Advertisement

Digital transformation and possession attachment: examining the endowment effect for consumers’ relationships with hedonic and utilitarian digital service technologies

  • Martin P. Fritze
  • Andreas B. Eisingerich
  • Martin Benkenstein
Article

Abstract

A significant body of research has examined the importance of material possession attachment and its influence on consumer behavior. Critical questions, however, remain with regard to the extent to which, and if at all, consumers form instantaneous possession attachment in electronic commerce. In this research, we conducted one quasi-experimental field study and one scenario-based online experiment to examine the endowment effect (EE) for digital services. The current findings demonstrate that consumers become instantaneously attached to and are reluctant to give up digital services once they have obtained them. Two main explanations of the EE in electronic commerce are investigated. Critically, the results show that the psychological processes underlying the effect differ between utilitarian and hedonic digital services. Proprietary feelings towards utilitarian digital services occur due to loss aversion, whereas proprietary feelings towards hedonic digital services reflect the consumer’s conscious self-relatedness to the digital service.

Keywords

Possession Ownership Loss aversion Endowment effect Digital consumption Attachment 

References

  1. 1.
    Dittmar, H., & Pepper, L. (1992). Materialistic values, relative wealth, and person perception: Social psychological belief systems of adolescents from different socio-economic backgrounds. In F. W. Rudmin & M. L. Richins (Eds.), Meaning, measure, and morality of materialism (pp. 40–45). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dittmar, H. (1994). Material possessions as stereotypes: Material images of different socio-economic groups. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(4), 561–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belk, R. W. (1992). Attachment to possessions. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 37–62). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 504–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wirtz, J., den Ambtman, A., Bloemer, J., Horváth, C., Ramaseshan, B., van de Klundert, J., et al. (2013). Managing brands and customer engagement in online brand communities. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deng, R. H., Veijalainen, J., Lian, S., & Kanellopoulos, D. (2011). Editorial: special issue on ubiquitous electronic commerce systems. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lian, S., Chen, X., & Michael, K. (2013). Editorial: special issue on service-based electronic commerce systems. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 125–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access: The new culture of hypercapitalism, where all of life is a paid-for experience. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, B., & Pechmann, C. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on transformative consumer research: Developing theory to mobilize efforts that improve consumer and societal well-being. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1168–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walsh, D., Parisi, J. M., & Passerini, K. (2017). Privacy as a right or as a commodity in the online world: the limits of regulatory reform and self-regulation. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cozzarin, B. P., & Dimitrov, S. (2016). Mobile commerce and device specific perceived risk. Electronic Commerce Research, 16(3), 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, P.-M. (2002). Behavioral model of online purchasers in e-commerce environment. Electronic Commerce Research, 2(1), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ma, Y., Chen, G., & Wei, Q. (2017). Finding users preferences from large-scale online reviews for personalized recommendation. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mou, J., Shin, D.-H., & Cohen, J. F. (2017). Trust and risk in consumer acceptance of e-services. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(2), 255–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramanathan, R. (2010). E-commerce success criteria: Determining which criteria count most. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(2), 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisingerich, A. B., & Kretschmer, T. (2008). In e-commerce more is more. Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 20–21.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vickers, B. D., & Preston, S. D. (2014). The economics of hoarding. In R. O. Frost & G. Steketee (Eds.), The oxford handbook of hoarding and acquiring (pp. 221–235). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loewenstein, G., & Issacharoff, S. (1994). Source dependence in the valuation of objects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(3), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    El-Hilly, A. A., Iqbal, S. S., Ahmed, M., Sherwani, Y., Muntasir, M., Siddiqui, S., et al. (2016). Game on? Smoking cessation through the gamification of mHealth: A longitudinal qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research Serious Games, 4(2), e18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinclair, G., & Tinson, J. (2017). Psychological ownership and music streaming consumption. Journal of Business Research, 71, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mifsud, M., Cases, A.-S., & N’Goala, G. (2015). Service appropriation: How do customers make the service their own? Journal of Service Management, 26(5), 706–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Asatryan, V. S., & Oh, H. (2008). Psychological ownership theory: An exploratory application in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32(3), 363–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhao, Q., Chen, C.-D., & Wang, J.-L. (2016). The effects of psychological ownership and TAM on social media loyalty: An integrated model. Telematics and Informatics, 33(4), 959–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Litwinski, L. (1942). Is there an instinct of possession? British Journal of Psychology, 33(1), 28–39.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller, K. M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., & Zhang, Z. J. (2011). How should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ozok, A. A., & Wei, J. (2010). An empirical comparison of consumer usability preferences in online shopping using stationary and mobile devices: Results from a college student population. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(2), 111–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(6), 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bischoff, I., & Meckl, J. (2008). Endowment effect theory, public goods and welfare. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 1768–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kummer, H. (1991). Evolutionary transformations of possessive behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 75–83.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    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(3), 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chatterjee, P., Irmak, C., & Rose, R. L. (2013). The endowment effect as self-enhancement in response to threat. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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(5), 1034–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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
