Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Article
Journal of Marketing
2021, Vol. 85(1) 196-218
Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological ª American Marketing Association 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Ownership Framework sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022242920957007
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmx
Carey K. Morewedge , Ashwani Monga, Robert W. Palmatier,
Suzanne B. Shu, and Deborah A. Small
Editor’s Note: This article is part of the JM-MSI Special Issue on “From Marketing Priorities to Research Agendas,” edited by John
A. Deighton, Carl F. Mela, and Christine Moorman. Written by teams led by members of the inaugural class of MSI Scholars, these
articles review the literature on an important marketing topic reflected in the MSI Priorities and offer an expansive research agenda
for the marketing discipline. A list of articles appearing in the Special Issue can be found at http://www.ama.org/JM-MSI-2020.
Abstract
Technological innovations are creating new products, services, and markets that satisfy enduring consumer needs. These
technological innovations create value for consumers and firms in many ways, but they also disrupt psychological ownership––the
feeling that a thing is “MINE.” The authors describe two key dimensions of this technology-driven evolution of consumption
pertaining to psychological ownership: (1) replacing legal ownership of private goods with legal access rights to goods and services
owned and used by others and (2) replacing “solid” material goods with “liquid” experiential goods. They propose that these
consumption changes can have three effects on psychological ownership: they can threaten it, cause it to transfer to other targets,
and create new opportunities to preserve it. These changes and their effects are organized in a framework and examined across
three macro trends in marketing: (1) growth of the sharing economy, (2) digitization of goods and services, and (3) expansion of
personal data. This psychological ownership framework generates future research opportunities and actionable marketing
strategies for firms aiming to preserve the positive consequences of psychological ownership and navigate cases for which it is a
liability.
Keywords
access-based consumption, big data, digitization, privacy, psychological ownership, sharing economy
Online supplement: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920957007
Technological innovations are rapidly changing the consump- through connected devices (Goldfarb, Greenstein, and Tucker
tion of goods and services. In modern capitalist societies, 2015), generating vast quantities of personal data about their
consumption is evolving from a model in which people leg- consumption patterns and private lives. The many benefits
ally own private material goods to access-based models in that these technological innovations and new business models
which people purchase temporary rights to use shared,
experiential goods (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012; Eckhardt
et al. 2019; Rifkin 2001). Many urban consumers have Carey K. Morewedge is Professor of Marketing, Everett W. Lord Distinguished
Faculty Scholar, Boston University, USA (email: morewedg@bu.edu). Ashwani
replaced car ownership, once a symbol of independence and Monga is Professor of Marketing, Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor,
status, with car- and ride-sharing services that provide access RU-Newark, Rutgers University, USA (email: ashwani.monga@rutgers.edu).
to a vehicle or transportation when needed. Physical pictures Robert W. Palmatier is a Professor of Marketing, John C. Narver Chair in
occupying frames, wallets, and albums have been replaced Business Administration, University of Washington, USA (email: palmatrw@
with digital photographs; moreover, songs, books, movies, or uw.edu). Suzanne B. Shu is John S. Dyson Professor of Marketing, Cornell
University, USA (email: suzanne.shu@cornell.edu). Deborah A. Small is
magazines can be pulled down from the cloud at any time to Laura and John J. Pomerantz Professor of Marketing and Psychology, The
suit a consumer’s mood. Half the world population now buys, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, USA (email: deborahs@
sells, generates, and consumes goods and information online wharton.upenn.edu).Morewedge et al. 197
offer to consumers––from convenience to lower economic framework, we discuss these ideas in the context of three
cost to greater sustainability––makes legal ownership of relevant macro trends in marketing: (1) growth in the sharing
many physical private goods undesirable and unnecessary economy, (2) digitization of goods and services, and the
(Matzler, Veider, and Kathan 2015). Consumers are not, (3) expansion of personal data. For each trend, our frame-
however, simply exchanging the consumption of solid goods work offers new predictions, opportunities for future
(i.e., enduring, ownership-based, and material) for liquid research, and recommended marketing actions. We then note
goods and services (i.e., ephemeral, access-based and dema- important caveats—cases in which psychological ownership
terialized; Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017; Bauman 2000). We could be undesirable or a liability to consumers and firms.
argue that relationships between consumers and their goods We conclude by outlining next steps for consumer and strat-
are changing. egy research within the three trends that we discuss in depth,
Aligned with a Marketing Science Institute priority (2018– and beyond, to other areas and broader questions.
2020) to examine how economic macro trends are influencing
consumers, we examine how this technology-driven evolution
in consumption affects consumer behavior. We focus on ways
Psychological Ownership
in which changing consumption patterns are threatening, trans- Psychological ownership occurs when one feels, subjectively
ferring, and creating new opportunities to cultivate psycholo- speaking, that a thing is “MINE.” It can be considered a form of
gical ownership—the feeling that something is MINE (Furby emotional attachment between consumers and the goods and
1991). It is a psychological state that is distinct from legal services they use (Shu and Peck 2011). Antecedents of psycho-
ownership. In contrast to the benefits accrued through consu- logical ownership––perceived control, self-investment, and
mers’ reduced legal ownership of goods (for reviews, see knowledge––do overlap with many of the property rights typi-
Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017; Eckhardt et al. 2019; Lamberton cally included in the “bundle of rights” provided by legal own-
and Rose 2012; Rifkin 2001), a commensurate reduction in ership of private goods (Morewedge 2020). However, even
psychological ownership should typically be detrimental to though legal ownership may often precede psychological own-
both consumers and firms. ership, legal ownership of a good is not a requirement to feel
Psychological ownership is, in many ways, a valuable asset. It psychological ownership for it (Reb and Connolly 2007). Con-
satisfies important consumer motives and has value-enhancing sumers feel psychological ownership for ideas and goods to
consequences. Within consumers, psychological ownership which they have no legal claim, such as theories and neighbor-
satisfies an effectance motive––a basic and chronic motive to hoods (Shaw, Li, and Olson 2012; Verkuyten and Martinovic
have control and mastery over their environment, and motives 2017). At the same time, consumers feel little ownership for
to express their identity to others and themselves (Belk 1988). organizations and goods to which they do have legal claim,
Moreover, the feeling that a good is “MINE” enhances attitudes such as companies in which they hold stock and sports memor-
toward the good, strengthens attachments to the good, and abilia they plan to sell (List 2003; Pierce, Rubenfeld, and Mor-
increases its perceived economic value (for reviews, see Ericson gan 1991). The Web Appendix provides a review of
and Füster 2011; Morewedge and Giblin 2015; Peck and Shu psychological ownership, including (1) motives and antece-
2009; Peck and Shu 2018). Downstream consequences of value dents, (2) processes linking antecedents to outcomes, (3) con-
to firms include increased consumer demand for goods and ser- sequences of psychological ownership, and (4) moderators and
vices offered by the firm, willingness to pay for goods, word of boundary conditions of these relationships.
mouth, and loyalty (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018; Fritze et al. Psychological ownership has value-enhancing conse-
2020; Fuchs, Prandelli, and Schreier 2010; Vandewalle, Dyne, quences, which stem from an association of a good with the
and Kostova 1995). Given these important consequences, we self and/or categorization of the good as “MINE.” Due to psy-
argue that preserving psychological ownership in the chological ownership, traits associated with the self and posi-
technology-driven evolution of consumption underway should tive self-associations are transferred to the good, increasing
be a priority for marketers and firm strategy. emotional attachment to the good and enhancing its perception
Our article starts with the proposal that technological and value (Beggan 1992; Gawronski et al. 2007; Weiss and
innovations are changing consumption along two dimensions: Johar 2016). Explicit categorization of the good as “MINE”
(1) replacing legal ownership of private goods with legal appears to reframe the reference point from which it is viewed,
access to goods and services owned and used by others and changing the evaluation of the good from something that could
(2) replacing “solid” material goods with “liquid” experien- be gained to something that could be lost. Loss aversion and the
tial goods (for examples, see Figure 1). We theorize that heightened attention to positive features of the goods that
important consequences for consumer behavior are deter- accompany this reframing increase its value, making people
mined by the way these changes affect psychological owner- more reluctant to exchange it for money or other goods (for
ship for goods and services—that is, by threatening, reviews, see Ericson and Füster 2011; Morewedge 2020;
transferring, or creating new opportunities to preserve it. Morewedge and Giblin 2015). Even goods that have more neg-
We identify underlying mechanisms of each effect on psy- ative than positive features, if consumers actively choose to
chological ownership as well as relevant concepts to guide acquire them, benefit from the value-enhancing effects of psy-
thinking and responses. To illustrate the value of our chological ownership (Ye and Gawronski 2016).198 Journal of Marketing 85(1)
Applications Internet Radio
LEGAL ACCESS
Audio Books Library Books
Avatars Movie Rental
Cable Television Music Streaming
AV Rental Cinemas Online Courses
Car Rental Concerts/Theater Online Games
Clothing Rental Country Clubs Podcasts
Furniture Rental Digital Books Public Spaces
Home Rental Digital Journalism Public Transportation
Tool Rental Electronic Records Ride Sharing
Email Social Media
GPS Sports Equipment Rental
Hotels/Vacation Rental Video Streaming
MATERIAL EXPERIENTIAL
LEGAL OWNERSHIP
Appliances Jewelry Board Games
Books Letters Cryptocurrency
Cars Maps Electronic Documents
CDs Paper Records Digital Photographs
Clothes Physical Currency Digital Videos
Consumer Print Photographs Newspapers
Electronics Tools Smart Devices
DVDs Toys Sports Equipment
Firearms Vinyl Records
Furniture Watches
Home Ownership
Figure 1. Evolution of consumption: dimensions of change and examples.
Notes: Consumption is evolving along two dimensions of change. Consumers are replacing legal ownership of goods with legal access to goods and replacing “solid”
material goods with “liquid” experiential goods. Examples are sorted into quadrants; their location within a quadrant does not imply different values relative to
others listed in that quadrant.
Attachment between the self and good for which psycholo- psychological ownership undesirable. To date, demonstrations
gical ownership is felt parallels attachment between consumer of its liabilities have been limited to extreme cases, as when a
and brand (Park, Macinnis, and Priester 2008; Thomson, good is associated with a personal failure or a disgusting sti-
Macinnis, and Park 2015). As with an attachment between mulus (Lerner, Small, and Loewenstein 2004; Loewenstein and
consumer and brand, psychological ownership for a good is Issacharoff 1994). Subsequently, we identify more common
positively associated with consumer demand, willingness to instances in which consumers and firms may benefit from a
pay, customer satisfaction, relationships, word of mouth, and decline in psychological ownership, an area ripe for future
competitive resistance, as noted previously. Psychological research to explore.
ownership is thus a valuable asset for firms to preserve, cap-
ture, and redirect.
In short, documented effects of psychological ownership Evolution of Consumption
show it to be generally value-enhancing for consumers and We propose that technological innovations are driving an evo-
firms (Ericson and Fuster 2011; Morewedge and Gilbin lution in consumption along two major dimensions. The first
2015; Peck and Shu 2009). Our perspective is consistent with dimension of change is from a model of legal ownership, in
this evidence. Our focus is thus on how to preserve the value which consumers purchase and consume their own private
inherent in psychological ownership for goods, services, and goods, to a model of legal access, in which consumers purchase
brands in the face of technological change. Of course, there are temporary access rights to goods and services owned and used
exceptional cases in which consumers and firms find by others. The second dimension of change is from consumingMorewedge et al. 199
Table 1. Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework.
Threats to Transfers of Opportunities to Preserve
Dimension of Change Psychological Ownership Psychological Ownership Psychological Ownership
Legal ownership to legal access. Fractional ownership. Bundle of Collective consumption. Ownership More consumer choice. Improved
Personal ownership of private rights associated with good felt for private goods transfers preference-matching due to
goods is replaced with divided among agents holding to goods used collectively more (often immediately)
temporary access rights to property rights to use, profit, (“MINE” to “OURS”). Reduced available options, increases
use collectively consumed change, or transfer ownership. importance of individual goods, perceived control.
goods and services. v Emphasize liquidity and potential contaminated by v Provide larger assortments,
economic value. dissociative group associations. increase mass customization.
Impermanence. Consumers no Psychological ownership New channels for self-expression.
longer expect to keep goods— transfers to consumer Social media and reputation
they assume goods will be communities. systems integral to access-based
returned, impairing v Develop object history/intimate consumption platforms provide
reference-point shift to owner knowledge, encourage new outlets for social signaling.
(“My…”). self-investment, deploy v Develop social media
v Extend/guarantee duration and counterconditioning, and applications and marketing
consistency of consumption develop consumer communities. strategy, encourage
experience. microblogging, offer access to
aspirational brands/goods with
positive signal value.
Material to experiential. Intangibility. Consumers are less Higher categorization level. Greater self-identification.
Material goods are replaced able to touch, hold, and Category for which Experiences are easier to
with physical or digital physically manipulate psychological ownership is integrate with self-concept than
experiential goods. experiential goods than experienced rises from material goods (e.g., experiential
physical goods. individual goods to intermediary purchases may generate more
v Develop haptic interfaces; devices, platforms, and brands. positive self-signals).
interactive content; offer v Vertical integration, brand v Leverage identity marketing
control over rate and timing alliances, servitization, (e.g., “I am a skier” > “I own
of consumption; emphasize relationship marketing, skis”).
sensory features. intermediary device
Reduced evaluability. Ownership personalization.
status is harder to determine
(e.g., ownership of a vacation less
clear than ownership of a vacation
home).
v Make goods indexical
connections–cues for personally
meaningful events (e.g., cross
sell physical goods, usage history
reminders); gamification.
Notes: v ¼ recommended marketing actions to manage psychological ownership threats, transfers, and opportunities.
solid material goods to liquid experiential goods. In this sec- Change 1: Legal Ownership to Legal Access
tion, we unpack each change and how it affects psychological
In traditional capitalist markets, consumption of a private
ownership. In general, we argue that the changes reduce psy-
good was typically bound to sole, legal ownership of it.
chological ownership and the value that accompanies it, but
New access-based business models, made possible by
their effects are not uniformly negative. Table 1 identifies cases
technology-mediated platforms, fracture this model.
in which each change threatens psychological ownership; cases
Whereas property rights are typically bundled in private
in which it transfers psychological ownership to other goods,
ownership (e.g., use, modify, profit from, or transfer rights;
groups, and brands; and cases in which changes in consumption
Honoré 1961), fractional ownership models unbundle prop-
patterns create new opportunities to preserve psychological
erty rights, allowing consumers to acquire a right to tempo-
ownership at prechange levels. Table 1 also includes recom- rarily use goods and services that are often shared with tens,
mended marketing actions to leverage each effect on psycho- hundreds, or thousands of consumers (e.g., by paying for or
logical ownership, which are described in greater detail in the sharing personal data; Eckhardt et al. 2019; Watkins,
sections discussing the macro trends of the sharing economy, Denegri-Knott, and Molesworth 2016). These models are
digitization, and personal data. distinct from previous models of collective consumption200 Journal of Marketing 85(1)
within families and communities (Findlay 2018). They goods because they are used (Kim 2017). They circulate among
relinquish ownership rights to firms and strangers and shift many consumers synchronously or asynchronously (Figueiredo
the goal of collaborative consumption. In collectives and and Scaraboto 2016). Their circulation makes them inter-
families, the goal is to help others and facilitate relationship changeable means to fulfill a goal. Therefore, consumers may
building. In access-based models, the goal is typically to use a good but not view it as “MINE” or unique or special
provide financial or efficiency gains for consumers and (McEwan, Pesowski, and Friedman 2016). Their circulation
firms (Lamberton 2016). also makes the symbolic meaning of access-based goods par-
Access-based models facilitate the creation of new prod- ticularly vulnerable to contamination by dissociative social
ucts (e.g., social media platforms, video conferencing), and groups, persons, or acts (Inbar et al. 2009). When consuming
provide considerable benefits by changing the way existing these used, circulating, or fungible goods, psychological own-
products are consumed. By relinquishing private legal own- ership that would normally be directed toward an individual
ership of goods, access-based consumption offers consumers good (“It’s MINE”) may be replaced by psychological owner-
greater economic value, better preference matching, conveni- ship of the group of consumers who use it (Fritze et al. 2020;
ence gains from avoiding the entanglements of ownership Pierce and Jussila 2010). Collective psychological ownership is
(e.g., maintaining a car or vacation home), more sustainable a feeling that all consumers of a good or service share owner-
means of consumption (e.g., digital books), and the use of ship of it (“It’s OURS”) and gives each consumer a claim to
both scarce and new goods that would otherwise be unafford- membership, belonging, and ownership of the community
able or infeasible (e.g., luxury goods and social media plat- formed (Pierce and Jussila 2010).
forms, respectively). The economic, temporal, and social Finally, we see two opportunities for access-based con-
benefits derived from the absence of legal ownership have sumption models to preserve psychological ownership at levels
been well documented (e.g., Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017; Hod- commensurate with the level observed for private goods. First,
der 2012; Lamberton and Rose 2012; Rifkin 2001). We argue access-based consumption offers large assortments to consu-
that when access-based models induce a commensurate mers. More consumer choice could increase feelings of psy-
reduction in psychological ownership, however, there are chological ownership for goods and services through the
negative downstream effects for consumers and firms. We greater control it provides to consumers (Huang, Wang, and
briefly introduce how access-based consumption affects psy- Shi 2009; Morewedge, Gray, and Wegner 2010). A second
chological ownership by threatening it, by causing it to be opportunity stems from the new channels for self-expression
transferred, and by creating opportunities to preserve it. that access-based models provide. Self-expression is a funda-
Access-based consumption models threaten psychological mental motive driving the desire to own and consume (Belk
ownership in two ways (see Table 1). First, fractional owner- 1988), and access-based consumption facilitates this identity
ship models of access-based consumption divide property signaling (Belk 2013). Access to more choices within and
rights across agents, who may each possess one or more of the across product categories, and to new channels such as social
legal rights to (1) use a good; (2) profit from its use or sale; media platforms, provides consumers means to more precisely
(3) modify the form, substance, or location of the good; or signal authentic and desired identities as well as to accumulate
(4) transfer possession of some or all of these rights between social capital, attention, and future economic gain (Barasch and
agents (Haase and Kleinaltenkamp 2011). This change Berger 2014; Fritze et al. 2020; Kuehn 2016).
impinges on perceived control over access-based goods, a crit-
ical antecedent of psychological ownership (Bagga, Bendle,
and Cotte 2019). Second, the impermanence associated with
Change 2: Material to Experiential
access-based goods also threatens psychological ownership New technologies are replacing “solid” material goods (i.e.,
(Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017). Psychological ownership often tangible objects that are acquired and owned by consumers)
entails the expectation that one will possess a good in the with “liquid” experiential substitutes (i.e., events or experi-
future. This expectation shifts the reference point from which ences that one encounters and lives through) to fulfill a variety
the good is evaluated, as something that is to be lost, rather than of hedonic and utilitarian wants and needs (Bardhi and
as a potential gain. When consumers expect goods to be Eckhardt 2012; Bauman, 2000; Belk 2013; Gilovich, Kumar,
returned or relinquished, however, they do not shift the refer- and Jampol 2015). This mirrors a shift in consumer demand,
ence point from which they evaluate the good. They are users driven by millennials but also applicable to other generations,
who perceive the good like a “buyer” would, not as an “owner” whereby consumers now prefer to spend money on experiences
would. Users view its consumption as a temporary gain in rather than things and have increased the share of their income
their happiness or utility, not as part of a new status quo that spent on experiences (Barton, Koslow, and Beauchamp 2014).
will be lost when they give back the good (Morewedge and Beyond the multitude of new experiential offerings made pos-
Giblin 2015). sible through the expansion of the sharing economy, digitiza-
Access-based models may also effectively transfer psycho- tion, and an information economy driven by personal data
logical ownership away from individual goods and toward con- (discussed subsequently in detail), firms are making significant
sumer communities. Collective consumption of access-based investments in servitization and experiential offerings. Firms
goods may threaten psychological ownership for individual now offer a variety of product-focused services andMorewedge et al. 201
experiences to consumers postpurchase. In many cases, even platforms (e.g., Audible), or technological devices used to
the acquisition of material goods is becoming refocused on its consume them (e.g., a tablet). Vertical transfers may direct
experiential components. Brick-and-mortar retailers, seeking psychological ownership for material goods to brands of
differentiation from more convenient online platforms, for experiential goods or the platform through which experi-
instance, have embraced “experiential shopping” (or ential goods are accessed. Self–brand attachments may
“shoppertainment”) with pop-up shops, live events, interactive strengthen, and possession–self attachments may weaken,
displays, activities, product lessons, and interactions with as experiential goods replace material goods (Escalas and
experts (Ganesan et al. 2009). Bettman 2005; Fournier 1998). If psychological ownership
Many goods could be classified as material or experiential manifests at the brand level, it can have positive down-
(e.g., a DVD is a tangible material object, but the film it plays is stream effects on consumer demand. Germans who felt
an intangible experience). Our classification scheme sorts more psychological ownership for a car-sharing service
goods according to the focal acquisition goal—to have a thing more frequently booked cars from that service, and stu-
or an experience. A consumer could acquire an album with the dents who felt more psychological ownership for a music
goal to expand her record collection, or to listen to the music streaming platform reported using it more often each week
pressed into its vinyl form (Carter and Gilovich 2010). Even (Fritze et al. 2020). Horizontal transfers may direct psy-
traditional solid goods (e.g., cars, computers, phones, watches) chological ownership from material goods to the inter-
are often now also sold with accompanying experiential fea- mediary devices used to access experiential goods.
tures (e.g., applications such as GPS, music streaming, and Phones, computers, smart panels, watches, and other tech-
games). We predict that eventually the material versus experi- nological devices may accrue greater psychological own-
ential distinction will be blurred to the extent that consumers ership, value, and significance in the eyes of consumers
will view most goods as experiential by default. Next, we (e.g., Melumad and Pham 2020).
briefly introduce how the change from material to experiential One opportunity to preserve psychological ownership at
consumption affects psychological ownership by threatening it levels commensurate with feelings for material goods comes
and causing it to be transferred, as well as how this change
from consumer’s greater self-identification with experiential
creates opportunities to preserve it.
than with material goods (e.g., a trip to Italy vs. an Italian
Two threats to psychological ownership arise from the sub-
jacket; Carter and Gilovich 2010; Gilovich and Kumar 2015).
stitution of material goods with experiential goods. The first is
We posit that the more positive social signal provided by
the intangibility of experiential goods. Psychological ownership
experiential than by material purchases (Bastos and Brucks
is typically imbued through physical cues such as holding,
2017) may undergird their potent value as self-signals. Consu-
touching, and manipulating a material object, which instantiate
mers may forge stronger attachments to experiential than mate-
perceived control over it (Peck and Shu 2009; Reb and Connolly
rial purchases, because they are more socially appropriate
2007). This lack of physical interaction should consequently
reduce psychological ownership for experiential goods—and, means with which to define the self.
thus, their value—to consumers (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018).
A second threat to psychological ownership is the
reduced evaluability of ownership––the difficulty evaluating Three Marketing Macro Trends: Sharing,
who owns experiential goods, such as determining which Digitization, and Personal Data
property rights belong to consumers, owners, and interme-
diaries (Bauman 2000; Carter and Gilovich 2010). When a As evidence of the value of our psychological ownership
consumer buys a concert ticket to a live event, what rights framework, we present three macro trends in marketing dis-
does that afford her other than access to the show? Can she rupting existing business models, whose effects on consumer
be denied admission if she fails to comply with security and behavior are mediated by changes in psychological ownership:
health protocols? Can she film it for personal consumption (1) growth in the sharing economy, (2) digitization of goods
or share her recording on social media? Whether a con- and services, and (3) expansion of personal data. We selected
sumer, intermediary, or firm “owns” an experience is often these trends because they are disrupting the marketplace and
ambiguous, even when firms strive to make legal ownership are active foci of interdisciplinary research. For each trend,
transparent (e.g., who holds which property rights), and is following our framework, we identify specific threats to psy-
muddled further when firms make legal ownership strategi- chological ownership, transfers of psychological ownership to
cally opaque. Consumers who buy digital books, for other stimuli, and opportunities to preserve psychological own-
instance, often mistakenly believe they have purchased ership at prechange levels. Marketing actions are then recom-
more than the right to permanently view them (Helm, mended to counter the threats and leverage transfers and
Ligon, and Riper 2018). opportunities. Exemplary case studies appear in Table 2 (ride
If consumers think of experiential goods at a higher sharing), Table 3 (digital music), and Table 4 (health and well-
categorization level than similar material goods (i.e., at a ness), which concretely illustrate the explanatory power of our
more abstract level), psychological ownership may transfer psychological ownership framework for scholars and
from individual goods (e.g., a book) to branded services, practitioners.202 Journal of Marketing 85(1)
Table 2. Case Study #1: Ride Sharing.
Threats to Transfers of Opportunities to Preserve
Dimension of Change Psychological Ownership Psychological Ownership Psychological Ownership
Legal ownership to legal Fractional ownership. The right to Collective consumption. Private use of a More consumer choice. Improved
access. drive, sell, and control use of a car car is replaced by use of cars in a preference-matching between car
Private ownership of a reduced to access to specific fleet that circulates among a group type, user, and occasion increases
car replaced with rides. of consumers, some potentially perceived control.
temporary access rights v Emphasize cost savings and diseased (e.g., “covidiots”). v Optimize assortment of
to use a collectively convenience of not owning a car. v Provide car features, driver transportation options for specific
consumed car. Impermanence. history, celebrity brand uses (e.g., airport trips,
Each ride is with a different car ambassadors, and high sanitary commuting, dining out, groceries).
and driver, impairing standards; ask users to help keep New channels for self-expression.
development of psychological cars clean; develop consumer Positive feedback and displaying
ownership. communities (e.g., Uber Pool). aspirational brand use on social
v Repeat service delivery with media facilitate social signaling
favorite vehicle types, makes, v Two-sided reputation systems,
models, and drivers. aspirational offerings (e.g., rider
ratings, luxury/exotic vehicles).
Material to experiential. Intangibility. Consumers are less free Higher categorization level. Psychological Greater self-identification. Goal of ride
Ownership of a material to touch and manipulate ride ownership shifts from a specific easier to integrate with
car is replaced with experience than their car to smartphone, platform, self-concept than physical stimuli
access to the experience own physical cars. or brand. (e.g., road trip versus type of car
of a car ride. vProvide choice of routes, sensory vMarketing emphasis on relationship driven).
settings (e.g., temperature, with platform (e.g., Uber), v Identity marketing (e.g., minimal,
conversation, music). optimizing customer satisfaction sustainable lifestyle—use car only
Reduced evaluability. Ownership sta- (mobile applications, experience). when necessary).
tus is harder to determine; owner-
ship of a ride is less clear than
ownership of a car.
v Provide consumers with record
of trips, cars, drivers, and history
with platform; gamify travel (e.g.,
pin map with landmarks visited).
Notes: v ¼ recommended marketing actions to manage psychological ownership threats, transfers, and opportunities.
Trend 1: The Sharing Economy (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012; Eckhardt and Bardhi 2015; Tadelis
2016).
Sharing has traditionally been restricted to familiar others, such
The staggering growth of products available and platforms
as family members and homogeneous collaborative or coop-
for sharing, including bicycles, boats, cars, clothes, homes,
erative social groups (Lamberton 2016). The new sharing econ-
offices, rides, and scooters (e.g., Airbnb, Bird, Blue Bikes, Lyft,
omy is comprised of strangers, who together participate in “a
Poshmark, Rent the Runway, Turo, Uber, WeWork) may threa-
scalable socio-economic system that employs technology-
ten the long-term viability of private ownership. For instance,
enabled platforms that provide users with temporary access
personal car ownership declines when sharing is a viable option
to tangible and intangible resources that may be crowdsourced”
(Mishra et al. 2015), perhaps most for those who do not see car
(Eckhardt et al. 2019, p. 7). Its many forms of collaborative
ownership as central to their identity (Belk 2014). As an exam-
consumption include renting, reselling, lending, simultaneous
ple, Table 2 illustrates how ride sharing threatens, transfers and
consumption, and resource pooling (Botsman and Rogers
creates opportunities to preserve psychological ownership.
2010). Sellers provide temporary usage rights for unused goods
in exchange for profit. Buyers acquire access rights to those
goods without worrying about outright purchase or upkeep.
Thus, value is created for both parties (Farronato and Fradkin Legal Ownership to Legal Access
2018; Lamberton 2016). Sharing platforms lower matching Threats to psychological ownership. Fractional ownership models
costs between sellers and buyers, and secure the exchange of prevalent in the sharing economy threaten psychological own-
money, by strengthening trust through reputation systems ership, whether access-based goods are rented in exchange forMorewedge et al. 203
payment or borrowed for free. Consumers report feeling less and contamination concerns (Argo, Dahl, and Morales 2008).
psychological ownership for rented goods than goods they pri- Third, marketers could also try to retain psychological owner-
vately own. This gulf is widened when goods are free. Con- ship at the group level, developing consumer communities
sumers feel less psychological ownership for borrowed than around common geographic regions, interests, or goals (e.g.,
rented goods. Indeed, they feel no more psychological owner- Uber Brooklyn; Uber Coachella; Uber Pool for work). Mem-
ship for borrowed goods than goods they merely evaluate bership in such groups could reduce behaviors associated with
(Bagga, Bendle, and Cotte 2019). Marketing actions can be reduced personal responsibility, such as obstructing sidewalks
taken to counter threats posed by fractional ownership. First, with electric scooters, and increase the attractiveness of sharing
marketers could emphasize the benefits of reduced costs and goods as a substitute for private goods (Fritze et al. 2020).
dependencies when forgoing legal ownership (e.g., avoiding
car payments, gasoline, parking, cleaning, insurance, and gen- Opportunities to preserve psychological ownership. A shift from
eral maintenance; Hodder 2012). Second, firms can recruit legal ownership to legal access also offers opportunities to
consumers as both users and suppliers, or “prosumers” preserve psychological ownership. More ride-sharing options
(Eckhardt et al. 2019; Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010). Seeing the enable users to better satisfy unique needs than car-buying
transaction from the role of supplier should increase value by consumers with one vehicle for all purposes (e.g., commuting,
increasing consumers’ attention to what is gained through frac- grocery shopping, travel). Decision aids may facilitate such
tional ownership (Morewedge and Giblin 2015). preference matching. Soliciting the purpose of a trip or infer-
A second threat to psychological ownership from sharing ring it from locations (e.g., restaurants, airports), may allow a
markets is that consumers rightly expect their ownership ride-sharing service to recommend suitable transportation
rights and possession of goods to be temporary. Marketers options (e.g., a large SUV to carry luggage). Platform design
could counter this threat by extending access to goods and can incorporate customization opportunities, such as choosing
services consumed in the present, or promising future the brand of car or music in a ride share, the color of an outfit,
access to those particular goods and services (Ericson and or the towels and bath products in a home rental. Firms can also
Fuster 2011; Reb and Connoly 2007). A dress could be lent coordinate matches between customers and goods, such as
for longer, a ride-share platform could provide consumers when hotels configure mutable features of rooms to loyalty
with frequent access to their highest-rated vehicles and program member preferences (e.g., minibar, pillows). Psycho-
drivers, or a home rental service could give a consumer graphics should enable firms to target promotion-focused con-
first claim to her favorite past rental on the same set of sumers willing to take risks with novel experiences and product
dates each year. categories, particularly as product trials are freed from the costs
of long-term ownership.
Transfer of psychological ownership. In the sharing economy, con- Another opportunity to preserve psychological ownership is
sumers interact with individual goods, but those goods are not via self-expression, expressing preferences and identities with
the goal of consumption. The goods are fungible means to an goods that would otherwise be unaffordable or untenable to
end. Most consumers use a ride-share platform for transporta- consumers. A student might rent a designer gown through a
tion, for example, not to have the experience of riding in a platform for a special occasion or social media post. A couple
particular car. The ensuing transfer of psychological ownership on a date night might treat themselves to a ride in a limousine, a
from individual goods to user communities can create a car that would be impractical and onerous for them to privately
“tragedy of the commons” (Hardin 1968), whereby individual own. Being able to use and broadcast use of aspirational and
users take less care and responsibility for a shared good than luxury goods through sharing platforms may produce greater
they would if it were theirs alone. Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) identification with, psychological ownership for, and loyalty to
note such negative reciprocity for car sharing. Contamination brands accessible through the platform, which consumers may
concerns may also loom large in the sharing economy. Con- not normally buy. This includes goods used infrequently
sumers may be disgusted by sleeping in a bed in a rental prop- (e.g., formal attire, party supplies), that are costly to maintain
erty that has been slept in by many others, or worried about (e.g., boats, vacation homes), or that are expensive to buy (e.g.,
riding in a car previously used by a sick passenger. handbags, yard equipment). Firms may further benefit from
Multiple marketing actions can be implemented to preserve facilitating user posting of experiences on social media for
psychological ownership with such transfers. One marketing social signaling and from soliciting user feedback. Vacationers
action to counter the lack of a unique relationship with any may feel greater attachment to a rental after sharing pictures of
particular good may be to emphasize what is unique about the it, or after expressing their values by writing a review of the
goods, such as their features, history, or owner (Grayson and home (He, Melumad, and Pham 2018).
Martinec 2004; Li and Lutz 2019). Second, beyond maintain-
ing and advertising high standards for sanitation, background
checks, and screening for irresponsible users, firms may use
Material to Experiential
counterconditioning (Mason and Richardson 2012). Attractive, Threats to psychological ownership. In the sharing economy, con-
trustworthy brand ambassadors and clean and modern goods sumers may remain in physical contact with “solid” material
may counter the negative associations from dissociative groups goods, but the focal goal is not to own material goods. It is204 Journal of Marketing 85(1)
to consume goods in “liquid” experiential forms (Bardhi with collections of unusual experiences (e.g., renting a 1980s
and Eckhardt 2012; Eckhardt et al. 2019; Rifkin 2001). Mercedes convertible while vacationing in California) than
A ride-share user purchases a ride, not a car. A vacationer pur- with material merchandise that does not reflect their authentic
chases access to a home, not the home itself. A freelancer buys selves (e.g., buying the same convertible to drive to work;
access to a workspace and its amenities, not the property on which Keinan and Kivetz 2010). A consumer can purchase experi-
she works. A first threat is raised by the intangibility of such ences to signal that she is adventurous or on trend (Bardhi
experiential goods. This reduces physical control, and thus per- and Eckhardt 2012; Belk 2010). Firms positioned toward iden-
ceived control over the consumption experience. To offset this tity marketing could target consumers who identify as
threat, marketers could use techniques that restore control through “minimalists,” who prefer to avoid entanglement in the respon-
other dimensions, such as providing consumers with touchscreen sibilities of ownership (Hodder 2012). The appeal of using
interfaces (e.g., smartphones; Brasel and Gips 2014), or control products collectively could be highlighted to appeal to consu-
over when and how goods will be consumed (e.g., scheduling mers who identity with sustainable consumption, and firms
rides and routes; Baxter et al. 2015), the sensory features of the could address their environmental concerns with premium sus-
experience (e.g., temperature, music), and less tangible options tainable offerings (e.g., electric cars, passive houses).
(e.g., interactions with the driver or owner; Schmitt 2010).
Second, the rights afforded by the purchase of a shared
good (e.g., a ride, rental of a vacation home) are more sub- Trend 2: Digitization
jective and less evaluable than the rights afforded by private Digitization of goods and services, wherein information is con-
ownership of good (e.g., a car, a home; Bauman 2000; Carter verted into a numerical format, has evolved from niche scientific
and Gilovich 2010). Consumers buy a contract for a ride from and commercial applications in the 1950s and 1960s into a tech-
point A to point B, or to use a house for several nights, but nology that has spread across and transformed society. Consu-
which rights are included in that contract can be ambiguous. mers exhibit strong demand for digital goods. There has been a
The end result is that consumers may not be able to discern (or recent rise in consumer demand for some vintage physical goods
feel) ownership of the experiential good they have purchased. such as vinyl records (Nielsen 2019), but many analog products
To enhance the evaluability of owning shared experiential and services have been, or are being, replaced by digital sub-
goods, marketers could cross-sell or bundle private material stitutes. Digital cameras outsold analog camera sales by 2003.
goods that serve as a marker of the experiential purchase. Both were outsold by smartphones in 2006, which were used to
Tangible goods can serve as reminders of personal memories take most of the more than 1 trillion photographs taken in 2017
and meaningful consumption episodes (Wallendorf and (Cakebread 2017). By 2018, record labels earned more through
Arnould 1988). The French Laundry gives diners a branded streaming services than physical CD sales. Mass digitization of
wooden clothespin, for instance, as a souvenir of their extra- millions of books is currently underway by Google, the Open
vagant meal. Such cues create value through the indexical Content Alliance, and Microsoft (Coyle 2006). Digital curren-
connections they form, tangible links between consumers and cies, from dollars to information-based currencies such as Bit-
meaningful events (Grayson and Shulman 2000). Platforms coin and Ethereum, may eventually replace cash.
could provide consumers with other cues such as usage his- Digital goods provide similar consumption experiences as
tory records or gamify use, such as by pinning maps with their physical counterparts, but their immateriality confers
landmarks visited. numerous advantages. A digital photograph can be shared
instantly with friends and family members. It can be recovered
Transfer of psychological ownership. Psychological ownership for even if the phone used to take it is lost or broken. Digital music
the concrete, tangible, material goods used in the sharing econ- and books can be purchased and accessed at home, on the
omy may be transferred to the more abstract, intangible beach, or in the air––anywhere with wireless access—from a
branded platforms and intermediary devices through which pocket-sized device, never scratching, fading, or tearing.
experiential goods are accessed. While this may reduce psy- Digital goods have many environmental benefits, from lower
chological ownership for any individual experience, positive carbon footprints to no waste on disposal (Mi and Coffman
effects of this transfer could include higher brand loyalty, com- 2019). Effects of digitization on psychological ownership for
petitive resistance, and word of mouth for brands and inter- goods, and its downstream consequences, are less clearly pos-
mediary devices (Asatryan and Oh 2008). We recommend itive. As an example, Table 3 illustrates how digitization threa-
that marketers emphasize the relationship with the platform tens, transfers, and creates opportunities to preserve
in their strategy and actions. Consumers may care less about psychological ownership of music.
how the particular brands of cars available through a ride-share
platform reflect on their identity, for instance, than the fairness
of its prices or its treatment of drivers.
Legal Ownership to Legal Access
Digitization is replacing permanent ownership models with
Opportunities to preserve psychological ownership. The sharing access-based consumption models in many domains (Eckhardt
economy may afford particular opportunities to preserve psy- et al. 2019; Watkins, Denegri-Knott, and Molesworth 2016). In
chological ownership. Consumers may more readily identify the case of music, private ownership of physical albums isMorewedge et al. 205
Table 3. Case Study #2: Digital Music.
Threats to Transfers of Opportunities to Preserve
Dimension of Change Psychological Ownership Psychological Ownership Psychological Ownership
Legal ownership to legal access. Fractional ownership. Rights to use, Collective consumption. Listening to a More consumer choice. Access to
Privately owned albums sell, share, or gift an album are private library of music replaced larger libraries increase match
replaced with temporary replaced with access rights to with consumption of a catalog between state-dependent
access rights to use album, song, or platform catalog. available to all platform users; preferences and music available.
collectively consumed v Emphasize cost savings, ownership transfers from album v Provide omnichannel (mobile,
albums, songs, and videos. convenience. to consumer group. desktop, offline) access to more
Impermanence. Permanent v Provide information about songs, artists, and recordings in
ownership is replaced with access recordings and artists; feature platform catalogs.
rights contingent on composition artist/influencers in marketing New channels for self-expression.
of platform catalog or longevity of communications; make Consumers comment, review,
software or firm. opportunities for cocreation discuss music (e.g., Twitter,
v Maintain consistency in offerings (e.g., playlist, remixes); cultivate YouTube, Reddit); create and
(e.g., recordings), guarantee consumer groups (e.g., events, share new music (e.g.,
long-term access to purchases. social media marketing). SoundCloud).
vEncourage microblogging, reviews,
editing and publishing tools,
increase access to new and rare
recordings.
Material to experiential. Intangibility. Consumers are less Higher categorization level. Greater self-identification. Consumers
Physical records, tapes, and able to touch, hold, and Psychological ownership more readily identify with artist or
CDs are replaced by songs, manipulate digital music than transfers from album to song than physical album/CD/tape.
downloaded to or physical records, CDs, tapes. smartphone, headphones, or v Provide history of songs, artists,
streamed on personal v Use touchscreen and platform. albums (e.g., lyrics, biographies,
device. gesture-based menus and v Emphasis on relational discographies), connect artists
controls; skeuomorphic marketing, develop mobile with salient social identities and
controls (e.g., virtual turntables); applications, personalization of causes.
include album covers, videos, intermediary devices (e.g.,
and samples in music. customizable headphones).
Reduced evaluability. Ownership of
downloaded and purchased digital
album is more ambiguous than
ownership of a physical album.
v Visual ownership and usage cues
(pictorial menus, playlists),
cross-sell physical merchandise
(branded apparel, posters,
household goods), gamification
(top songs, percent of favorite
artist’s library heard).
Notes: v ¼ recommended marketing actions to manage psychological ownership threats, transfers, and opportunities.
being replaced with access-based consumption of digital down- digital consumption objects they create (e.g., annotated
loads and streamed music (Table 3). Streaming is now the most books, avatars in games, playlists). We suggest that this
popular way to consume music. Diffusion of digital fractional model of ownership threatens the psychological
access-based models is also widespread for books, email, films, ownership felt by owner-users, potentially transferring per-
magazines, maps, news, and television. ceived ownership to the platforms and brands providing
consumers access to digital goods. Indeed, consumers feel
Threats to psychological ownership. Access-based consumption less psychological ownership and are thus less willing to
of digital goods typically entails the temporary right to use pay for digital books, films, and photographs than their
a good, housed on a cloud server, which is owned and physical counterparts, (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018; see
fractionated by a third-party provider. Consumers cannot also Siddiqui and Turley 2006). In addition, even though
sell, trade, or gift digital goods for which they purchased users spend more than an hour of their time each day on
“permanent” access; they have only purchased a right to social media platforms each day, they are willing to forgo
personally consume it. Consumers often do not even own access to their content and online social networks for206 Journal of Marketing 85(1)
relatively small sums of money (Brynjolfsson, Collis, and information about its background (e.g., history; critical reviews
Eggers 2019). Marketing actions for firms to address this and summaries; information about individual artists, actors, or
threat could highlight the considerable economic and trans- musicians involved in its production; Li and Lutz 2019), and
actional benefits of access-based digital goods, which are counterconditioning by featuring beloved artists, awards, or
often more attractive than the benefits of legally owning celebrity users in marketing communications for the good
private goods (Sinclair and Tinson 2017). (e.g., social media influencer endorsements). Marketers who
Second, consumers (rationally) view their ownership of aim to benefit from the transfer could grow consumer commu-
access-based digital goods as impermanent. Streamed goods nities by creating officially licensed clubs, posting content in
are often not even rented. Consumers pay for access to a plat- spaces where consumers interact with each other and brands or
form’s catalog, and individual goods are only possessed for the artists (e.g., Facebook fan pages, Twitter), and providing con-
duration of their consumption. The ability to consume sumers ways to engage with and invest their time and energy in
access-based digital goods—even goods that consumers them- digital objects and these social groups (e.g., hosting forums,
selves created—is typically determined by the platform on posting reviews and comments, creating collaborative quests
which they are hosted (Molesworth et al. 2016). Consumers and interconnected worlds; Franke, Schreier, and Kaiser 2010).
may thus not feel ownership even for the digital goods they That investment is likely to foster a feeling of psychological
can “permanently” access. Indeed, consumers are willing to ownership for digital consumption objects (e.g., avatars, posts,
pay more to purchase than rent utilitarian physical goods virtual cities; Karahanna et al. 2015; Norton, Mochon, Ariely
(e.g., a hardcover textbook), but they are not willing to pay 2012), which have considerable value for firms as means to
more to purchase than rent similar digital goods (Atasoy and lock in consumers to their platforms (Molesworth et al. 2016).
Morewedge 2018; Bagga, Bendle, and Cotte 2019). We suggest
that marketers respond to impermanence threats by assuring Opportunities to preserve psychological ownership. Digitization
consumers that they will have continued access to the same provides opportunities to preserve psychological ownership
digital goods. Platforms could extend streaming access to through the panoply of options and channels for the
favorite titles in their catalog, or guarantee access to digital self-expression it affords consumers. Digital goods enhance
goods purchased “permanently” for a specified time period. control and provide consumers with large assortments of con-
When updating platform designs and formats, we conjecture tent to match their preferences. Consumers typically can
that retaining elements that instill a perception of continuity choose which digital media to consume anytime, anywhere,
may reduce this threat. with even more choice on the go than when choosing similar
kinds of physical goods at brick and mortar retailers (e.g.,
Transfer of psychological ownership. Issues around transfer of books, games, movies, music). Digital goods can also enhance
psychological ownership due to the collective consumption control by facilitating the personalization of consumption
of digital goods raise different concerns than those described experiences. The increased control imbued by enhanced con-
in the sharing economy. Digitization should mitigate physical sideration sets and customization may create a greater level of
contamination of goods, but consumers may still be concerned psychological ownership than is experienced for comparable
about acquiring digital goods from dissociative groups, who physical goods (Huang, Wang, and Shi 2009; Morewedge et al.
may add malware or viruses. We speculate that contamination 2010). Marketing actions that can leverage these benefits
may also affect digital goods at higher construal levels. include maintaining large choice sets, even as recommendation
Whereas consumers may be primarily concerned with the pre- systems improve (Karakayali, Kostem, and Galip 2018), offer-
vious owners of one copy of a physical good (e.g., “This paper- ing consumers ways to customize their consumption experi-
back of The Fountainhead was owned by a white nationalist”), ences, and direct control over those experiences or the
consumers may be concerned with the previous and other own- content offered (e.g., in games or media feeds). Low marginal
ers of any copy of a digital good (e.g., “The Fountainhead is costs and image filters for digital photographs, for instance,
popular on Facebook with white nationalists”). As contamina- allow consumers to capture many images of the same subject
tion effects become more diffuse, however, they may also and edit the photograph that best realizes their vision (Van
become more diluted. Contamination may be more potent Dijck 2008). As illustrated by the consumer backlash against
when it applies to one rather than to all copies of a particular Apple for adding U2’s Songs of Innocence album to user
good. As digitization facilitates the coordination of social libraries in 2014 (Baxter and Aurisicchio 2018), firms should
groups around collective activities and interests (e.g., games, avoid curating consumer content without their explicit consent.
music, news, photography, design, literature, videos), owner- A second opportunity to preserve psychological ownership
ship for goods may be replaced with ownership for these con- stems from the many new ways digital goods allow consumers
sumer communities (Pierce and Jussila 2010). Consumers may to create and signal their identity to others through the cocrea-
feel psychological ownership for the community itself as well tion of public digital consumption objects. Indeed, consumers
as for their contributions that further the goals and formation of invest considerable labor in creating and curating their image,
these groups (e.g., posts, comments, virtual objects). content, and contacts on social media, in games, and in online
Marketing actions to retain psychological ownership for an virtual worlds (Molesworth et al. 2016). Marketing actions
individual digital good include providing consumers with more that facilitate these forms of self-branding and identityYou can also read
