AMS Review

pp 1–15 | Cite as

The extended self, product valuation, and the endowment effect

  • Daniel Villanova


Various explanations have been proposed to account for discrepancies in product valuation, pertaining particularly to the buyer-seller valuation gap called the endowment effect. Previous research has examined the roles of loss sensitivity, strategic responding, differences between buyers and sellers in information processing, self-enhancement, and psychological ownership as causes of the endowment effect. This article presents a conceptual perspective based on the theory of the extended self that integrates previously proposed mechanisms for the endowment effect. The self-extension perspective generates novel predictions about possible moderators of the endowment effect. Further, the self-extension perspective also raises questions for product valuation in general. By integrating previous research and posing new questions, the self-extension perspective provides a new base for the advancement of research on product valuation.


Extended self Product valuation Endowment effect Valuation gap 



  1. Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Consumer contamination: How consumers react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70(April), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp / Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atakan, S. S., Bagozzi, R. P., & Yoon, C. (2014). Make it your own: How process valence and self-construal affect evaluation of self-made products. Psychology and Marketing, 31(6), 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bahl, S., & Milne, G. R. (2010). Talking to ourselves: A dialogical exploration of consumption experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(1), 176–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bar-Hillel, M., & Neter, E. (1996). Why are people reluctant to exchange lottery tickets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(September), 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(February), 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Belk, R. W. (1981). Determinants of consumption cue utilization in impression formation: An associational deviation and experimental verification. In K. Monroe (Ed.), NA- advances in consumer research, 8 (pp. 170–175). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  12. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Belk, R. W. (1990). Me and thee versus mine and thine: How perceptions of the body influence organ donation and transplantation. In J. Shanteau & R. Harris (Eds.), Organ donation and transplantation: Psychological and behavioral factors (pp. 139–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  14. Belk, R. W. (2014). Alternative conceptualizations of the extended self. In J. Cotte & S. Wood (Eds.), NA - advances in consumer research, 42 (pp. 251–254). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  15. Belk, R. W. (2018). Ownership: The extended self and the extended object. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 53–67). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Belk, R. W., & Austin, M. (1986). Organ donation willingness as a function of extended self and materialism. In M. Venkatesan and W. Lancaster (Eds.), Advances in health care research, 1986 Proceedings (pp. 84–88). Toledo, OH: Association for Health Care.Google Scholar
  17. Belk, R. W., & Humayum, M. (2015). Object agency and the extended object. In E. W. Wan & M. Zhang (Eds.), AP - advances in consumer research, 11 (pp. 21–23). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  18. Belk, R. W., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (2003). The fire of desire: A multisited inquiry into consumer passion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 326–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 2–57). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product categories. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Boyce, R. R., Brown, T. C., McClelland, G. H., Peterson, G. L., & Schulze, W. D. (1992). An experimental examination of intrinsic values as a source for the WTA-WTP disparity. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1366–1373.Google Scholar
  23. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Post-decision changes in desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Brenner, L., Rottenstreich, Y., Sood, S., & Bilgin, B. (2007). On the psychology of loss aversion: Possession, valence, and reversals of the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(October), 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Burris, C. T., & Rempel, J. K. (2004). 'It’s the end of the world as we know it’: Threat and the spatial-symbolic self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Burris, C. T., & Rempel, J. K. (2010). If I only had a membrane: A review of amoebic self theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9), 756–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Burroughs, W. J., Drews, D. R., & Hallman, W. K. (1991). Predicting personality from personal possessions: A self-presentational analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 147–163.Google Scholar
  28. Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2000). Focusing on the forgone: Why value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(December), 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Option attachment: When deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(June), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Casey, J. (1995). Predicting buyer–seller pricing disparities. Management Science, 41(6), 979–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chatterjee, P., Irmak, C., & Rose, R. L. (2013). The endowment effect as self-enhancement in response to threat. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(October), 460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(September), 198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Connell, P. M., & Schau, H. J. (2013). The symbiosis model of identity augmentation: Self-expansion and self-extension as distinct strategies. In A. A. Ruvio & R. W. Belk (Eds.), The Routledge companion to identity and consumption (pp. 21–30). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Dickert, S., Ashby, N. J. S., & Dickert, A. (2018). Trading under the influence: The effects of psychological ownership on economic decision-making. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 145–163). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Dommer, S. L., & Swaminathan, V. (2013). Explaining the endowment effect through ownership: The role of identity, gender, and self-threat. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(February), 1034–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R. W., & Wilson, J. A. (2015). The rise of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(7–8), 807–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Englis, B. G., & Solomon, M. R. (1995). To be and not to be? Lifestyle imagery, reference groups, and the clustering of America. Journal of Advertising, 24(Spring), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ferraro, R., Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2010). Our possessions, our selves: Domains of self-worth and the possession-self link. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Forehand, M. R., Deshpandé, R., & Reed, A., II. (2002). Identity salience and the influence of differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1086–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gawronski, B., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Becker, A. P. (2007). I like it, because I like myself: Associative self-anchoring and post-decisional change of implicit evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gjersoe, N. L., Newman, G. E., Chituc, V., & Hood, B. (2014). Individualism and the extended-self: Cross-cultural differences in the valuation of authentic objects. PLoS One, 9(3), e90787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hood, B., Weltzein, S., Marsh, L., & Kanngiesser, P. (2016). Picture yourself: Self-focus and the endowment effect in preschool children. Cognition, 152, 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(3), 426–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huang, J. Y., Ackerman, J. M., & Newman, G. E. (2017). Catching (up with) magical contagion: A review of contagion effects in consumer contexts. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 430–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Irmak, C., Wakslak, C. J., & Trope, Y. (2013). Selling the forest, buying the trees: The effect of construal level on seller-buyer price discrepancy. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(August), 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Irwin, J. R. (1994). Buying/selling price preference reversals: Preference for environmental changes in buying versus selling modes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(3), 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Isoni, A. (2011). The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: Loss aversion or ‘bad deal’ aversion? Theory and Decision, 71(3), 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, 1. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  54. Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 461–474.Google Scholar
  55. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(March), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(December), 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kleine, S. S., & Baker, S. M. (2004). An integrative review of material possession attachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1–35.Google Scholar
  59. Kleine, R. E., III, Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the self: A social identity perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Knetsch, J. L. (1989). The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review, 79, 1277–1284.Google Scholar
  61. Knetsch, J. L., & Sinden, J. A. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99(3), 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kurt, D., & Inman, J. J. (2013). Mispredicting others’ valuations: Self-other difference in the context of endowment. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychological Science, 15(5), 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Levin, I., Schreiber, J., Lauriola, M., & Gaeth, G. J. (2002). A tale of two pizzas. Marketing Letters, 13(November), 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 663–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Maddux, W. W., Yang, H., Falk, C., Adam, H., Adair, W., Endo, Y., Carmon, Z., & Heine, S. J. (2010). For whom is parting with possessions more painful? Cultural differences in the endowment effect. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1910–1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Morales, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007). Product contagion: Changing consumer evaluations through physical contact with ‘disgusting’ products. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(May), 272–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19(6), 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Morewedge, C. K., Shu, L. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 947–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nayakankuppam, D., & Mishra, H. (2005). The endowment effect: Rose-tinted and dark-tinted glasses. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(December), 390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(October), 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness-to-pay – Willingness-to-accept gap, the ‘endowment effect,’ subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3), 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2007). Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory? American Economic Review, 97(4), 1449–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Puntoni, S., Sweldens, S., & Tavassoli, N. T. (2011). Gender identity salience and perceived vulnerability to breast cancer. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision making, 2(2), 107–114.Google Scholar
  78. Reed, A., II. (2004). Activating the self-importance of consumer selves: Exploring identity salience effects on judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 286–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reed, A., II., Forehand, M. A., Puntoni, S., & Warlop, L. (2012). Identity-based consumer behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reimann, M., & Aron, A. (2009). Self-expansion motivation and inclusion of brands in self. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. W. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 65–81). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  81. Rozenkrants, B., Wheeler, S. C., & Shiv, B. (2017). Self-expression cues in product rating distributions: When people prefer polarizing products. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 759–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rudmin, F. W. (1991). To own is to be perceived to own’: A social cognitive look at the ownership of property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 85–104.Google Scholar
  84. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sartre, J. (1943). Being and nothingness: A phenomenological essay on ontology. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  86. Shavitt, S., & Nelson, M. R. (1999). The social identity function in person perception: Communicated meanings of product preferences. In G. R. Maio & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Function of attitudes (pp. 37–57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  87. Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011). Psychological ownership and affective reaction: Emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(October), 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Strahilevitz, M. A., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1998). The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(December), 276–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worschel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  92. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(March), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tom, G. (2004). The endowment-institutional affinity effect. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 138(2), 160–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wallendorf, M., & Arnould, E. J. (1988). ‘My favorite things’: A cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 531–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Weaver, R., & Frederick, S. (2012). A reference price theory of the endowment effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 696–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404–414.Google Scholar
  98. White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2007). Are all outgroups created equal? Consumer identity and dissociative influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 525–536.Google Scholar
  99. Yechiam, E., Ashby, N. J. S., & Pachur, T. (2017). Who’s biased? A meta-analysis of buyer-seller differences in the pricing of lotteries. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 543–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sam M. Walton College of BusinessUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations