Gender-Neutral First Name MatchesIntercept -.0001 (.0005)Individualist (1; 0=Collectivist) -.0006* (.0003)Rural (Less than 500) .0006 (.0005)Rural (501-1000) .0006 (.0005)Town (1001-5000) .0005 (.0005)City (5001-20000) .0002 (.0005)

Surname MatchesIntercept -.0022 (.0018)Individualist (1; 0=Collectivist) -.0025* (.0009)Rural (Less than 500) .0034** (.0012)Rural (501-1000) .0025* (.0013)Town (1001-5000) .0009 (.0012)City (5001-20000) -.0002 (.0013)

_____________________________________________________+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

Note: Reference category for size of city: Towns of 20,000+

Name-Place Effect 23

Table 2 Association between name-place match scores and interdependence and independence (Pearson correlations and Kendall’s tau)__________________________________________________________________________

Interdependence Independence

_________________ _________________

r r

__________________________________________________________________________

First Name-match Correlations

Males .27* .25** .11 .11

Females .18+ .16* .01 .02

Total .20** .19** .05 .06

Surname-Match Correlations

Males -.07 -.004 -.12 -.11

Females .12 .06 .05 .03

Total .08 .04 .001 .02

__________________________________________________________________________+p < .06, *p < .05, **p < .01

Note: Reference category for size of city: Towns of 20000+