Content uploaded by Bernadette Kamleitner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bernadette Kamleitner on Jun 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
“As if it were mine”:
imagery works by inducing psychological ownership
Bernadette Kamleitner
Professor of Marketing
Vienna University of Economics and Business
Department Marketing
Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Wien
Phone: +43 131336 4614
Fax: +43 (0)1 313 36-90 4614
E- Mail: Bernadette.kamleitner@wu.ac.at
Silvia Feuchtl
PhD candidate
Vienna University of Economics and Business
Department Marketing
Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Wien
Phone: +43 664 832 4381
Fax: +43 (0)1 313 36-90 4614
E- Mail: silvia.feuchtl@s.wu.ac.at
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
“As if it were mine”:
imagery works by inducing psychological ownership
Bernadette Kamleitner (Doctor of Natural Sciences, University of Vienna and Doctor of
Social and Economic Sciences, Vienna University of Economics and Business), Professor of
Marketing, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna,
Austria, Bernadette.kamleitner@wu.ac.at
Silvia Feuchtl (Master of Science, University of Vienna, Master of Arts in Business,
University of Applied Sciences FH Burgenland), PhD candidate at Vienna University of
Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria, silvia.feuchtl@s.wu.ac.at
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge support with data collection in Study 1 by Julia
Trenner and thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
“As if it were mine”:
imagery works by inducing psychological ownership
Imagery appeals are a powerful instrument in a communicator’s toolbox. Imagery allows
evaluating an object prior to actual experience and to simulate object ownership. This paper
investigates whether imagery and psychological ownership are systematically interlinked,
thus making objects become “mine” through imagery. Across 2 studies, featuring 3 objects, 3
different types of advertisements, and based on more than 800 participants, this paper
supports a conceptual model that suggests that an inherent link between imagery and
psychological ownership drives a varied set of consumer responses. Implications for
marketers aiming to capitalize on the effects of imagery processing are derived.
1
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Consumers almost always buy before benefiting from actual usage experience. Imagery,
the sensory simulation of experiences, allows them to anticipate future experiences (MacInnis
and Price 1987). Because of this, advertisements frequently stimulate mental imagery which
can elicit particularly positive consumer responses (e.g., Rossiter and Percy 1980; Schlosser
2003).
But is it imagery as a processing mode that renders imagery so persuasive? Or could it
rather be the precise things people imagine that make it so powerful? Kamleitner (2011)
suggested the latter. Her argument is that imagined ownership and an accompanying feeling
that something is “mine” (i.e., psychological ownership; Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003)
drive effects attributed to imagery as a processing mode. Indeed, it only takes a glance at
current advertisements, slogans, and web addresses to note that the possessive pronoun “MY”
and its variants are as much a fixture in the contemporary marketing toolbox as imagery
appeals; and they often go hand in hand.
Current evidence for a potential link between imagery and psychological ownership is
limited to situations in which consumers are highly motivated and able to process information
on a desired product (Kamleitner 2011; Peck, Barger, and Webb 2013). However, this is not
usually the case when consumers encounter marketing communication efforts. Identifying the
link between psychological ownership and imagery in response to everyday marketing
communication has conceptual and practical merits.
This paper aims at contributing to two at best sparsely linked fields of theorizing, namely
psychological ownership and mental imagery. Moreover, it aims at improving our practical
understanding of how imagery processing influences consumer responses and helps in
designing effective messages.
The specific objectives catering to these aims are threefold. First, we aim to take a deeper
look at the relation between imagery and psychological ownership. We do so by drawing on a
2
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
nuanced conceptualization of imagery. In addition to assessing imagery vividness, which
often happens to be the only dimension of imagery considered, we also assess and
hypothesize the role of imagery elaboration and quantity (Babin and Burns 1998).
Second, we aim to understand the effects psychological ownership may have on a broader
set of consumer responses. In particular, we test whether psychological ownership is mainly
effective because it increases attachment and attitudes, which in turn influence intentions. In
pursuit of these aims we develop and test a conceptual model.
The third aim is to determine the empirical robustness of our model across research
designs, product categories, and conventional versus individualized advertising.
Following a theoretical overview of the core constructs we introduce our integrative
research model and test it in two large scale studies using different communication tools.
Studies converge in support of the model. A final discussion pinpoints the contribution and
highlights theoretical and practical implications for message design and testing.
IMAGERY AND MARKETING COMMUNICATION
Imagery is a mode of processing that differs from discursive or analytical processing in
the way information is mentally represented. Imagery refers to processing of information that
is represented in its sensory form (MacInnis and Price 1987; Schroeder 2005). When drawing
upon imagery processing, consumers can mentally (re)live experiences. Because of its tight
link to experience, imagery is an exceedingly powerful processing mode. In particular, it is at
play when processing affect-rich information (Crisp, Birtel, and Meleady 2011; Holmes et al.
2008). What is imagined seems (more) real (e.g., Taylor et al. 1998) and elicits equivalent
responses. Imagery is thought to consist of three primary dimensions (Babin and Burns 1998):
vividness, quantity, and elaboration. Vividness refers to the intensity and clarity of images
that arise. Elaboration refers to the degree to which information stored in long-term memory,
i.e., information other than that provided by the stimulus, is activated and integrated in
3
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
information processing. Quantity primarily refers to the amount of different images generated.
Notably, the majority of research has only focused on the dimension of vividness.
Many marketing practitioners seem to have an intuitive understanding of the merits of
imagery and harness its power in advertising. Indeed, numerous studies testify to the potential
for success of imagery appeals (e.g., Bone and Ellen 1992; Burns, Biswas, and Babin 1993;
Dahl and Hoeffler 2004; Petrova and Cialdini 2008). Reasons as to why imagery influences
consumer responses primarily relate to the richness of encoding, which is caused by a more
sensory way of processing (e.g., Kieras 1978). As a consequence information can be recalled
and processed more fluently (e.g., Petrova and Cialdini 2005). This ease, in turn, stimulates
liking (e.g., Dahl and Hoeffler 2004; Fitzsimons and Williams 2000; Schwarz 2004) and the
potential to act upon what has been processed (e.g., Levav and Fitzsimons 2006; Novemsky et
al. 2007). Recently, Kamleitner (2011) proposed that imagery may also be persuasive because
it affects thought content. After all, based on an initial stimulus it is usually the consumer
herself who fills in missing information and generates the actual imagery. For example, if a
picture of a yellow sports car driving through a picturesque country side is used to induce
imagery, the person processing this stimulus will automatically complete this picture by
adding imaginary details such as the driver’s identity, destination, or driving speed. The
success of imagery eliciting marketing strategies may depend as much on the actual imagery
occurring as it depends on the vividness and depth of processing (cf. MacInnis and Price
1987).
LINKING IMAGERY PROCESSING AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
We suggest that imagery is particularly powerful if consumers simulate themselves as
owners. In the above example this translates into imagining that the yellow sports car is one’s
own. The rationale for this suggestion is threefold (cf. Kamleitner 2011). First, information on
ownership is fundamental to know how to behave towards objects and to navigate through
4
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
society (e.g., Friedman 2010; Rudmin 1991). The incorporation of information on ownership
in object imagery helps determine the future course that imagery regarding an object will take.
Second, personal ownership is the type of information that lends itself to imagery
processing. An extensive body of literature suggests that consumers often develop an
experiential “sense” of ownership (Heyman, Orhun, and Ariely 2004; Rudmin 1986). In
particular the notion of psychological ownership, namely “the state in which individuals feel
as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is ‘theirs’ (i.e., ‘It is mine!’) (Pierce
et al. 2003, p.86)”, is likely to be processed like other affectively rich notions, i.e., via
imagery. Importantly, psychological ownership can be experienced for more than factual
possessions (e.g., De Dreu and van Knippenberg 2005; Jussila and Tuominen 2010; Rudmin
1994). It also arises in the absence of actual entitlements which is the common situation
consumers find themselves in when first receiving any marketing communication. Moreover,
like imagery processing (MacInnis and Price 1987), psychological ownership is a matter of
degree (e.g., Brown, Pierce, and Crossley 2014). It is possible that their respective strengths
are related.
Third and most important for the argument that psychological ownership may lie behind
the effectiveness of imagery processing: Psychological ownership elicits favorable attitudinal
and behavioral consumer responses (e.g., Jussila and Tuominen 2010; Reb and Connolly 2007;
Shu and Peck 2011).
MENTAL IMAGERY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP IN MARKETING
COMMUNICATION
Existing literature on the relation between imagery and psychological ownership is sparse.
However, two scholarly contributions provide support for our proposition. First, Peck et al.
(2013) showed that instructions imagining touching a product can be nearly as effective in
5
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
inducing psychological ownership as actual touch. To elicit imagery, they used very strong
imagery instructions that necessitate deep engagement by the consumer.
Second, Kamleitner (2011) conducted a survey and a scenario study in the context of
objects that are strongly desired by consumers. In this context, psychological ownership was
capable of mediating the favorable effect of imagery vividness on attitudes and behavioral
intentions.
Although both studies point to the hypothesized relation between imagery and
psychological ownership, the situations studied show essential differences to actual
communication practices. For the most part, recipients of marketing messages neither have
strong pre-existing desires for nor prior imagery about an advertised product (see in contrast
Kamleitner 2011 where long standing object desire was accompanied by imagery and
psychological ownership) nor will fleetingly presented imagery appeals (e.g., a picture in an
advertisement) suffice to entice consumers to deeply engage in product imagery (see in
contrast the specific and prolonged imagery instructions used by Peck et al. 2013). So the
question is whether imagery processing of common marketing communication endeavors will
also be able to trigger psychological ownership. The link between imagery and psychological
ownership would need to be forged based on a very fleeting cognitive engagement (for
scepticism about that possibility see Pierce and Jussila 2011). Moreover and perhaps as a
result, the absolute level of psychological ownership is likely to be very low. Further
conceptual refinement and empirical tests are needed to verify that the proposed link between
imagery and psychological ownership generalizes to standard marketing communication.
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE IMAGERY INDUCED EFFECTS OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
The necessity for conceptual refinement hinges on two main points. First, imagery is a
multi-dimensional mode of processing (Babin and Burns 1998). Yet, the common practice has
6
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
been to simply assess imagery vividness and to ignore the dimensions of quantity and
elaboration (e.g., Argyriou 2012; McGill and Anand 1989). This also holds for prior work on
psychological ownership, i.e., for Peck et al. (2013 who did not always measure imagery) and
Kamleitner (2011).
Second, we know that different consumer response measures (including attitudes and
behavioral intentions but potentially also attachment) are often linked in what has been termed
a hierarchy of effects (e.g., Barry and Howard 1990). Further conceptual and empirical work
is needed to identify psychological ownership’s place in such a hierarchy.
The model presented in Figure 1 caters to these demands. In essence, the research model
assumes a mediation chain spanning across three steps. First, strong mental imagery tends to
involve imagining taking the role of an owner. This creates a possessive link between a
person and an object experienced as psychological ownership. Second, the degree of
psychological ownership mediates the effect of imagery on attitude and attachment. Third,
attitude and attachment mediate the effect of imagery and psychological ownership on
behavior and intentions. We briefly discuss each step in the model.
Place Figure 1 about here
The link between the dimensions of imagery and psychological ownership
To hypothesize about this link it is necessary to consider the routes leading to
psychological ownership. Pierce et al. (2003) proposed that psychological ownership evolves
primarily as a function of the extent to which a person (a) feels in control over an object, (b)
invests the self into an object, and (c) is knowledgeable about and familiar with an object. It
becomes apparent that it is the dimension of imagery elaboration, namely the integration of
previously stored information in the imagery, for which we expect to find the strongest link.
7
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Through drawing on and deeply processing previous knowledge, a person likely invests
herself in the imagery about an object and simultaneously becomes more familiar with and
perceives control over it. Naturally deeper elaboration tends to come along with an increase in
the amount of mental pictures arising. We assume that imagery quantity does not in itself
have a strong influence on the extent of psychological ownership but does so through an
inherent and strong link with imagery elaboration. Some prior research even failed to
empirically distinguish between these two factors (Ellen and Bone 1991).
Elaboration also tends to come along with an increase in vividness. Vividness is in its
own right likely to make an object more “tangible” and controllable to a consumer and thus
presumably also fosters psychological ownership but likely not to the same extent as
elaboration. The thick lines in Figure 1 highlight relations that are predicted to be especially
strong.
Psychological ownership, attachment, and attitudes
All of these constructs speak to the relation between an object and a person. They are
hence likely related (e.g., for attitude and attachment see Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005).
Yet each of these constructs has its own conceptual core.
Across definitions (Ball and Tasaki 1992; Kleine and Baker 2004; Thomson et al. 2005)
attachment is considered as a (emotional) bond between a person and an object that reflects
the self, i.e., the extent to which an object is “me”. Psychological ownership in contrast
concentrates on possessiveness (Pierce and Jussila 2011), i.e., on the extent to which an object
is “mine”. As a consequence, we predict that psychological like actual ownership (e.g.,
Gawronski, Bodenhausen, and Becker 2007) facilitates and leads to the generation of
attachment.
8
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
A similar proposition is made with regard to attitudes. Attitudes are overall evaluations of
a target (e.g., Bizer, Barden, and Petty 2003). These evaluations vary as a function of whether
a person possesses the target (i.e., the mere ownership effect, see Beggan 1992). The
relationship between a person and the target is not a conceptual part of the attitude construct.
It may, however, predict it (Park and MacInnis 2006). We hence posit that psychological
ownership predicts attitudes.
The arrows leading from the imagery dimensions to attitudes and attachment indicate a
potential remaining direct effect. Note that this link to attitudes has mostly been the only
effect assumed by prior researchers (e.g., Bone and Ellen 1992).
Links to behavioral consequences
Once attached, individuals seek to maintain relationships with what they are attached to
(Park, MacInnis, and Priester 2006). Depending on the concrete circumstances this may lead
to a range of intentions and behaviors. In the context of marketing communication a product
is not yet owned, maintaining the relationship with an object hence entails acts geared towards
object acquisition. In particular, attachment is likely to increase the willingness to sacrifice
resources (Park and MacInnis 2006). A similar prediction holds for the influence of attitudes.
Attitudes are possibly the most frequently employed predictor of behavior (for a review see
for example Glasman and Albarracin 2006).
In the context of our model these predictions come as mediations. We propose that no
direct effect of imagery on behaviors will remain and that attachment and attitudes at least
partially mediate any effects psychological ownership may have on behavior and behavioral
intentions (for an additional direct effect of psychological ownership see Kamleitner 2011).
9
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Proposed generalizability of the model
The proposed model does not depend on the absolute level of imagery and psychological
ownership which may well vary across products, messages, and channels. More interactive
and individualized forms of marketing communication are likely to induce higher levels of
psychological ownership (cf. Fuchs, Prandelli, and Schreier 2010). Yet, we propose that the
general model holds across products and types of marketing communication.
Two studies were designed to test for the predictions arising from the model. Use of
different stimulus products and communication endeavors ensured model robustness. Study 1
assessed responses to a product leaflet for a steam shower. Study 2 aimed to check for
robustness and used (individualized) online ads for a coffee maker and a car. To ensure that
potential failure of generalization is not due to differences in measurement, both studies were
based on the same measurement model.
STUDY 1
Sample and Procedure
303 people that were randomly addressed in public areas in an Austrian city agreed to
complete a paper-pencil survey. The majority of participants was female (n = 166) and
median age was 34 years (Q25 = 27, Q75 = 43). Average net income was € 1,671 (SD = € 725).
Two criteria were used to identify a suitable stimulus product. First, to keep interference
through prior experiences and variations in product need to a minimum, the product should be
affordable but not yet owned by a majority of participants. Second, to minimize variations in
prior desires it should be a product that most people have never actively thought about. A
massage steam-shower fulfills these requirements.
Participants were shown a one-page product folder depicting the shower and featuring a
short text that vividly explained some product details. Participants were instructed to look at
10
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
the picture and to “let their fantasy play out”. Subsequently, all variables were assessed in a
paper-pencil questionnaire. On average participation took ten to fifteen minutes.
Material
Assessment order followed the structure of the conceptual model. All items were assessed
on 7-point scales.
Imagery was assessed by Babin and Burns’ (1998) scale of communication evoked
mental imagery which captures all three dimensions. Vividness of mental pictures that arose
was assessed on a semantic differential comprising six items (e.g., “clear-unclear”). Imagery
quantity (e.g., “I imagined a number of things”) and elaboration (e.g., “I imagined what it
would be like to use the massage shower”) were each assessed with three items, from
completely disagree to completely agree.
Psychological ownership was assessed by four items adapted from Peck and Shu (2009),
e.g., “I felt what it would be like to own the massage shower”.
Product attachment was assessed based on Kleine, Kleine, and Allen’s (1995) scale of
material possession attachment. The authors maintain that there are different types of
attachment due to an object either enabling autonomy (making me special) or affiliation
(making me belong). They further distinguish between past, present, and future attachment
and they also measure hedonic attitudes and enjoyment as dimensions of attachment. For the
present research we focused on the identity relevant core of the construct and assessed four
present-focused autonomy and affiliation items that could be adapted to the context of pre-
ownership (e.g., “The steam shower is a symbol for who I am”).
Product attitude was assessed with two items: ”All in all, I evaluate the shower very
positively” and “I really like the shower”.
Behavioral intentions were assessed by 16 items asking for a broad range of behaviors
including the propensity to get a quote for the steam shower and the propensity to forgo
11
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
amenities and to use credit to afford the shower. In addition we recorded whether participants
accepted an offer for further information material after study completion. Due to many
missing (25%) and unrealistic responses, willingness to pay (WTP) was excluded from further
analyses despite being assessed.
Measurement Model
A main aim of this paper is to identify whether the proposed conceptual model holds
across different contexts and studies. To avoid that potential differences simply reflect
differences in measurement, it is necessary to ensure that measurement models are as similar
as possible across studies. To this end we simultaneously established the measurement models
for both studies. We first log transformed all skewed items (skewness > 1). Next, exploratory
factor analyses were followed by confirmatory factor analyses. Results indicated that imagery
quantity and elaboration do not reliably load on two different factors. Conceptually, this
finding is not surprising since the amount of mental pictures that arise logically depends on
the depth of elaboration. Instead of three dimensions of imagery we hence used a two factor
solution with the dimensions vividness and elaboration, i.e., a composite of elaboration and
quantity items (for a comparable factor structure see Ellen and Bone 1991). Similarly, factor
analyses indicated only one overall attachment factor comprising three items. Finally, the full
list of behavioral intentions yielded two stable sub-factors comprising of three items each:
behavioral sacrifices that enable product acquisition (e.g., forgo amenities or postpone other
desired acquisitions) and behaviors that signal product consideration (e.g., get a quote or go to
trade fairs because of the product).
The resulting measurement model for Study 1 fits the data reasonably well (Chi² (229) =
447,86; CMIN/DF = 1.96, RMSEA = .056, CFI = .94, PCFI = .72) and performs adequately
in terms of reliability and discriminant validity. Table 1 contains composite reliabilities (CR),
12
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
average variances extracted (AVE), Maximum Shared Variances (MSV), and Average Shared
Variances (ASV) for the measured constructs based on Gaskin’s Stat Tools Package (Gaskin
2012). As suggested by Hair et al. (2010), there is evidence for reliability with all CRs being
larger than .7, for convergent validity with all AVEs larger than .5 and all AVEs smaller than
CRs, and for discriminant validity with all MSVs and ASVs being smaller than the respective
AVEs.
Place Table 1 about here
Results
To verify the structure of the conceptual model, path analyses were run using the
structural equation modelling software AMOS. We ran iterative models to capture the added
value of psychological ownership. Due to missing data, twelve participants were excluded
from further analyses. In all models across studies we allowed for the theoretically sensible
co-variation between the two dimensions of imagery, between attitude and attachment, and
between the two dimensions of behavioral intention.
Place Figure 2 about here
Place Table 2 about here
The first model (M1_1 in Table 2) acted as a baseline for the effect of psychological
ownership. Notably, links from and to psychological ownership were constrained to 0. In this
model, imagery vividness and elaboration influence product attitude and attachment. In turn,
attachment and attitudes uniquely contribute in explaining a considerable amount of variance
13
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
in both behavioral intentions and to a lesser extent in actual information requests. However,
this baseline model performs very poorly with regard to fit indices (see M1_1 in Table 3).
Allowing for an influence of psychological ownership as suggested by the conceptual
model significantly increases model fit, ΔChi² (7) = 204.40, p < .001, and yields an overall
acceptable model (see M2_1 in Table 2 and Figure 2).
As expected, psychological ownership is predicted by imagery vividness but in particular
by imagery elaboration. Moreover, psychological ownership undermines the direct effect of
mental imagery on attachment and attitudes. It significantly predicts both constructs and
increases their explained variance (attachment: from. 11 to .42; attitudes: from .49 to .59).
Moreover and on top of indirect effects on behavioral variables, psychological ownership
directly affects intentions to further consider the product and actual information requests.
Discussion
Study 1 offered a first ecologically valid and practically relevant test of the research
model. It provides support for the proposed power and importance of psychological
ownership and for the conceptual model as a whole. It also provides evidence that, despite
being inherently linked, psychological ownership, attachment, and attitudes separately
contribute to the explanation of behavioral intentions and behavior.
In particular, attachment and psychological ownership are different but tightly linked
constructs and psychological ownership fully mediates effects of imagery on attachment. In
the case of elaboration, the relationship even reverses after controlling for psychological
ownership. As expected and speaking to the relevance of the construct, there is an additional
direct effect of psychological ownership on behavioral variables. In fact, psychological
ownership is the only construct that directly predicts actual behavior, i.e., requesting
information.
14
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Another crucial finding relates to the dimensions of mental imagery. Imagery elaboration
is at least as important as vividness in inducing psychological ownership and its consequences.
Place Table 3 about here
STUDY 2
Study 1 used a massage steam shower as the target product. It provides a good test for
situations in which consumers encounter a product they have never even thought about and
might not need in the near future. Study 2 aimed to generalize to product categories that
consumers hold knowledge about and are likely to need at least in the medium run. A car and
a coffee maker fulfilled these criteria. The car was chosen because it is one of the most
important consumer goods that exercises a sway over the imagination (e.g., Carrabine and
Longhurst 2002). The coffee maker was chosen in order to increase the range of products
examined to less expensive and less bulky goods.
Study 2 also generalized from product folders to advertisements. Two versions of the
same generic advertisement were posted in an online context. Advertisements varied with
regard to the degree to which consumers could influence them. We predicted more
psychological ownership for the individualized advertisement (cf. Fuchs et al. 2010).
Sample
Overall, 611 participants were recruited via company mailing lists and a snowballing
system. Twenty-three participants had to be excluded because of irregularities or excessive
missing values. The majority of the remaining participants was female (59.84%), median age
was 27 years (Q25 = 24, Q75 = 34), 57 percent reported a monthly net income of up to € 1,500,
and 38 percent were students.
15
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Procedure and Design
Participants who neither held a driver’s license nor drank coffee were thanked for their
interest and excluded from further participation. All others were randomly assigned to one of
the four conditions of the study arising from a 2 (product: car vs. coffee maker) x 2 (ad type:
individualization vs. control) design. Note that only coffee drinkers were assigned to the
coffee maker conditions and only license holders were assigned to the car conditions.
Participants were subsequently informed that either a new car or coffee maker was being
introduced to the market. Next, three different colors in which the product was available were
depicted. In order to manipulate individualization and interactivity of the advertisement, one
half of the participants was offered the opportunity to choose their favorite color by clicking
on it. Such individualization through choice has been shown to favorably influence consumer
responses (Sharot, De Martino, and Dolan 2009).
Subsequently, all participants were shown an advertisement for the new product. They
were asked to take their time watching the advertisement, lean back, and let their fantasy play
out. Participants in the individualization condition were shown an advertisement for the
product in the chosen color. Participants in the control condition were shown an
advertisement for the product in a randomly determined color. Color distribution in the
control condition was determined based on a pretest (n = 86) that established color
preferences. Notably, advertisement design and product name (“Panther IX”) were kept
constant across all four conditions.
A pretest showed that most people spontaneously devote at least ten seconds to the
stimulus (Q25 = 10.93 seconds) which sufficed to understand all information. In the main
study the screen was hence locked for a minimum of ten seconds before participants could
continue with the questionnaire. All constructs relevant to the conceptual model were assessed
16
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
in the proposed order. In between, additional items such as mood were placed to either
distract from the design or to enable further insights that go beyond the remit of this paper.
On the final page of the questionnaire participants were thanked and offered information
about the study. In addition, this page contained three web links to companies offering
products from the target category. Click behavior was assessed as an additional behavioral
indicator. Median duration of participation was eleven minutes.
Material and Measurement Model
Variables assessed were adapted to the specific product contexts but were otherwise
identical to Study 1. The only variation concerned attitudes. To get a nuanced understanding
of attitudes a more comprehensive measure assessing hedonic and utilitarian dimensions on a
semantic differential (Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003) was used. Factor analyses
across the ten items of the scale yielded the two suggested dimensions. As in Study 1 the
measurement model fits the data reasonably well (Chi² (348) = 1073.35; CMIN/DF = 3.08,
RMSEA = .060, CFI = .93, PCFI = .74) and performs adequately in terms of reliability and
discriminant validity (see Table 1).
Results
Due to missing data, 33 participants were excluded from further analyses. We first report
on the overall path models before capitalizing on the experimentally induced design variations
by conducting group comparisons (see Tables 2 and 3).
Place Figure 3 about here
Overall path models
17
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
An initial model without psychological ownership performed equally poorly as in Study 1
(see M1_2 in Table 3). Although imagery was well able to explain attachment (R² = .25) and
hedonic attitudes (R² = .38), it did comparably poorly in terms of explaining the utilitarian
dimension of attitude (R² = .04). Apart from an inability of utilitarian attitudes to explain
intended behavioral sacrifices, both dimensions of attitudes and attachment had unique
contributions to the explanation of behavioral intentions.
Again, allowing for an influence of psychological ownership as suggested by the
conceptual model significantly increases model fit, ΔChi² (8) = 500.97, p < .001, and the final
overall model meets all conventional fit criteria (see M2_2 in Table 3).
Once more, psychological ownership acts as a mediator (see Figure 3 and Table 2). It
fully mediates the previously observed effects of imagery elaboration: The paths to
attachment and attitude are non-significant. Mediation of psychological ownership to the
effects of vividness is much less pronounced and despite some reductions only the effect on
attachment is fully mediated (see Table 2). Psychological ownership is the strongest predictor
of attachment, hedonic, and utilitarian attitude. Specifically, the explained variance in all
psychological variables increases (attachment: from .25 to .55, hedonic attitude: from .38
to .47, utilitarian attitude: from .04 to .09). Moreover, psychological ownership has an
additional direct effect on behavioral intentions but not on actual information requests. In fact,
in this model, none of the variables significantly explains variance in actual clicking.
Considering that the web-links led to brands other than the advertised fictitious brand, this is
not too surprising.
Robustness checks - group comparisons
One of the main aims of Study 2 was to ensure robustness of the generic model. In a first
step we assessed whether the 2 (product) x 2 (type of ad) experimental variations led to
differences in psychological ownership. As expected, a univariate analysis of variance on
18
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
psychological ownership revealed a main effect of type of advertisement only, F(1,584) =
9.35, p = .002, η² = .02. Psychological ownership was somewhat higher when participants
could chose a color (M = 2.14, SD = 1.39) than if they could not individualize the
advertisement at all (M = 1.82, SD = 1.15).
To establish whether the final model generalizes across conditions, group analyses were
run. The first analysis tested whether the model holds across products. Model fit of an
unconstrained model in which path coefficients were allowed to vary across products (M2_2
product type unconstrained) was compared to the fit of a model in which paths were
constrained and assumed to be equal across products (M2_2 product type constrained). As
indicated in Table 3, both models fit the data equally well suggesting that the model holds
across both products.
A comparison of models across types of advertisement also yielded no evidence that an
unconstrained model (M2_2 ad type unconstrained) would outperform the constrained model
(M2_2 ad type constrained). The model, hence, seems to hold across individualized and non-
individualized advertisements.
On top of the model tests, an analysis of individual paths shows little variation in
essential paths across contexts. The path coefficient leading from imagery elaboration to
psychological ownership never drops below .60. The path coefficient from psychological
ownership to attachment also never goes below .76.
Discussion
Using an online design with two further products and two different variants of the same
generic advertisement, Study 2 yields remarkably similar results to Study 1. This testifies to
the robustness of the model and suggests that it also holds for product categories that
consumers are well acquainted with and are likely to buy at some point.
19
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
All main paths in the conceptual model found strong support. Similar to Study 1,
attachment and attitudes uniquely contributed in explaining behavioral intentions. In addition,
psychological ownership once again demonstrated the capacity to directly affect behavior
above and beyond its indirect effect on attachment and attitude. Interestingly, this was in
particular true for the less identity relevant product (i.e., coffee maker) and the non-
individualized advertisement. In case of the car and the individualized advertisement,
situations of higher involved consumers, the effect of psychological ownership was more
strongly mediated by attachment. Study 2 allows a deeper look at different dimensions of
attitudes. Results speak to a predominant effect of imagery and psychological ownership on
hedonic attitudes. The model was able to explain 47 per cent of variance in hedonic attitudes
but only 9 per cent in its utilitarian counterpart. Remarkably, psychological ownership was the
only noteworthy predictor of utilitarian attitudes and its effect went beyond and above any
mediation through imagery. It appears that simulations of ownership not only create a link
between a person and an object, but also make the inherent usefulness of an object more
salient. Given that utilitarian attitudes emerged as a clear predictor of product consideration,
this lends further support for the importance of psychological ownership in imagery induced
consumer responses.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Previous research has convincingly documented that processing information via mental
imagery can favorably influence consumer responses to marketing communication (Petrova
and Cialdini 2008). The studies at hand advance these findings by highlighting an inherent
link between imagery and psychological ownership in a pre-acquisition context. In support of
earlier work (Kamleitner 2011), psychological ownership seems to result from and perhaps
depend on strong imagery processing. In other words, imagery and mental simulations may
stimulate consumer behavior primarily to the extent to which the simulation is made from an
20
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
owner’s perspective (for a potential exception in the context of really new products see Dahl
and Hoeffler 2004).
Two studies with almost 900 consumers found consistent support for a conceptual model
featuring a two-step mediation chain from imagery to behavioral intentions. In a first step,
imagery vividness and, even more so, the elaborative depth of imagery processing predicted
the extent of psychological ownership. In a second step, psychological ownership showed a
strong link to attachment and attitudes which, in a third step, strongly predicted behavioral
responses. Regardless of whether the aim is to affect behavior or to improve attitudes,
psychological ownership seems to be a key variable of influence.
Speaking to its proposed robustness, this model held across three very different target
products (steam shower, car, coffee maker) and three different communication endeavors
(product leaflet, individualized, and non-individualized advertising).
We discuss main theoretical implications of our results before suggesting future research
avenues arising from our studies and their shortcomings. We conclude by outlining the
practical implications of the research at hand.
Theoretical implications
Situated in the context of marketing communication, the paper at hand brings together
literature on psychological ownership and literature on mental imagery. This combination
allows deriving insights on both phenomena.
Implications with regard to mental imagery. The primary implication in this respect
suggests: It pays to consider the dimensionality of the imagery construct. Because the
different dimensions are related, focusing on a single dimension or proxy may shroud the
underlying dynamics. Based on our data the dimension of quantity does not necessarily seem
to be a separate dimension. Rather it may become part of imagery elaboration. This dimension
seems to serve a different purpose than the dimension of vividness. Simplified, vividness
21
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
seems to make objects appear favorable and liked but it is somewhat less effective in creating
a link between an object and a person. Eventually it is this link that explains much of the
behavioral variance. It results from the depth of imagery elaboration which, in turn, is fully
mediated by psychological ownership. Building on these insights, Kamleitner (2011) likely
found a strong link between vividness and psychological ownership because elaborate
imagery also tends to be vivid. Future research might be well advised to measure all
dimensions of imagery.
Implications with regard to psychological ownership. Insights with regard to
psychological ownership are manifold. First, psychological ownership seems to be inherently
linked to a specific type of information processing—a processing mode that is well suited to
deal with experiential and affect-rich information, namely mental imagery.
Second, for psychological ownership to develop it may depend on the level of object
elaboration. The more consumers draw on their existing knowledge when elaborating on an
object, the more psychological ownership they experience. This is well in line with what is
known about the routes of psychological ownership. In a nutshell, Pierce and his various
collaborators (e.g., Brown et al. 2014; Pierce et al. 2003) suggest that psychological
ownership is the result of consumer-product interaction and subsequent experiences of
knowledge, control, and intimacy. Elaborative imagery is the mental equivalent to actual
object interaction and these experiences (cf. Peck et al. 2013).
Third, we are the first to simultaneously assess psychological ownership, attachment, and
attitudes. All three constructs speak to the relation between a person and an object. Indeed,
results show that they are related but different constructs. Psychological ownership reflects
possessiveness (MY object), attachment reflects identification (the object is ME), and
attitudes reflect evaluation (I LIKE the object). Each of these constructs uniquely contributes
to explaining behavior.
22
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Fourth, findings give tribute to this special issue’s quest. Psychological ownership
appears to be a very consequential construct for marketing. Even after controlling for
attachment and attitudes, psychological ownership emerged as a significant predictor of
behavioral responses.
Fifth and in line with reports by Peck et al. (2013), variations of psychological ownership
matter even if they happen at very low absolute levels of psychological ownership. This is a
significant contribution to the literature on psychological ownership which tends to assume
that psychological ownership has to emerge over a longer period of time and at higher levels
in order to become meaningful (e.g., Pierce and Jussila 2011).
Limitations and future research opportunities
A limitation that we share with most similar studies is that we cannot be sure that we
have managed to identify the ultimately correct model (Homburg and Dobratz 1992).
Although we made sure to assess constructs in the proposed causal order, we bear the
limitations of measurement and we have no way of empirically verifying the causality
suggested by our conceptual model. As outlined in the model, we do, however, have strong
theoretical arguments supporting the direction of the proposed mediation chain. Furthermore,
with regard to the first link of the chain we have a practical argument to draw on. Unlike in
Kamleitner (2011), our participants encountered specific products that they had not desired or
even thought about prior to participation. Processing the advertisement, hence, has to logically
precede the response to the advertised products. On the flip side, our studies are limited to
situations in which there was no prior engagement with the product. This limitation is at the
same time a strong point; after all, this is a frequent situation marketers have to tackle and it
sets the scene for all subsequent consumer encounters with a product.
The proposed model proved remarkably robust with regard to different designs (online-
study and paper-pencil questionnaire), products (steam shower, car, coffee maker), and types
23
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
of marketing communication. While we assume that the model will generalize beyond the
contexts investigated, future research is needed to ascertain that the model also holds for
inexpensive products or products that are socially invisible, services, or truly interactive forms
of communication (for some evidence and thoughts on differential effects depending on the
type of ownership target see Kirk, Swain, and Gaskin, this issue; Lessard-Bonaventure and
Chebat, this issue). For example, services are likely to be imagined in terms of an interaction
with a service provider whereby the service provider, too, is often in control of the service
consumed. Imagery could become less self-centered and less about oneself controlling the
offering. If so, this should reduce the link between imagery and psychological ownership.
More generally, goods that do not lend themselves to imagery, for example, because of their
abstract nature (e.g., rights), may be less likely to induce prefactual psychological ownership.
A related and particularly useful test would be to investigate how different advertising
execution elements influence psychological ownership. Across studies we used pictorial
stimulus material that featured the product only. It would be interesting to find out what
happens if another person is depicted using the product.
Given that imagery elaboration emerged as crucial, the extent to which the audience can
control a communication vehicle (e.g., radio advertisements can hardly be ignored whereas
print advertisements can be viewed at a pace set by the consumer) could also affect the extent
of psychological ownership. Karahanna, Xu, and Zhang (this issue) even propose that social
media are sought because they facilitate the development of psychological ownership. Lack of
control over the vehicle may often influence the time frame for imagery and thus potentially
also influence elaboration, the most prominent driver of psychological ownership.
A research avenue with potentially even broader implications relates to the long term
consequences of psychological ownership. To name but one open question: Does the pre-
acquisition level of psychological ownership influence how people behave towards an object
24
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
once it has been acquired? For example, pre-acquisition psychological ownership might raise
expectations which might ultimately enhance the likelihood of being disappointed (cf.
MacInnis and Price 1987).
Clearly, the combination of mental imagery and psychological ownership raises many
questions that could propel much future research. In the spirit of providing additional input for
the derivation of practical implications, the final direction we suggest here is the identification
of effective and practical methods to enhance psychological ownership. Knowing that it
relates to imagery could imply that first-person perspectives, narrative texts, etc. (e.g., Burns
et al. 1993; Holmes et al. 2008) could all facilitate psychological ownership. In more general
terms, the ethical implications of pre-acquisition psychological ownership on consumer well-
being and satisfaction are a direction of research worth pursuing.
Practical implications
As Jussila et al. (this issue) posit, psychological ownership is relevant for marketing
practice. This paper suggests select ways in which its power might be harnessed.
First and foremost, psychological ownership should and can inform marketing practice—
even before a consumer’s first encounter with a product. Stimulating psychological ownership
may be a key factor in communication success. Our results suggest that engaging the
consumer in elaborate imagery processing is crucial. The question is how to elicit particularly
elaborate imagery. Although the evidence at hand has not tested for this directly, based on its
definition the gateway is likely a link to personal experiences. Explicit imagery appeals that
integrate the target product with past, present, or anticipated experiences of a consumer hold
the potential to achieve such a link and the resulting sense of psychological ownership.
Another possibility comes through individualization and personalization. Although the
difference was small, a little act of individualization (choosing a color) sufficed to increase
psychological ownership. This observation fits to the trend towards mass customization and
25
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
its beneficial effects on consumer responses (cf. Fuchs et al. 2010). But even technical aspects
of an offering may help to induce psychological ownership (e.g., for an effect of payment
method see Kamleitner and Erki 2013). There are many directions yet to explore.
One direction that may come to mind spontaneously is the use of possessive wording
(e.g., MY, YOUR product). This might be effective but prior evidence suggests caution
(Garretson Folse, Guidry Moulard, and Raggio 2012). The key likely lies in the consumer
herself resorting to a simulation of ownership. If this is hard to do, a negative backlash of
imposed wording is conceivable. Based on the current state of knowledge we suggest not
focusing on possessive pronouns only.
Finally, the documented importance of psychological ownership also suggests that it may
be time to include psychological ownership in the marketing toolbox. Psychological
ownership likely is an interesting indicator for future success in copy testing and can also be
used to gauge the effectiveness of past marketing actions.
Conclusion
Imagery is rightly deemed a powerful mode of processing. This power is held for more
reasons than commonly assumed. Consumers who engage in strong and, in particular,
elaborate object imagery start to feel like an owner. In response, they bond with and like a
product that they may have only encountered in an advertisement. Despite many open
questions, including ethical considerations, marketers would already be well advised to bear
in mind psychological ownership in any steps they take.
26
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
REFERENCES
Argyriou, Evmorfia (2012), "Consumer Intentions to Revisit Online Retailers: A Mental
Imagery Account," Psychology & Marketing, 29 (1), 25-35.
Babin, Laurie A. and Alvin C. Burns (1998), "A Modified Scale for the Measurement of
Communication-Evoked Mental Imagery," Psychology & Marketing (1986-1998), 15 (3),
261-78.
Ball, Dwayne A. and Lori H. Tasaki (1992), "The Role and Measurement of Attachment
in Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (2), 155-72.
Barry, Thomas F. and Daniel J. Howard (1990), "A Review and Critique of the
Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising," International Journal of Advertising, 9 (2), 121-35.
Beggan, James K. (1992), "On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception - the Mere
Ownership Effect," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 229-37.
Bizer, George Y., Jamie C. Barden, and Richard E. Petty (2003), "Attitudes," in
Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, Vol. 1, ed. Lynn Nadel, Hampshire, England: MacMillan,
247-53.
Bone, Paula F. and Pam S. Ellen (1992), "The Generation and Consequences of
Communication-Evoked Imagery," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1), 93-104.
Brown, Graham, Jon L. Pierce, and Craig Crossley (2014), "Toward an Understanding
of the Development of Ownership Feelings," Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35 (3),
318-38.
Burns, Alwin C., Abhijit Biswas, and Laurie A. Babin (1993), "The Operation of
Visual-Imagery as a Mediator of Advertising Effects," Journal of Advertising, 22 (2), 71-85.
Carrabine, Eamonn and Brian Longhurst (2002), "Consuming the Car: Anticipation,
Use and Meaning in Contemporary Youth Culture," Sociological Review, 50 (2), 181-96.
27
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Crisp, Richard J., Michèle D. Birtel, and Rose Meleady (2011), "Mental Simulations of
Social Thought and Action," Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (4), 261-64.
Dahl, Darren W. and Steve Hoeffler (2004), "Visualizing the Self: Exploring the
Potential Benefits and Drawbacks for New Product Evaluation," Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 21 (4), 259-67.
De Dreu, Carsten K. W. and Daan van Knippenberg (2005), "The Possessive Self as a
Barrier to Conflict Resolution: Effects of Mere Ownership, Process Accountability, and Self-
Concept Clarity on Competitive Cognitions and Behavior," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89 (3), 345-57.
Ellen, Pam S. and Paula F. Bone (1991), "Measuring Communication-Evoked Imagery
Processing," Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 806-12.
Fitzsimons, Gavan J. and Patti Williams (2000), "Asking Questions Can Change Choice
Behavior: Does It Do So Automatically or Effortfully?," Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 6 (3), 195-206.
Friedman, Ori (2010), "Necessary for Possession: How People Reason About the
Acquisition of Ownership," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (9), 1161-69.
Fuchs, Christoph, Emanuela Prandelli, and Martin Schreier (2010), "The Psychological
Effects of Empowerment Strategies on Consumers' Product Demand," Journal of Marketing,
74 (1), 65-79.
Garretson Folse, Anne Judith, Julie Guidry Moulard, and Randle D. Raggio (2012),
"Psychological Ownership: A Social Marketing Advertising Message Appeal? Not for
Women," International Journal of Advertising, 31 (2), 291-315.
Gaskin, James (2012), "Validity Master", Stats Tools Package," (available
at http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com).
28
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Gawronski, Bertram, Galen V. Bodenhausen, and Andrew P. Becker (2007), "I Like It,
Because I Like Myself: Associative Self-Anchoring and Post-Decisional Change of Implicit
Evaluations," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (2), 221-32.
Glasman, Laura R. and Dolores Albarracin (2006), "Forming Attitudes that Predict
Future Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Attitude-Behavior Relation," Psychological Bulletin,
132 (5), 778-822.
Hair, Joseph F., William Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson (2010),
Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Heyman, James E., Yesim Orhun, and Dan Ariely (2004), "Auction Fever: The Effect of
Opponents and Quasi-Endowment on Product Valuations," Journal of Interactive Marketing,
18 (4), 7-21.
Holmes, Emily A., Andrew Mathews, Bundy Mackintosh, and Tim Dalgleish (2008),
"The Causal Effect of Mental Imagery on Emotion Assessed Using Picture-Word Cues,"
Emotion, 8 (3), 395-409.
Homburg, Christian and Andreas Dobratz (1992), "Covariance Structure Analysis Via
Specification Searches," Statistical Papers, 33 (1), 119-42.
Jussila, Iiro and Pasi Tuominen (2010), "Exploring the Consumer Co-Operative
Relationship with Their Members: An Individual Psychological Perspective on Ownership,"
International Journal of Co-operative Management, 5 (1), 23-33.
------, Anssi Tarkiainen, Marko Sarstedt, and Joseph F. Hair (this issue), "Individual
Psychological Ownership: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications for Research in Marketing,"
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.
Kamleitner, Bernadette (2011), "When Imagery Influences Spending Decisions,"
Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 219 (4), 231-37.
29
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
------ and Berna Erki (2013), "Payment Method and Perceptions of Ownership,"
Marketing Letters, 24 (1), 57-69.
Karahanna, Elena, Sean Xin Xu, and Nen Zhang (this issue), " Psychological Ownership
Motivation and the use of Social Media," Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.
Kieras, David (1978), "Beyond Pictures and Words - Alternative Information-
Processing Models for Imagery Effects in Verbal Memory," Psychological Bulletin, 85 (3),
532-54.
Kirk, Colleen P., Scott D. Swain, and James E. Gaskin (this issue), " I’m Proud of It:
Consumer Technology Appropriation and Psychological Ownership," Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice.
Kleine, Susan Schultz and Stacey Menzel Baker (2004), "An Integrative Review of
Material Possession Attachment," in Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1-35.
------, Robert E. Kleine, and Chris T. Allen (1995), "How Is a Possession ''Me'' or ''Not
Me''? Characterizing Types and an Antecedent of Material Possession Attachment," Journal
of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 327-43.
Lessard-Bonaventure, Simon and Jean-Charles Chebat (this issue), "Psychological
Ownership, Touch and Willingness to Pay for an Extended Warranty," Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice.
Levav, Jonathan and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2006), "When Questions Change Behavior -
the Role of Ease of Representation," Psychological Science, 17 (3), 207-13.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Linda L. Price (1987), "The Role of Imagery in Information
Processing: Review and Extensions," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 473-91.
McGill, Ann L. and Punam Anand (1989), "The Effect of Vivid Attributes on the
Evaluation of Alternatives: The Role of Differential Attention and Cognitive Elaboration,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 188-96.
30
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Novemsky, Nathan, Ravi Dhar, Norbert Schwarz, and Itamar Simonson (2007),
"Preference Fluency in Choice," Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 347-56.
Park, C. Whan and Deborah J MacInnis (2006), "What's in and What's Out: Questions
on the Boundaries of the Attitude Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (1), 16-18.
------, ------, and Joseph Priester (2006), "Beyond Attitudes: Attachment and Consumer
Behavior," Seoul Journal of Business, 12 (2), 3-35.
Peck, Joann and Suzanne B Shu (2009), "The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived
Ownership," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 434-47.
------, Victor A. Barger, and Andrea Webb (2013), "In Search of a Surrogate for Touch:
The Effect of Haptic Imagery on Perceived Ownership," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23
(2), 189-96.
Petrova, Petia K. (2008), "Evoking the Imagination as a Strategy of Influence," in
Handbook of Consumer Psychology, ed. Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Paul M. Herr and Frank R.
Kardes, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 505-23.
------, and Robert B. Cialdini (2005), "Fluency of Consumption Imagery and the
Backfire Effects of Imagery Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 442-52.
Pierce, Jon L. and Iiro Jussila (2011), Psychological Ownership and the Organizational
Context: Theory, Research Evidence, and Application: Edward Elgar Publishing.
------, Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks (2003), "The State of Psychological
Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research," Review of General Psychology,
7 (1), 84-107.
Reb, Jochen and Terry Connolly (2007), "Possessions, Feelings of Ownership and the
Endowment Effect," Judgment and Decision Making, 2 (2), 29-36.
Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy (1980), "Attitude Change through Visual Imagery in
Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 9 (2), 10-16.
31
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Rudmin, Floyd W. (1986), "Psychology of Ownership, Possession, and Property - a
Selected Bibliography since 1890," Psychological Reports, 58 (3), 859-69.
------ (1991), "To Own Is to Be Perceived to Own - a Social Cognitive Look at the
Ownership of Property," Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 85-104.
------ (1994), "Gender Differences in the Semantics of Ownership: A Quantitative
Phenomenological Survey Study," Journal of Economic Psychology, 15 (3), 487-510.
Schlosser, Ann E. (2003), "Experiencing Products in the Virtual World: The Role of
Goal and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes Versus Purchase Intentions," Journal of Consumer
Research, 30 (2), 184-98.
Schroeder, Jonathan E. (2005), "Researching Visual Consumption," Advances in
Consumer Research, 32, 71.
Schwarz, Norbert (2004), "Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and
Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (4), 332-48.
Sharot, Tali, Benedetto De Martino, and Raymond J. Dolan (2009), "How Choice
Reveals and Shapes Expected Hedonic Outcome," Journal of Neuroscience, 29 (12), 3760-65.
Shu, Suzanne B. and Joann Peck (2011), "Psychological Ownership and Affective
Reaction: Emotional Attachment Process Variables and the Endowment Effect," Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 21 (4), 439-52.
Taylor, Shelley E., Lien B. Pham, Inna D. Rivkin, and David A. Armor (1998),
"Harnessing the Imagination - Mental Simulation, Self-Regulation, and Coping," American
Psychologist, 53 (4), 429-39.
Thomson, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005), "The Ties That
Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers' Emotional Attachments to Brands," Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77-91.
32
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003), "Measuring the
Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude," Journal of Marketing Research,
40, 310-20.
33
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
CR … Composite Reliability AVE … Average Variances Extracted MSV… Maximum Shared Variances ASV… Average Shared Variances
Table 1
Indicators of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of measurement models (Studies 1 and 2)
34
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Path
M1_1 –
without PO
M2_1 – with
PO
M1_2 –
without PO
M2_2 – with
PO
M2_2 – car
M2_2 –
coffee
maker
M2_2 –
individual
ad
M2_2 –
standard ad
Vividness → PO constrained .19** constrained .15*** .21*** .12* .22*** .07
Elaboration → PO constrained .50*** constrained .67*** .60*** .72*** .67*** .67***
Vividness → Attachment .20* .08 .14** .02 .03 -.02 .00 .02
Elaboration → Attachment .17*
–.18* .45*** –.09 –.06 -.13 -.12 -.06
Vividness → (Hed.) Attitude .36*** .28*** .41*** .34*** .44*** .24*** .38*** .30***
Vividness → Utilitarian attitude .16** .11* .18* .25*** .00 .24***
Elaboration → (Hed.) Attitude .45*** .22** .38*** .10 .12 .03 .04 .17
Elaboration → Utilitarian attitude .09 –.11 –.02 .09 -.09 -.18
PO → Attachment constrained .70*** constrained .80*** .76*** .85*** .81*** .80***
PO → (Hed.) Attitude constrained .43*** constrained .42*** .33*** .55*** .45*** .39***
PO → Utilitarian attitude constrained .30*** .30** .30** .35** .29**
PO → Info request constrained .27* constrained .06 .11 –.04 -.14 .32*
PO → Behav. sacrifices constrained .21 constrained .21* -.01 .41*** .13 .32*
PO → Prod. considerations constrained .30** constrained .23** .19 .30** .19 .25*
Attachment → Info request .21** .11 .11 .06 .04 .10 .10 -.02
Attachment → Behav. sacrifices .33*** .26** .35*** .21* .38** .06 .35*** .04
Attachment → Prod. considerations .18* .07 .26*** .11 .20 .02 .16 .07
(Hed.) Attitude→ Info request .19* .04
–.01–.02–.08–.02 .09 -.13
(Hed.) Attitude → Behav. sacrifices .47*** .36*** .28*** .24*** .15 .18 .22** .28***
(Hed.) Attitude → Prod. considerations .49*** .33*** .24*** .18*** .17* .23* .22** .16*
Utilitarian Attitude → Info request .05 .04 .03 .14 .13 -.06
Utilitarian Attitude → Behav. sacrifices .03
–.01.22** .02 -.01 .02
Utilitarian Attitude → Prod. considerations .30*** .26*** .08 .21* .24*** .29***
Study 1 (n=291)
Study 2 (n=555)
PO…Psychological ownership Hed… Hedonic * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Table 2
Standardized path coefficients across all models in Studies 1 and 2
35
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Study 1 (n=291) Study 2 (n=555)
Model fit M1_1 –
without PO M2_1 –
with PO M1_2 –
without PO M2_2 – with
PO
M2_2 –
product
type
unconstr.
M2_2 –
product
type constr.
M2_2 – ad
type
unconstr.
M2_2 – ad
type constr.
Chi² (df) 652.72
(260) 448.32
(253) 1,601.91
(384) 1,100.94
(376)
1,530.66
(752) 1,563.23
(775) 1,521.26
(752) 1,552.91
(775)
Chi²/df 2.51 1.77
4.17 2.93
2.04 2.02
2.02 2.00
CFI .89 .95
.87 .93
.92 .92
.92 .92
PCFI .77 .80
.77 .80
.79 .82
.80 .82
RMSEA .072 .052
.076 .059
.043 .043
.043 .043
SRMR .170 .055
.176 .065
.073 .078
.067 .070
Δchi² (Δdf) / p 204.40 (7) / p < .001
500.97 (8) / p < .001
32.57 (23) / p = .089
31.64 (23) / p = .108
PO…Psychological Ownership
Table 3
Model fit indices and model comparisons for Studies 1 and 2
36
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Note that bold lines indicate the main paths predicted.
Figure 1
Conceptual model of imagery and psychological ownership
37
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Note that for reasons of legibility only significant paths (p < .05) are displayed.
Figure 2
Final model including psychological ownership (M2_1) for Study 1 (standardized coefficients and R²), N = 291
38
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
Note that for reasons of legibility only significant paths (p < .05) are displayed.
Figure 3
Final model including psychological ownership (M2_2) for Study 2 (standardized coefficients and R²), N = 555
39
This is the Author’s Original Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
on 25/03/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10696679.2015.1002337.
