Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 898

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter

Aaker, Jennifer, Vohs, Kathleen D., Mogilner, Cassie·2010·Journal of Consumer Research
DOI 10.1086/651566
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Consumers use warmth and competence, two fundamental dimensions that govern social judgments of people, to form perceptions of firms. Three experiments showed that consumers perceive nonprofits as being warmer than for-profits but as less competent. Further, consumers are less willing to buy a product made by a nonprofit than a for-profit because of their perception that the firm lacks competence. Consequently, when perceived competence of a nonprofit is boosted through subtle cues that connote credibility, discrepancies in willingness to buy disappear. In fact, when consumers perceive high levels of competence and warmth, they feel admiration for the firm—which translates to consumers’ increased desire to buy. This work highlights the importance of consumer stereotypes about nonprofit and for-profit companies that, at baseline, come with opposing advantages and disadvantages but that can be altered.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/651566

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Aaker David (2004), Brand Portfolio Strategy, New York: Free Press.
  2. 10.2307/3151897 · doi:10.2307/3151897 · Paper page
  3. 10.1086/383419 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1215/03616878-26-5-851 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1287/mksc.1060.0253 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1037/a0010932 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.2189/asqu.53.4.655 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Chemers Martin (2001), “Leadership Effectiveness: An Integrative Review,” in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, ed. Hogg Michael A. Tindale R. Scott , Oxford: Blackwell, 376–99.
  10. 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00381.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Cuddy Amy J. C. Norton Michael I. Fiske Susan T. (2005), “This Old Stereotype: The Pervasiveness and Persistence of the Elderly Stereotype,” Journal of Social Issues, 61 (June), 265–83. · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540131 · DOI
  15. 10.1086/383434 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fiske Alan Page Kitayama Shinobu Markus Hazel Rose Nisbett Richard E. (1998), Cultural Matrix of Social Psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  17. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.2307/256324 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.2307/3311741 · doi:10.2307/3311741
  21. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Jussim Lee (2005). “Accuracy: Criticisms, Controversies, Criteria, Components, and Cognitive Processes,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 37, ed. Zanna M. P. , New York: Academic Press, 1–93.
  23. Kelly George A. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. 1, New York: Norton.
  24. Leary Timothy (1957), Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality, New York: Ronald Press.
  25. 10.1509/jmkg.68.4.16.42726 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1509/jppm.25.1.117 · DOI
  27. 10.1086/597161 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Moret Laurie (2004), “Spotlight on Consulting Issues: Coaching Cross Roads,” Consulting Psychologist, 6 (Fall), http://bit.ly/3udaJd. · DOI
  29. 10.1257/aer.97.1.37 · doi:10.1257/aer.97.1.37
  30. 10.2307/796081 · doi:10.2307/796081
  31. 10.1037/h0026086 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1377/hlthaff.23.6.181 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.23.6.181
  33. 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.004 · DOI
  34. 10.1086/208704 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.86 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1023/A:1010633908298 · DOI
  37. 10.1177/1368430205053944 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 898

Metadata

Authors
Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C.
Venue
Journal of Consumer Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2010-08
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
224-237
ISSN
  • 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5277
DOI
10.1086/651566
OpenAlex
W2272640135
Cited by
898
References
9
FWCI
47.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/651566
The paper
Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/651566

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.