Consumer Psychological Ownership of Digital Technology

  • Colleen P. KirkEmail author
  • Scott D. Swain


In this chapter, we present evidence that despite the intangible nature of digital technologies, consumers often come to feel psychological ownership of these technologies. Further, we find that digital technologies often facilitate the emergence of psychological ownership of non-digital targets. Digital affordances appear to play a key role in these processes. Digital affordances are characteristics of a digital technology object that facilitate users’ abilities to appropriate or engage with the technology (e.g., interactive design elements and interfaces) and can constrain or expand users’ opportunities for developing feelings of ownership for a digital target. Additionally, consumers’ motivational orientations and individual differences impact the extent to which they choose to leverage digital affordances and thus the extent to which affordances translate into feelings of ownership. We review research conducted in diverse digital contexts (e.g., websites, remixed content, virtual worlds, gaming, social media, virtual communities) and identify current implications for managers as well as future opportunities for researchers.


Digital technology Psychological ownership Social media Digital content Gaming Interactivity Interface design Technology adoption Technology appropriation Digital affordances 


  1. Atasoy, O., & Morewedge, C. (2018). Digital goods are valued less than physical goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1343–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barki, H. B., Paré, G. P., & Sicotte, C. S. (2008). Linking IT implementation and acceptance via the construct of psychological ownership of information technology. Journal of Information Technology (Palgrave Macmillan), 23(4), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baxter, W. L., & Aurisicchio, M. (2018). Ownership by design. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 119–132). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter, W. L., Aurisicchio, M., & Childs, P. R. N. (2015). A psychological ownership approach to designing object attachment. Journal of Engineering Design, 26(4–6), 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500. Scholar
  8. Belk, R. W. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belk, R. W. (2017). Consumers in an age of autonomous and semi-autonomous machines. In J. John Sherry & E. Fischer (Eds.), Currents in consumer culture theory (pp. 5–17). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. 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. 53–63). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Belk, R. W. (forthcoming). Robots, cyborgs, and consumption. In A. Lewis (Ed.), Handbook of psychology and economic behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Belk, R. W., & Tumbat, G. (2005). The cult of Macintosh. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 8(3), 205–217. Scholar
  13. Brasel, S. A. (2016). Touching versus talking: Alternative interfaces and the extended self. In P. Moreau & S. Puntoni (Eds.), NA – Advances in consumer research (Vol. 44, pp. 65–69). Duluth, MN.Google Scholar
  14. Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2014). Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: How varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 226–233. Scholar
  15. Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bucy, E. P., & Tao, C.-C. (2007). The mediated moderation model of interactivity. Media Psychology, 9(3), 647–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2011). You probably think this paper’s about you: Narcissists' perceptions of their personality and reputation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 185–201. Scholar
  18. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Castelo, N., Ward, A., & Schmitt, B. (2017). The role of mind perception in consumers’ reactions to artificial intelligence. Paper presented at the Society for Consumer Psychology Winter Conference, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  20. Chu, C. (2018). Psychological ownership in hoarding. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 135–142). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coombs, C. R., Doherty, N. F., & Loan-Clarke, J. (2001). The importance of user ownership and positive user attitudes in the successful adoption of community information systems. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 13(4), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dickert, S., Ashby, N., & 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. 145–158). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Friedman, O., & Neary, K. R. (2008). Determining who owns what: Do children infer ownership from first possession? Cognition, 107(3), 829–849. Scholar
  24. Friedman, O., Pesowski, M., & Goulding, B. (2018). Legal ownership is psychological: Evidence from young children. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 19–28). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., & Schreier, M. (2010). The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers’ product demand. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 65–79. Scholar
  26. Gaskin, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2012). Psychological ownership and the individual appropriation of technology. In Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, & S. L. Schneberger (Eds.), Information systems theory (pp. 25–39). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grey, T. C. (1980). The disintegration of property Nomos (Vol. 22, pp. 69–85): American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy.Google Scholar
  29. Hair, J. F., Barth, K., Neubert, D., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Examining the role of psychological ownership and feedback in customer empowerment strategies. Journal of Creating Value, 2(2), 194–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., & Göritz, A. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products–Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hofacker, C. (2016). Social media marketing: Some thoughts on what we still need to learn. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Winter Marketing Academic Conference, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  32. Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (forthcoming). Consumer and object experience in the internet of things: An assemblage theory approach. Journal of Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  33. Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Mit Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hulland, J., Thompson, S., & Smith, K. (2015). Exploring uncharted waters: Use of psychological ownership theory in marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 23(2), 140–147.Google Scholar
  35. Jung, J. M., Hui, H. C., Min, K. S., & Martin, D. (2014). Does telic/paratelic user mode matter on the effectiveness of interactive internet advertising? A reversal theory perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1303–1309. Scholar
  36. Kaltcheva, V. D., & Weitz, B. A. (2006). When should a retailer create an exciting store environment? Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kamleitner, B., & Erki, B. (2013). Payment method and perceptions of ownership. Marketing Letters, 24(1), 57–69. Scholar
  38. Kamleitner, B., & Mitchell, V.-W. (2018). Can consumers experience ownership for their personal data? From issues of scope and invisibility to agents handling our digital blueprints. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 91–114). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kamleitner, B., Suessenbach, S., Thuerridl, C., & Ruzeviciute, R. (2016). This brand is mine: Brand psychological ownership as a distinct construct and powerful driver of consumer behavior. Paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference, Berlin.Google Scholar
  40. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Karahanna, E., Xu, S. X., & Zhang, N. A. (2015). Psychological ownership motivation and the use of social media. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 23(2).Google Scholar
  42. Kim, J., Spielmann, N., & McMillan, S. J. (2011). Experience effects on interactivity: Functions, processes, and perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 65(2012), 1543–1550.Google Scholar
  43. Kim, S., Kim, S.-G., Jeon, Y., Jun, S., & Kim, J. (2016). Appropriate or Remix? The effects of social recognition and psychological ownership on intention to share in online communities. Human–Computer Interaction, 31(2), 97–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kirk, C. P. (2010). New media books: Can innovation pay? The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 6(3), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kirk, C. P. (2018). When good fences make good customers: Exploring psychological ownership and territoriality in marketing. In C. Olckers, L. v. Zyl, & L. v. d. Vaart (Eds.), Theoretical orientations and practical applications of psychological ownership. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Kirk, C. P., Chiagouris, L., & Gopalakrishna, P. (2012). Some people just want to read: The roles of age, interactivity, and perceived usefulness of print in the consumption of digital information products. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(1), 168–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kirk, C. P., Chiagouris, L., Lala, V., & Thomas, J. (2015). How do digital natives and digital immigrants respond differently to interactivity online? A model for predicting consumer attitudes and intentions to use digital information products. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kirk, C. P., & Hanna, R. C. (2014). Consumer emotional responses to interactive native advertising and their effect on attitude and consumption duration. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Winter Educators’ Conference, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  49. Kirk, C. P., McSherry, B., & Swain, S. D. (2015). Investing the self: The effect of nonconscious goals on investor psychological ownership and word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 58(C), 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kirk, C. P., Peck, J., & Swain, S. D. (2018). Property lines in the mind: Consumers’ psychological ownership and their territorial responses. Journal of Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  51. Kirk, C. P., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Psychological ownership: A concept of value to the marketing field. In M. W. Obal, N. Krey, & C. Bushardt (Eds.), Let’s get engaged! Crossing the threshold of marketing’s engagement era. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Kirk, C. P., & Swain, S. D. (2013). Touching the intangible: Perceptions of interactivity and ownership in new media. AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings, 24, 464–465.Google Scholar
  53. Kirk, C. P., & Swain, S. D. (2015). Interactivity and psychological ownership in consumer value co-creation. In K. Kubacki (Ed.), Ideas in Marketing: Finding the New and Polishing the Old (pp. 121–121). Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Kirk, C. P., & Swain, S. D. (2016). The value in lurking: The effect of a mere opportunity for two-way communication on consumers’ psychological ownership and valuation of digital content. Paper presented at the The 2016 American Marketing Association Winter Educators’ Conference, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  55. Kirk, C. P., Swain, S. D., & Gaskin, J. E. (2015). I’m proud of it: Consumer technology appropriation and psychological ownership. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 23(2), 166–184.Google Scholar
  56. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1245–1267. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kivetz, R. (2005). Promotion reactance: The role of effort-reward congruity. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kovacheva, A., & Lamberton, C. (2018). Whose experience is it, anyway? Psychological ownership and enjoyment of shared experiences. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 195–207). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kristofferson, K., Daniels, M., & Morales, A. (2017). Positive effects from negative virtual experiences: How virtual reality can be used effectively in marketing. Paper presented at the Society for Consumer Research Winter Conference, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  60. Lee, J., & Suh, A. (2015). How do virtual community members develop psychological ownership and what are the effects of psychological ownership in virtual communities? Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 382–391. Scholar
  61. Lee, S.-J., Lee, W.-N., Kim, H., & Stout, P. (2004). A comparison of objective characteristics and user perception of web sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 4(2), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lee, Y., & Chen, A. (2011). Usability design and psychological ownership of a virtual world. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 269–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lessard-Bonaventure, S., & Chebat, J.-C. (2015). Psychological ownership, touch and willingness to pay for an extended warranty. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 23(2), 224–234.Google Scholar
  64. Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., & Barnes, J. (1983). Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Self-Description Questionnaire: Student-teacher agreement on multidimensional ratings of student self-concept. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McAndrew, F. T., & Koehnke, S. S. (2016). On the nature of creepiness. New Ideas in Psychology, 43, 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Molesworth, M., Watkins, R., & Denegri-Knott, J. (2016). Possession work on hosted digital consumption objects as consumer ensnarement. The Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(2), 000–000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Moon, J., Hossain, M. D., Sanders, G. L., Garrity, E. J., & Jo, S. (2013). Player commitment to massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs): An integrated model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(4), 7–38. Scholar
  71. Moreau, C. P., Bonney, L., & Herd, K. B. (2011). It’s the thought (and the effort) that counts: How customizing for others differs from customizing for oneself. Journal of Marketing, 75(5), 120–133. Scholar
  72. Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ng, I. C. L., & Wakenshaw, S. Y. L. (2017). The internet-of-things: Review and research directions. International Journal of Research in Marketing.Google Scholar
  74. Nielsen, J. (2006). The 90-9-1 rule for participation inequality in social media and online communities. Retrieved from
  75. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  76. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI). Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Paré, G., Sicotte, C., & Jacques, H. (2006). The effects of creating psychological ownership on physicians’ acceptance of clinical information systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(2), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Peck, J., Barger, V., & Webb, A. (2013). In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Peng, H., & Pierce, J. L. (2015). Job- and organization-based psychological ownership: relationship and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(2), 151–168. Scholar
  82. Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2010). Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 810–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context: Theory, research evidence and application. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pierce, J. L., Jussila, I., & Li, D. (2017). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–17.Google Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pierce, J. L., & Peck, J. (2018). The history of psychological ownership and its emergence in consumer psychology. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 1–15). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  87. Pucillo, F., & Cascini, G. (2014). A framework for user experience, needs and affordances. Design Studies, 2, 160. Scholar
  88. Quain, J. R. (2016, November 10). Giving Today's Car a Well-Tuned Interior. New York Times.Google Scholar
  89. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.Google Scholar
  90. Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rubin, T. (2013). Most people are “Lurkers” in social media. Retrieved from
  92. Schlosser, A. E. (2005). Posting versus Lurking: Communicating in a multiple audience context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Shu, S. B. (2018). Psychological ownership in financial decisions. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 165–174). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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
  95. Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2018). Solving stewardship problems with increased psychological ownership. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  96. Sinclair, G., & Tinson, J. (2017). Psychological ownership and music streaming consumption. Journal of Business Research.Google Scholar
  97. Song, J. H., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2008). Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Spears, N., & Yazdanparast, A. (2014). Revealing obstacles to the consumer imagination. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 363–372. Scholar
  99. Suessenbach, S., & Kamleitner, B. (2018). Psychological ownership as a facilitator of sustainable behaviors. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 211–226). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Swain, S., & Cudmore, B. A. (2016). How players respond to monetary incentives in online poker promotions. Journal of Management and Engineering Integration, 9(1), 93–100.Google Scholar
  101. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Valsesia, F., Nunes, J., & Ordo, A. (2016). I got here first! Feelings of psychological ownership and consumer ratings. Paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  103. Von Hippel, E. (2009). Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 1(1), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Voorveld, H. A. M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2011). The relation between actual and perceived interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 40(2), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wang, Y. J., Minor, M. S., & Wei, J. (2011). Aesthetics and the online shopping environment: Understanding consumer responses. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 46–58. Scholar
  106. Watkins, R., Denegri-Knott, J., & Molesworth, M. (2016). The relationship between ownership and possession: observations from the context of digital virtual goods. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(1–2), 44–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Watkins, R., & Molesworth, M. (2012). Attachment to digital virtual possessions in videogames. Research in consumer behavior, 14, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Weathers, D., Swain, S., & Grover, V. (2015). Can online product reviews be more helpful? Examining characteristics of information content by product type. Decision Support Systems, 79(November), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Weiss, L., & Johar, G. (2013). Egocentric categorization and product judgment: Seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in what you don’t). Journal of Consumer Research, 40(June), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Weiss, L., & Johar, G. V. (2018). Psychological ownership in egocentric categorization theory. In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior (pp. 33–49). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wiggins, J. (2018). Can consumers perceive collective psychological ownership of an organization? In J. Peck & S. B. Shu (Eds.), Psychological ownership and consumer behavior. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  112. Yoon, C., Cole, C. A., & Lee, M. P. (2009). Consumer decision making and aging: Current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(1), 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zhang, J.-Y., Nie, M., Yan, B.-S., & Wang, X.-D. (2014). Effect of network embeddedness on brand-related behavior intentions: Mediating effects of psychological ownership. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 42(5), 721–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York Institute of TechnologyNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Clemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations