Abstract
Prior research on object valuation ignores the effect of non-ownership physical possession types such as renting and borrowing. Evidence from four experiments demonstrates that the valuation (i.e., willingness-to-pay) for rented objects is greater than the valuation for non-possessed or borrowed objects. Borrowed objects are not valued any differently than non-possessed objects. Psychological ownership mediates the relationship between valuation and non-ownership physical possession. Additionally, psychological ownership varies for different possession types (ownership, renting, and borrowing) as its contributing routes (control, self-investment, and knowledge) operate differently for each possession type. As further evidence of the psychological ownership based theoretical account, the research shows that rented objects are not valued higher than non-possessed objects if the control or self-investment routes of psychological ownership are suppressed. The moderating influence of product hedonism–utilitarianism and consumers’ tightwad–spendthrift tendency on the valuation of rented and borrowed objects is also examined
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 97–117 |
Number of pages | 21 |
Journal | Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science |
Volume | 47 |
Early online date | 2 Aug 2018 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published (in print/issue) - 15 Jan 2019 |
Keywords
- Object valuation
- Renting
- Borrowing
- Psychological ownership
- Endowment effect