  41. 41.
    Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013). Attachment–aversion (AA) model of customer–brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013). From brand aversion or indifference to brand attachment: Authors’ response to commentaries to Park, Eisingerich, and Park’s brand attachment–aversion model. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 107–114.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chan, E. Y. (2015). Endowment effect for hedonic but not utilitarian goods. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(4), 439–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ng, S., Russell-Bennett, R., & Dagger, T. (2007). A typology of mass services: the role of service delivery and consumption purpose in classifying service experiences. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(7), 471–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gilovich, T., & Kumar, A. (2015). We’ll always have Paris: the hedonic payoff from experiential and material investments. In M. Zanna & J. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 147–187). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Weiss, A. M. (2016). Brand admiration: building a business people love. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Litwinski, L. (1947). The psychology of “mine”. Philosophy, 22(83), 240–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Furby, L. (1978). Possessions: Toward a theory of their meaning and function throughout the life cycle. In P. B. Baltes (Ed.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 297–336). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kim, K., & Johnson, M. K. (2012). Extended self: medial prefrontal activity during transient association of self and objects. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(2), 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Eisingerich, A. B., Chun, H. H., Liu, Y., Jia, H., & Bell, S. J. (2015). Why recommend a brand face-to-face but not on Facebook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Diesendruck, G., & Perez, R. (2015). Toys are me: Children’s extension of self to objects. Cognition, 134, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    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
  58. 58.
    Tseng, K.-K., Lin, R. F.-Y., Zhou, H., Kurniajaya, K. J., & Li, Q. (2017). Price prediction of e-commerce products through internet sentiment analysis. Electronic Commerce Research, 18(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    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
  60. 60.
    Saqib, N. U., Frohlich, N., & Bruning, E. (2010). The influence of involvement on the endowment effect: The moveable value function. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. W. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality & Quantity, 40(3), 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lessard-Bonaventure, S., & Chebat, J.-C. (2015). Psychological ownership, touch, and willingness to pay for an extended warranty. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 224–234.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Haire, M. (1950). Projective techniques in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 14(5), 649–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., & Schreier, M. (2010). The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers’ product demand. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., & Lauga, D. O. (2014). A reference-dependent model of the price–quality heuristic. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2), 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jiang, L., & Sood, S. (2014). The endowment effect for experiences. In J. Cotte & S. Wood (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 529–530). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jiménez, F. R., & Voss, K. E. (2014). An alternative approach to the measurement of emotional attachment. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hayes, A. F., & Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Krishna, A. (2016). A clearer spotlight on spotlight: understanding, conducting and reporting. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2009). Services marketing. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Herrando, C., Jiménez-Martínez, J., & Martín-De Hoyos, M. J. (2017). Passion at first sight: How to engage users in social commerce contexts. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(4), 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lin, Y., Eisingerich, A., & Doong, H. (2017). Tyrant leaders as e-government service promoters: The role of transparency and tyranny in the implementation of e-government service. In A. Ko & E. Francesconi (Eds.), Electronic government and the information systems perspective (pp. 9–18). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Booms, B. H., & Bitner, M. J. (1981). Marketing strategies and organization structures for service firms. In J. H. Donnelly & W. R. George (Eds.), Marketing of services (pp. 47–51). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rottenberg, J. (2018). Ready player one’s’ Steven Spielberg and Ernest Cline on pooling their nostalgia to tell a new story. Los Angeles Times, March 23rd 2018. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-ca-mn-ready-player-one-spielberg-cline-20180323-htmlstory.html. Accessed April 8, 2018.
  81. 81.
    Nietzsche, F. W. (1883). Thus spoke Zarathustra: A book for all and none. Chemnitz: Ernst Schmeitzner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin P. Fritze
    • 1
  • Andreas B. Eisingerich
    • 2
  • Martin Benkenstein
    • 3
  1. 1.University of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Imperial College Business SchoolImperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations