Nominative determinism is the hypothesis that people tend to gravitate toward areas of work or interest that fit their names. The term was first used in the magazine New Scientist in 1994, after the magazine's humorous "Feedback" column noted several scientific studies carried out by researchers with remarkably fitting surnames. These included a book on polar explorations by Daniel Snowman and an article on urology by researchers named Splatt and Weedon. These and other examples led to lighthearted speculation that some sort of psychological effect was at work.
Since the term appeared, nominative determinism has been an irregularly recurring topic in New Scientist, as readers continue to submit examples. Nominative determinism differs from the related concept of the aptronym, and the Latin idea of ('the name is an omen'), in that it focuses on causality. An aptronym merely means the name is fitting, without saying anything about why it has come to fit.
The idea that people are drawn to professions that fit their name was suggested by the psychologist Carl Jung, citing as an example Sigmund Freud who studied pleasure and whose surname means 'joy'. A few recent empirical studies have indicated that certain professions are disproportionately represented by people with appropriate surnames (and sometimes given names), though the methods of these studies have been challenged. One explanation for nominative determinism is implicit egotism, which states that humans have an unconscious preference for things they associate with themselves.
Background
Historically, before people could gravitate toward areas of work that matched their names, many people were given names that matched their area of work. The way people are named has changed over time. In pre-urban times, people were known by a single name – for example, the Anglo-Saxon name Beornheard. Single names were chosen for their meaning or given as nicknames. In England, it was only after the Norman Conquest that surnames appear, although some pre-Conquest individuals had a byname, such as Edmund Ironside; these bynames were not hereditary. Surnames were created to fit the person, mostly from patronyms (e.g., John, son of William, becomes John Williamson), occupational descriptions (e.g., John Carpenter), character or traits (e.g., John Long), or location (e.g., John from Acton became John Acton). Names were not initially hereditary; only by the mid-14th century did they gradually become so. Surnames relating to trades or craft were the first to become hereditary, as the craft often persisted within the family for generations. The appropriateness of occupational names has decreased over time, because tradesmen did not always follow their fathers: an early example from the 14th century is "Roger Carpenter the pepperer".
Another aspect of naming was the importance attached to the wider meaning contained in a name. In 17th-century England, it was believed that choosing a name for a child should be done carefully. Children should live according to the message contained therein, or the meaning of their names. In 1652, William Jenkyn, an English clergyman, argued that first names should be "as a thread tyed about the finger to make us mindful of the errand we came into the world to do for our Master". In 1623, at a time when Puritan names such as Faith, Fortitude and Grace were appearing for the first time, the English historian William Camden wrote that names should be chosen with "good and gracious significations", as they might inspire the bearer to good actions. With the rise of the British Empire, the English naming system and English surnames spread across large portions of the globe.
By the beginning of the 20th century, Smith and Taylor were two of the three most frequently occurring English surnames; both were occupational, though few smiths and tailors remained. When a correspondence between a name and an occupation did occur, it became worthy of note. In an 1888 issue of the Kentish Note Book magazine, a list appeared with "several carriers by the name of Carter; a hosier named Hosegood; an auctioneer named Sales; and a draper named Cuff". Since then, a variety of terms for the concept of a close relationship between name and occupation have emerged. The term aptronym is thought to have been coined in the early 20th century by the American newspaper columnist Franklin P. Adams. The linguist Frank Nuessel coined "aptonym", without an "r", in 1992. Other synonyms include "euonym", "Perfect Fit Last Name" (PFLN), and "namephreak". In literary science, a name that particularly suits a character is called a "charactonym". Notable authors who frequently used charactonyms as a stylistic technique include Charles Dickens (e.g., Mr. Gradgrind, the tyrannical schoolmaster) and William Shakespeare (e.g., the lost baby Perdita in The Winter's Tale). Unlike nominative determinism, the concept of aptronym and its synonyms do not say anything about causality, such as why the name has come to fit.
Because of the potentially humorous nature of aptronyms, a number of newspapers have collected them. The San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen reported irregularly on reader-submitted examples, including a substitute teacher Mr. Fillin, a piano teacher Patience Scales, and the Vatican's spokesman on the evils of rock 'n' roll, Cardinal Rapsong. Similarly, the journalist Bob Levey on occasion listed examples sent in by readers of his column in The Washington Post: a food industry consultant named Faith Popcorn, a lieutenant called Sergeant, and a tax accountant called Shelby Goldgrab. A Dutch newspaper, Het Parool, had an irregularly featured column called "Nomen est omen" with Dutch examples. Individual name collectors have also published books of aptronyms. The onomastic scholar R. M. Rennick called for more verification of aptronyms appearing in newspaper columns and books. Lists of aptronyms in science, medicine, and law are more reliable as they tend to be drawn from easily verifiable sources.
Though most examples of aptronyms consist of people's surnames, there are also cases of full names which correlate with their holders' careers. A humorous example is Robin Mahfood, who was CEO and president of nonprofit organization Food For The Poor until 2020. His name has a very similar pronunciation with the phrase "robbing my food", and its correlation with his charity work in donating food has made him the subject of internet memes.
Definition Nominative determinism, literally "name-driven outcome", is the hypothesis that people tend to gravitate toward areas of work that reflect their names. The name fits because people, possibly subconsciously, made themselves fit. Nominative determinism differs from the concept of aptronyms in that it focuses on causality.
The term has its origin in the "Feedback" column of the magazine New Scientist in 1994. A series of events raised the suspicion of its editor, John Hoyland, who wrote in the November 5 issue:
The editors of Feedback, John Hoyland and Mike Holderness, subsequently adopted the term nominative determinism as suggested by the reader C. R. Cavonius. The term first appeared in the December 17 issue. Even though the magazine tried to ban the topic numerous times over the decades since, readers kept sending in curious examples. These included the U.S. Navy spokesman put up to answer journalists' questions about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, one Lieutenant Mike Kafka; authors of the book The Imperial Animal, Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox; and the UK Association of Chief Police Officers' spokesman on knife crime, Alfred Hitchcock.
As used in New Scientist the term nominative determinism applies only to work. In contributions to other newspapers, New Scientist writers have stuck to this definition, with the exception of the editor Roger Highfield in a column in the Evening Standard, in which he included "key attributes of life".
Prior to 1994, other terms for the suspected psychological effect were used sporadically. "Onomastic determinism" was used as early as 1970 by Roberta Frank. The German psychologist Wilhelm Stekel spoke of (The obligation of the name) in 1911. Outside of science, "cognomen syndrome" was used by the playwright Tom Stoppard in his 1972 play Jumpers. In Ancient Rome, the predictive power of a person's name was captured by the Latin proverb , meaning 'the name is a sign'. This saying is still in use today in English and other languages such as French, German, Italian, Dutch, Slovenian and Polish.
New Scientist coined the term "nominative contradeterminism" for people who move away from their name, creating a contradiction between name and occupation. Examples include Andrew Waterhouse, a professor of wine; a would-be doctor, Thomas Edward Kill, who subsequently changed his name to Jirgensohn; and the Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Sin. The synonym "inaptronym" is also sometimes used.
Research Theoretical framework
The first scientists to discuss the concept that names had a determining effect were early 20th-century German psychologists. Wilhelm Stekel spoke of the "obligation of the name" in the context of compulsive behaviour and choice of occupation; Karl Abraham wrote that the determining power of names might be partially caused by inheriting a trait from an ancestor who was given a fitting name. He made the further inference that families with fitting names might then try to live up to their names in some way. In 1952, Carl Jung referred to Stekel's work in his theory of synchronicity (events without causal relationship that yet seem to be meaningfully related):
Jung listed striking instances among psychologists—including himself: "Herr Freud (Joy) champions the pleasure principle, Herr Adler (Eagle) the will to power, Herr Jung (Young) the idea of rebirth ..."
In 1975, the psychologist Lawrence Casler called for empirical research into the relative frequencies of career-appropriate names to establish if there is an effect at work or whether we are being "seduced by Lady Luck". He proposed three possible explanations for nominative determinism: one's self-image and self-expectation being internally influenced by one's name; the name acting as a social stimulus, creating expectations in others that are then communicated to the individual; and genetics – attributes suited to a particular career being passed down the generations alongside the appropriate occupational surname.
In 2002, the researchers Pelham, Mirenberg, and Jones explored Casler's first explanation, arguing that people have a basic desire to feel good about themselves and behave according to that desire. These automatic positive associations would influence feelings about almost anything associated with the self. Given the mere ownership effect, which states that people like things more if they own them, the researchers theorised that people would develop an affection for objects and concepts that are associated with the self, such as their name. They called this unconscious power implicit egotism. Uri Simonsohn suggested that implicit egotism applies only to cases where people are nearly indifferent between options, and therefore it would not apply to major decisions such as career choices. Low-stakes decisions such as choosing a charity would show an effect. Raymond Smeets theorised that if implicit egotism stems from a positive evaluation of the self, then people with low self-esteem would not gravitate toward choices associated with the self, but possibly away from them. A lab experiment confirmed this.
Empirical evidence