Marketing Letters

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 591–605 | Cite as

The ownership distance effect: the impact of traces left by previous owners on the evaluation of used goods

Article

Abstract

This article examines how salient traces left by previous owners on used goods influence product evaluations. Based on the concept of psychological ownership, we propose the ownership distance effect in the context of buying used goods. We argue that when there are salient traces left by previous owners on a used good, it will widen the ownership distance between the potential buyers and the product. As a consequence, buyers will tend to evaluate the product less positively. Four experimental studies were conducted, and the results support this prediction. Buyers preferred used goods with salient traces left by a previous owner less (studies 1 and 2) due to the ownership distance effect. In addition, perceived psychological ownership mediates the ownership distance effect (studies 2 and 4). However, this negative effect decreased when specific situations (e.g., free housecleaning service) lessened the ownership distance, or when people believed that a previous owner’s trace would benefit them in obtaining their consumption goal (studies 3 and 4). The analysis of actual transactions from eBay.com also confirms this effect (study 5). We conclude with a discussion of the substantive theoretical and managerial implications of this research.

Keywords

Ownership distance effect Psychological ownership Contagion effect Owner’s trace Used goods 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A5A2A03065829).

References

  1. Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Consumer contamination: how consumers react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2008). Positive consumer contagion: responses to attractive others in a retail context. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 690–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora, N., Neslin, S., & Sajeesh, S. (2008). Putting one-to-one marketing to work: personalization, customization, and choice. Marketing Letters, 19(3/4), 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 63, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belk, R. W. (1995). Collecting as luxury consumption: effects on individuals and households. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(3), 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belk, R. W., Sherry, J. F., & Wallendorf, M. (1988). A naturalistic inquiry into buyer and seller behavior at a swap meet. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brough, A. R., & Isaac, M. S. (2012). Finding a home for products we love: how buyer usage intent affects the pricing of used goods. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahl, D. W., & Hoeffler, S. (2004). Visualizing the self: exploring the potential benefits and drawbacks for new product evaluation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doorn, J. V., & Hoekstra, J. C. (2013). Customization of online advertising: the role of intrusiveness. Marketing Letters, 24(4), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Florack, A., Kleber, J., Busch, R., & Stöhr, D. (2014). Detaching the ties of ownership: the effects of hand washing on the exchange of endowed products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabbott, M. (1991). The role of product cues in assessing risk in second-hand markets. European Journal of Marketing, 25(9), 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoorens, V., & Todorova, E. (1988). The name letter effect: attachment to self or primacy of own name writing? European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(4), 365–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim, J., & Kim, J. (2016). The influence of hedonic versus utilitarian consumption situations on the compromise effect. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 382–401.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, J., Rao, R., Kim, K. H., & Rao, A. (2011). More or less: a model and empirical evidence on preferences for under and over-payment in trade-in transactions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knetsch, J. L. (1989). The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. The American Economic Review, 79(5), 1277–1284.Google Scholar
  16. Lastovicka, J., & Fernandez, K. (2005). Three paths to disposition: the movement of meaningful possessions to strangers. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 813–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morales, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007). Product contagion: changing consumer evaluations through physical contact with “disgusting” products. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 272–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newman, G. E., Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2011). Celebrity contagion and the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nuttin, J. M. (1987). Affective consequences of mere ownership: the name letter effect in twelve European languages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17(4), 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310.Google Scholar
  22. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rozin, P., Millman, L., & Nemeroff, C. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 703–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shiv, B., & Huber, J. (2000). The impact of anticipating satisfaction on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011). Psychological ownership and affective reaction: emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yin, S., Ray, S., Gurnani, H., & Animesh, A. (2010). Durable products with multiple used goods markets: product upgrade and retail pricing implications. Marketing Science, 29(3), 540–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zervas G., Proserpio D., & Byers, J. W. (2017). The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Journal of Marketing Research Forthcoming.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing, Advertising, Retailing, and SalesAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations