Dark Sides of Digital Asset Consumption: Psychological Ownership & Well-Being

Journal of Consumer Behaviour SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS Dark Sides of Digital Asset Consumption and Consumer Well-Being: Impact of Psychological Ownership Mateja Kos Koklic1 | Monika Kukar-Kinney2 | Irena Vida1 1University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia | 2Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, USA Correspondence: Mateja Kos Koklic (mateja.kos@ef.uni-lj.si) Received: 31 July 2024 | Revised: 22 June 2025 | Accepted: 24 June 2025 Keywords: collectivism | consumer well-being | dark digital asset consumption | digital hoarding | digital piracy | psychological ownership | uncertainty avoidance ABSTRACT This research contributes to the literature on consumer digital asset consumption by developing a novel model that examines the effects of psychological ownership on two dark-side consumption behaviors: digital hoarding and digital piracy. It further examines how these behaviors influence consumer psychological outcomes, specifically, anxiety and consumer well-being. Two empirical studies were conducted. Study 1, an online survey of 625 respondents, recruited through quota sampling from a US consumer panel (Centiment), revealed that perceived psychological ownership is positively related to both digital piracy and digital hoarding. Digital hoarding increases consumer anxiety and indirectly lowers perceptions of well-being. Digital piracy increases anxiety; however, for highly collectivistic consumers, it also enhances perceptions of well-being, while lowering them for more individualistic consumers. Collectivism moderates the relationship between psychological ownership and both digital hoarding and digital piracy, with effects being more pronounced among high (vs. low) collectivistic consumers. Uncertainty avoidance also moderates the relationship between psychological ownership and both digital hoarding and piracy, with effects being stronger for consumers with low (vs. high) levels of uncertainty avoidance. Study 2, conducted as an online experiment with 177 participants recruited from a Prolific panel, confirmed psychological ownership as an antecedent of digital hoarding and digital piracy. This research enhances the theoretical and empirical understanding of the dark sides of consumer digital asset consumption and offers important public policy implications. 1   |   Introduction With the increasing digitalization of consumer society (Pellegrino 2024), it is crucial to acknowledge the dark sides of consuming digital assets—entities accessible through a digital device that lack physical properties (Koles and Nagy 2021). Such consumption behaviors can negatively affect individuals and societies, posing challenges for marketing, communication, and information systems (Turel et al. 2019). Examples of these challenges include breaking through to consumers amid digital clutter, encouraging responsible consumer use of digital technologies, and reducing negative health outcomes (Handa and Ahuja 2022; Liu and Liu 2025; Turel et al. 2021). Despite the growing economic importance of digital goods, our understanding of such consumption remains limited (Yang 2024). Previous studies have explored various aspects of dark-side digital asset consumption, such as digital hoarding (e.g., Vinoi et al. 2024) and digital piracy (e.g., Miocevic and Kursan Milakovic 2023). These studies have also examined compulsive and impulsive digital acquisition (e.g., Kos Koklic et al. 2022) and their negative consequences, including decreased psychological well- being (Mubarik and Naghavi 2021) and privacy and security issues (e.g., Vinoi et al. 2024). The scarcity of prior investigations necessitates the advancement of concepts, methods, and This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Consumer Behaviour published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025; 0:1–21 https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.70011 1 of 21 In this research, we focus on two negative digital consumption practices: digital hoarding and digital piracy. Digital hoarding refers to an individual's inability to delete digital content from personal devices, leading to the over-accumulation of digital material (Neave et al. 2019). In contrast, digital piracy involves the illegal downloading of files such as music, movies, and software from the Internet (Yoon 2011). We chose to focus on these two behaviors for several reasons. First, both behaviors involve consumer interactions with digital content. While piracy centers on the illegal acquisition of content, hoarding pertains to what a consumer does or does not do with the digital content once it has been acquired. Studying them together provides a comprehensive overview of digital content consumption, making it essential to examine these behaviors in tandem. Second, both can be classified as dark-side behaviors (Jennings and Bossler 2020; Sweeten et al. 2018), as they may lead to negative outcomes for the consumers concerned and/or society at large. Digital hoarding has been considered a dark side of technology use behavior (Sedera et al. 2022) and can lead to negative consequences such as reduced well-being and physical hoarding behavior (Sweeten et al. 2018). Digital piracy is also understood as a dark side of behavior in the use of technology and falls into the category of cyber-deviance or cyber-crime (Jennings and Bossler 2020), which can potentially result in legal repercussions for individuals (Tomczyk 2021). Prior research has shown that dark-side consumer behaviors are often interrelated and may exhibit comorbidity, meaning they can occur simultaneously. For instance, compulsive buying has been found to coexist with brand addiction (Mrad and Cui 2020). Hoarding is positively related to compulsive buying (Ye et al. 2021), while compulsive and impulsive digital acquisition is positively related to digital piracy (Kos Koklic et al. 2022). There is a notable gap in the literature regarding the simultaneous capture of different digital asset consumption practices or the identification of their shared causes and effects. Thus, we aim to investigate whether these behaviors co-occur and share common causes and effects. Discovering a dark-side digital behavior can signal a consumer's susceptibility to other behaviors, and understanding their common causes can contribute to more effective prevention by addressing the causes, not just the consequences. Finally, we focus specifically on psychological ownership as a potential driver of digital asset consumption. The aim is therefore to focus on behaviors where psychological ownership would be relevant, particularly in relation to the acquisition and storage of digital content, with a focus on illegal downloading. Psychological ownership is relevant both when acquiring and when storing or removing digital content. This study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, we investigate digital hoarding and digital piracy jointly, identifying perceived psychological ownership as their common antecedent. We define psychological ownership as the tendency of individuals to feel that certain objects or parts of them belong to them. Scholars have questioned whether and how consumers perceive psychological ownership of digital assets (Gupta and Sharma 2024). While consumers can develop strong attachments to digital possessions (Koles and Nagy 2021), the negative 2 of 21 digital behaviors influenced by psychological ownership remain poorly understood (Kim et al. 2024; Kirk and Swain 2018). An overview of previous studies on digital asset consumption and psychological ownership (as evidenced in Table 1) indicates that only positive outcomes have been investigated thus far. Therefore, there is a significant gap in exploring the role of psychological ownership in shaping negative practices of digital asset consumption, which our study aims to address. Second, we identify two psychological consequences at the consumer level: anxiety and feelings of well-being. Existing research shows that many problematic digital consumer behaviors, such as excessive social media use and online compulsive buying, can increase consumers' levels of stress and decrease their overall well-being (e.g., Mrad and Cui 2020). The impact of information technologies on consumer well-being is paramount, particularly given the rapid development of technologies and their increasing use by consumers (Benvenuti et al. 2023). Research on technology use and well-being is further complicated by divergent findings—some studies have highlighted negative effects on consumer well-being (Mubarik and Naghavi 2021), while others have demonstrated negligible effects (e.g., Orben and Przybylski 2019). This underscores the need for further evidence regarding how digital technologies and related phenomena affect consumer well-being (Wang and Jia 2023), especially concerning potential downsides (Benvenuti et al. 2023). In this study, we examine whether and how digital hoarding and digital piracy are associated with negative consumer outcomes. Third, this research expands the understanding of dark-side digital asset consumption by introducing two cultural values as boundary conditions. Existing literature indicates that collectivistic cultural orientation significantly influences behaviors related to digital engagement (Huang and Lu 2017). Consequently, we explore the extent to which consumers identify as collectivistic or individualistic as a moderator. We also investigate uncertainty avoidance, or the reluctance of consumers to embrace new products, experiences, and variety. Given that both digital behaviors studied may have negative consequences, identifying cultural factors that inhibit them is essential. Considering the global prevalence of dark-side digital behaviors, this insight could contribute to more culturally tailored countermeasures (Eisend 2019). 2   |   Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 2.1   |   Psychological Ownership as an Antecedent of Dark-Side Digital Behaviors Digital goods are characterized by intangibility, online obtainment, and use without concerns about degradation or loss (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018). Despite their intangible nature, consumers can develop strong attachments to digital possessions (Kirk and Swain 2018), albeit to a lesser extent than to physical possessions (Stough and Graham 2024). Pierce et al. (2003) described psychological ownership as the personal sense of possession an individual holds for a Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License theories related to negative digital consumption practices and strategies for behavioral interventions (Thaichon et al. 2022). Online communities Online communities Social media Music streaming Lee and Suh (2015) Kim et al. (2016) Zhao et al. (2016) Danckwerts and Kenning (2019) Social media Social media Karahanna et al. (2015) Kwon (2020) Domain References Survey Survey Survey Quasi- experiment Survey Survey Methodology Self-investment Intimate knowledge Perceived control Investment of self Intimate knowledge Controlling the object Perceived control Perceived familiarity Self-investment Social influence Autonomy Membership duration Self-discrepancy Need for efficiency and effectance Need for having a place Need for self-identity Antecedent TABLE 1    |    Previous studies on psychological ownership in the digital context. User participation Intention to switch from free to premium Satisfaction Continuance usage Willingness to pay more Intention to share Satisfaction Self-concept Knowledge contribution Social media use Outcome (Continues) Self-investment and perceived control positively influence users' psychological ownership, which in turn increased user engagement. There is a negative relationship between intimate knowledge and users' psychological ownership. Service-based psychological ownership, which results from self-investment in the service, is positively related to music- based psychological ownership, which is positively influenced by the feeling of control over the accessed music. Music-based psychological ownership increases users' intention to switch. Theory of psychological ownership Theory of psychological ownership Perceived control, perceived familiarity, self-investment, and social influence positively influence psychological ownership. Psychological ownership has a positive effect on satisfaction and both positively impact loyalty. Psychological ownership increases intention to share. Autonomy and creating a better self help develop psychological ownership of a virtual community. Psychological ownership increases satisfaction, self- concept and knowledge contributions. The motivations of psychological ownership drive individuals to use social media because social media provide the opportunity to fulfill the underlying needs of psychological ownership. Key content Technology acceptance model Theory of psychological ownership Social recognition theory Theory of psychological ownership Theory of psychological ownership Theory of psychological ownership Theoretical framework 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 3 of 21 4 of 21 Digital content marketing Xie and Lou (2024) Metaverse Park and Kim (2025) Comic books, NFTs Peer-to- peer service experiences Pino et al. (2022) Stough and Graham (2024) Online communities Social media- based influencer marketing Pick (2021) Jiang et al. (2022) Domain References TABLE 1    |    (Continued) Survey Survey Experiment Identification with a provider Survey Flow Content value Need for uniqueness Identity Book type Investment of self Intimate knowledge Ability to control Need for autonomy Need for relatedness Need for competence Self-influencer connection Influencer credibility Antecedent Survey Survey Methodology Brand loyalty Theory of psychological ownership The uses and gratification theory Theory of social recognition Theory of psychological ownership Theory of psychological ownership Product purchase intention Number of digital comics purchased — Theory of psychological ownership Self-determination theory Source credibility model Model of social influence Theoretical framework Attitudinal and behavioral loyalty Users' knowledge- sharing behavior Attitude toward product Purchase intention Outcome Flow and content value positively predicted psychological identification. Psychological ownership is positively related to brand loyalty. The stronger the need for uniqueness, the more psychological ownership was felt, and this ownership led to purchase more physical media The ability to exercise control, gain knowledge and invest in oneself increases the psychological ownership of avatars. The transfer of psychological ownership from avatars to virtual products significantly influences the intention to purchase real products. identification with the service provider leads to a sense of psychological ownership, which in turn strengthens customer loyalty in terms of attitude and behavior. Satisfying the need for autonomy, connectedness and competence in a virtual brand community increases users' psychological ownership which has a positive influence on their knowledge sharing behavior. Influencer credibility and self- influencer connection increase the sense of psychological ownership, which in turn influencer attitude toward product and purchase intention. Key content 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 Any reduction in psychological possession can lead to a diminished sense of self (Kirk and Rifkin 2022). Given the lack of research on psychological ownership and its behavioral effects (Jussila et al. 2015), exploring its connection to dark-side digital behaviors could yield important insights. In particular, psychological ownership is a promising factor that can enhance our understanding of negative behaviors in digital environments (Peck and Luangrath 2023). Another motivation for investigating the role of psychological ownership lies in the anticipated downstream benefits for companies, such as positive word of mouth and customer loyalty (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018). These benefits suggest that fostering psychological ownership in digital consumption should be a priority for businesses (Morewedge et al. 2021). Despite its expected positive effects, little is known about how psychological ownership relates to negative behaviors. Kim et al. (2024) extensively reviewed psychological ownership research in business and found only positively valenced outcome variables, such as brand purchase intentions, loyalty, and emotional attachment. Similarly, our review of previous research on digital asset consumption and psychological ownership revealed only positive outcomes (Table 1). Therefore, this study aims to critically examine how psychological ownership shapes negative digital asset consumption behaviors and related psychological outcomes. Psychological ownership theory, particularly relevant to understanding psychological ownership of digital technologies, suggests that certain object characteristics are crucial for consumers to develop a sense of ownership (Pierce et al. 2003). These characteristics must fulfill digital consumers' motivations for ownership, which include efficiency and effectance (the ability to achieve a desired result), self-identity (using possessions to define and express ourselves), and place (the desire to be anchored in time and space). This theory also explains how a sense of ownership arises through pathways such as control (the ability to influence an object), self-investment (the money, time, physical effort, and mental energy invested in an object), and intimate knowledge (information learned about the object) (Cedeño et al. 2022). According to psychological ownership theory, the sense of control gained from interacting with digital content should strengthen consumers' psychological ownership and, consequently, increase their valuation of the content. An overview of previous studies on psychological ownership in the digital context (see Table 1) indicates that motivations (such as efficiency) (Karahanna et al. 2015) and pathways (such as control) (Danckwerts and Kenning 2019; Kwon 2020; Park and Kim 2025; Zhao et al. 2016) often serve as antecedents of psychological ownership. When examining the outcomes of psychological ownership, our review shows that most studies include various types of attitudes (Pick 2021; Pino et al. 2022), satisfaction, and loyalty (Lee and Suh 2015; Zhao et al. 2016; Xie and Lou 2024), as well as behaviors such as purchase intentions (Kim et al. 2016; Zhao et al. 2016), usage and participation (Kwon 2020; Zhao et al. 2016), knowledge sharing and contribution (Jiang et al. 2022; Lee and Suh 2015), and social media use (Karahanna et al. 2015). According to this overview of outcomes, no research has examined dark-side outcomes, particularly digital hoarding or digital piracy, let alone studied both within the same research. 2.2   |   Dark-Side Digital Behaviors and Their Consequences The widespread accessibility of digitally supported technologies, such as computers, smartphones, social media platforms, and wearables (Turel et al. 2019), has given rise to new phenomena in personal life. These technologies enable the easy acquisition and sharing of digital content (Luxon et al. 2019; Neave et al. 2019), which is further facilitated by affordable digital media and storage devices (Neave et al. 2019; Sedera and Lokuge 2018). Consequently, two types of dark-side digital behaviors have emerged: digital hoarding and digital piracy. Digital information is rapidly accumulating and being stored, particularly through free or low-cost online data storage (e.g., Dropbox) (Sedera and Lokuge 2018), which may lead to digital hoarding. Similar to physical hoarding, digital hoarding involves excessive accumulation, resulting in clutter and disorganization, difficulty discarding items, stress, and loss of normal functioning (van Bennekom et al. 2015). However, research on digital hoarding remains scarce (Thorpe et al. 2019). In this research, we investigate digital hoarding as a behavioral tendency rather than a clinical disorder. It reflects a dark-side digital acquisition tendency—an internal state leading to a dark- side behavior (Kos Koklic et al. 2022). Understanding such behaviors is important as they may result in negative personal and societal consequences. While a few studies have explored digital hoarding (e.g., Neave et al. 2019; Vinoi et al. 2024), literature examining both digital hoarding and digital piracy simultaneously remains scarce (Kos Koklic et al. 2022). The limited studies have scrutinized antecedents, such as the difficulty of discarding digital content (Sedera et al. 2022), and perceptions of ability, usefulness, and richness (Zhang and Chen 2025). Psychological well-being, privacy and security issues (Vinoi et al. 2024), and anxiety (Sedera et al. 2022) have been studied as consequences. Recent studies on hoarding disorder have employed need-to- belong theory to explain why people hoard and its consequences (Sedera et al. 2022). This theory posits that humans possess an inherent need for social connection, fulfilled through interpersonal relationships that provide a sense of security, acceptance, and belonging (Baumeister and Leary 1995). According to this theory, attachment refers to a relationship or bond between two entities. In the context of hoarding, intense emotional attachments to possessions and the comfort derived from them can complicate the decision of what to keep or discard, potentially leading to the disorder (Keefer et al. 2012). Since digital piracy represents a method of acquiring digital content, it is relevant to investigate it alongside digital 5 of 21 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License material or immaterial target in the absence of legal ownership. Alternatively, Cedeño et al. (2022) defined psychological ownership as a mental state in which an individual claims an object as theirs. Psychological ownership encompasses both cognitive and emotional aspects and reflects a person's thoughts and beliefs about a particular object or space. This cognitive awareness is often paired with an emotional or affective component (Peck and Luangrath 2023). So far, various theoretical frameworks have been applied to explain digital piracy. One of the most commonly used frameworks is the attitude-behavior model, which posits that a single action (behavior) can be predicted from an attitude toward that action, with the theory of planned behavior being the most prominent (e.g., Kim and Kim 2025). Other frequently employed theories include deterrence theory (e.g., Borja et al. 2025) and neutralization theory (Jingwen and Yisong 2025). Research on digital piracy has identified numerous factors that precede digital piracy behavior, focusing on reducing its occurrence, including socio-cultural influences, legal considerations, personal attributes, product attributes, and contextual factors (Eisend 2019). Watson et al. (2017) categorized these influences into social (factors relating to the influence of others), moral (perceptions of the rightness or wrongness of digital piracy), experiential (the experience gained from digital piracy), technical (an individual's ability to engage in digital piracy), and legal and financial utility (perceived risk of detection and potential legal and financial consequences). The consequences of digital piracy have been far less examined compared to its antecedents; for example, digital piracy has been shown to lead to rationalization (Kos Koklic et al. 2016). Existing literature indicates that digital hoarding and digital piracy could be related to negative technology use and the digitization of individuals. Research on digital hoarding suggests that the immediate gratification from collecting and preserving digital items can be overshadowed by ongoing psychological and emotional problems, including stress, anxiety, feeling overwhelmed, reduced productivity, and detachment from the physical world (Vinoi et al. 2024). Previous research suggests that anxiety, defined as a negative emotional state marked by feelings of nervousness, irritability, inability to relax, and intolerance of interruptions (Lovibond and Lovibond 1995), may be a consequence of hoarding behaviors (e.g., Luxon et al. 2019). Digital hoarding shares significant characteristics with digital piracy, as both involve consumers acquiring digital content and are considered negative aspects of technology use (Jennings and Bossler 2020; Sedera et al. 2022). Both behaviors entail personal use of information technology, are often driven by hedonistic gratifications, and emphasize individual responsibility (Salo et al. 2022). In contrast, digital piracy is generally not regarded as an addiction or compulsion, unlike compulsive hoarding (Kos Koklic et al. 2022; Sedera 6 of 21 et al. 2022). Additionally, the absence of fear is associated with an increase in digital piracy, which has become widely prevalent and accepted (Koay et al. 2024). Nevertheless, both behaviors are likely linked to heightened anxiety due to their dark side nature. More specifically, engaging in these behaviors may trigger an increase in state anxiety defined as transient and situation- specific emotional distress (Lovibond and Lovibond 1995; Skapinakis 2024), as measured in our study. Anxiety is often described as an antecedent of consumer well- being (e.g., Mamani-Benito et al. 2022). When consumers experience increased anxiety, their overall well-being tends to diminish. In our study, we define consumer well-being as a subjective perception of overall harmony in life, characterized as “a holistic world view that incorporates a balanced and flexible approach to personal wellbeing that takes into account social and environmental contexts” (Kjell et al. 2016, p. 894). This conceptualization is particularly relevant to the current study, as digital piracy and hoarding possess both negative and positive aspects that can collectively influence perceptions of overall life balance. Digital piracy can also be associated with well-being, as it offers benefits such as affordable access (Pai and Chie 2017) and positive emotions, which represent a component of well- being (Koay et al. 2024). 2.3   |   Boundary Conditions for Psychological Ownership and Digital Piracy Effects We also examine the boundary conditions that influence the effects of psychological ownership and digital piracy behavior on well-being. Existing research indicates that digital consumption practices are intertwined with various value contexts, and that cultural elements may explain their boundary effects (e.g., Eisend 2019; Nam and Kannan 2020). However, despite the global nature of these practices, empirical evidence on how variations in cultural values moderate the causes and effects of dark- side digital asset consumption remains sparse. Furthermore, Pierce et al. (2003) emphasized that advancing the theoretical development of psychological ownership requires examining the concept through a cultural lens, as culture influences an individual's self-concept and values related to control, self-identity, self-expression, ownership, and property. Consequently, we use Hofstede's (2011) cultural value- orientation framework to identify two theoretically relevant values within the context of dark-side digital asset consumption: collectivistic values and uncertainty avoidance. In our investigation of collectivistic values and uncertainty avoidance as key explanatory mechanisms, we apply cultural value orientations at the individual level (Fischer and Poortinga 2012). In particular, we explore how an individual's collectivism, which emphasizes loyalty to one's group (Yoo et al. 2011), affects the relationship between psychological ownership and digital hoarding, piracy, and well-being, as well as the impact of digital piracy on well-being. Additionally, we examine how an individual's tendency to avoid uncertainty, characterized by a fear of the unknown (Hofstede 2011), influences the relationship between psychological ownership and these two dark-side digital behaviors. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License hoarding, as both behaviors may stem from similar drivers. Digital piracy extends beyond illegal downloading, which is the focus of our study. It refers to the unauthorized distribution and use of copyrighted digital content, typically in two forms: file sharing and streaming. File sharing involves the sharing of digital files via peer-to-peer networks or file sharing platforms without the content owner's permission, while streaming involves accessing digital content without downloading it (MUSO 2024; Poort et al. 2018). We focus on illegal downloading because it is linked to higher levels of psychological ownership, as it fulfills the core motivations of effectance, self-identity, and place (Kirk and Swain 2018). Additionally, illegal downloading is considered the most common form of illegal file sharing (Watson et al. 2017). 2.4   |   Hypotheses About Direct Effects We identify three pathways through which psychological ownership influences consumer well-being: directly and indirectly via two types of negative digital behaviors: digital hoarding and digital piracy. Psychological ownership theory (Pierce et al. 2003) posits that once a sense of psychological possession of an entity is established, an attachment to that entity develops. This theory suggests that ownership arises through three mechanisms: exercising control over a target, investing the self in a target, and intimately knowing the target (Pierce et al. 2003). Digital content naturally invites all three mechanisms: users exercise control by downloading, curating, and organizing it; they invest time and attention; and they become highly familiar with the content and its functionality (Kirk and Swain 2018). As this sense of ownership deepens, content becomes personally meaningful and may be treated similarly to physical possessions. However, in the digital realm, the lack of physical constraints may encourage dysfunctional behaviors that are less visible or socially regulated. Empirical evidence shows that a sense of ownership contributes to the development of hoarding behavior (Guan et al. 2023), supporting our first proposed pathway: H1. Psychological ownership has a positive effect on digital hoarding. Furthermore, we propose that the second pathway is through digital piracy behavior, as psychological ownership can also lead to overtly deviant behaviors beyond mere accumulation. Pierce et al. (2003) concluded that psychological ownership leads to negative aspects, including deviant behaviors defined as “voluntary behaviors that violate group norms and threaten the well-being of the group or its members” (p. 101). In our research, digital piracy can be viewed as a deviant acquisition behavior (Jennings and Bossler 2020) where individuals justify piracy based on their perceived entitlement or control over digital content, regardless of legal ownership. When individuals develop a sense of psychological ownership over digital products, they may come to believe that they “deserve” access or control, even in the absence of legitimate rights. This can lead to a rationalization of piracy as acceptable or even moral behavior, despite violating group norms or legal structures (Moore and McMullan 2009). Based on these findings, we propose the following: H2. Psychological owership has a positive effect on digital piracy behavior. The third hypothesis addresses the relationship between digital hoarding and the experience of anxiety through the lens of need-to-belong theory (Baumeister and Leary 1995). In terms of emotional reactions, individuals may feel pleasure and pride in the significance of their possessions while simultaneously experiencing sadness, anxiety, and guilt at the prospect of losing FIGURE 1    |    Proposed conceptual model. 7 of 21 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License In the next section, we propose a conceptual model linking psychological ownership as an antecedent of digital hoarding and digital piracy behaviors, consumer anxiety as a mediator, and well-being as an outcome variable through theoretically grounded relationships. By employing psychological ownership theory (Pierce et al. 2003) and the need-to-belong theory (Baumeister and Leary 1995), along with existing literature on dark-side digital behaviors, we will develop a rationale for the moderating effects of collectivism and uncertainty avoidance values (Figure 1). H3. Digital hoarding has a positive effect on anxiety. Since digital piracy is considered unethical and even illegal behavior (Jennings and Bossler 2020), engaging in piracy may cause consumers discomfort and feelings of guilt, further exacerbating anxiety. Given the limited evidence regarding the consequences of digital piracy behavior, we draw upon the literature on the negative use of technology more broadly. Previous studies have shown that high engagement with information and communication technologies can increase predispositions to anxiety (Panova and Lleras 2016). In this context, it has been demonstrated that personal use of these technologies can lead to significant negative consequences in the form of stress, closely related to anxiety (Salo et al. 2022). Building on this premise and the calls for further exploration of negative affective responses to technology (Agogo and Hess 2018), we propose that. H4. Digital piracy has a positive effect on anxiety. The next hypothesis addresses the relationship between anxiety and consumer well-being. While psychological ownership, digital hoarding, and digital piracy are conceptualized within the digital domain, anxiety and consumer well-being are understood at a general consumer level, as they relate to perceptions of life overall. Therefore, we draw from a broader pool of existing literature, which presents conflicting evidence regarding the relationship between anxiety and well-being. For example, Mamani-Benito et al. (2022) demonstrated a direct link between anxiety and well-being among health workers. Similarly, Wąsowicz et al. (2021) found that negative emotions—specifically anxiety, depression, and stress—are negatively related to various domains of well-being. Liu et al. (2009) did not support the hypothesis that affectivity could result from well-being or vice versa; however, they confirmed the connection between well-being and negative affectivity, particularly anxiety. We predict that a lack of control over the acquisition and disposition of digital goods, coupled with excessive involvement with a digital object, further increases anxiety—which, in turn, decreases consumer well-being. Hence, H5. Anxiety has a negative effect on consumer well-being. In addition to the two indirect pathways between psychological ownership and well-being (as suggested through H1–H5), we also postulate a direct effect of ownership on well-being. In this context, we draw on self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2004), which posits that individuals have three basic psychological needs: competence (the desire to influence outcomes), relatedness (the formation of meaningful relationships), 8 of 21 and autonomy (the ability to self-direct one's life). Fulfilling these needs can lead to increased happiness (van Boven and Gilovich 2003). Psychological ownership is closely linked to these needs, as it fosters a deep connection to objects and fulfills the need for autonomy (Carter and Gilovich 2012). Additionally, control over and investment of time in products enhance feelings of competence and autonomy (Mogilner et al. 2012). These pathways enable consumers to engage with desired objects, satisfy their basic needs, and ultimately increase well-being (Li and Atkinson 2020). Li and Atkinson (2020) empirically validated the direct positive relationship between psychological ownership and happiness. Similarly, Shahzad et al. (2023) provided evidence that psychological ownership promotes positive feelings that contribute to happiness in the context of playful consumption experiences. Hence, H6. Psychological ownership has a positive effect on consumer well-being. The final hypothesis regarding direct effects pertains to the relationship between digital piracy behavior and consumer well- being. Despite numerous studies examining the causes and motivations for digital piracy, there is a lack of research on its consequences. Notably, only one outcome has been identified: the rationalization of behavior (Kos Koklic et al. 2016). This research gap has led us to consider the work of Koay et al. (2024), who argued that consumers' decisions to engage in digital piracy are primarily influenced by perceived consequences and positive emotions toward digital piracy. They noted that many consumers view digital piracy as a low-risk activity that offers a seamless experience. Aligned with self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2004), the sense of autonomy and control over consumers' choices—such as access to desired digital content— can trigger a positive emotional response, thereby enhancing their well-being. Given that digital piracy is associated with instant and affordable access to a vast array of digital goods (Pai and Chie 2017), we hypothesize the following: H7. Digital piracy behavior has a positive effect on consumer well-being. 2.5   |   Hypotheses About Moderated Effects Our study also examines the moderating roles of two cultural value orientations—collectivism and uncertainty avoidance— on the previously proposed relationships. These cultural value orientations have been shown to explain variance in digital piracy and consumer web- based behaviors (e.g., Choi and Geistfeld 2004; Kos Koklic et al. 2022; Shiu et al. 2015). While Pierce et al. (2003) encouraged investigations into cultural elements for conceptualizing psychological ownership, to our knowledge, these factors have not been examined in relation to psychological ownership concerning digital asset consumption. Collectivism is defined as the degree to which an individual emphasizes group membership, loyalty, and respect for others (Kukar-K inney et al. 2018). Given that cultural influences on digital consumption motivation remain underexplored (Nam and Kannan 2020), we propose that an individual's collectivism serves as a boundary condition in this model. Pierce et al. (2003) Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License or discarding a valued item (Frost and Hartl 1996). Anxiety, in particular, is regarded as a significant dysfunctional psychological outcome (Luxon et al. 2019; Sweeten et al. 2018). In the digital context, a strong emotional attachment to digital content, combined with resulting comfort, can hinder a person's ability to decide which items to keep or discard. Given that the pervasive use of technology contributes to increased stress levels and that digital hoarding is supported by such technologies, Sedera et al. (2022) demonstrated that digital hoarding can trigger anxiety. Similarly, Luxon et al. (2019) found that digital hoarding predicts anxiety. Therefore, we hypothesize that. Using an individual- level measure, Kos Koklic et al. (2022) found that collectivism moderates the relationship between de- ownership orientation and compulsive and impulsive digital acquisition. Similar to their research, we hypothesize that a collectivist orientation makes hoarding and sharing digital content more acceptable within a group, thereby strengthening the link between psychological ownership and its outcomes, particularly concerning both forms of digital misbehavior. Furthermore, we hypothesize that the effects of psychological ownership and digital piracy on consumer well-being will be stronger among more collectivist consumers, as they perceive themselves as part of a greater whole, leading to enhanced well-being. H8. Collectivism moderates the effects of a. psychological ownership on digital hoarding, b. psychological ownership on digital piracy behavior, c. psychological ownership on consumer well-being, d. digital piracy behavior on consumer well-being, such that the proposed effects are larger (i.e., more positive) for consumers who express high levels of collectivism compared to low levels of collectivism. We also propose that another cultural value, uncertainty avoidance, moderates the effects of psychological ownership on the two dark-side digital behaviors. According to Hofstede (2011), uncertainty avoidance reflects how much people feel threatened by ambiguous situations and develop frameworks to avoid them. Consumers with high uncertainty avoidance are more resistant to change and tend to minimize risks. Since both digital hoarding and piracy are associated with inherent risks (Eisend 2019; Vinoi et al. 2024), we expect that psychological ownership will have a weaker impact on these behaviors among consumers with high uncertainty avoidance compared to those with lower uncertainty avoidance. H9. Uncertainty avoidance moderates the effects of a. psychological ownership on digital hoarding, b. psychological ownership on digital piracy behavior, such that the proposed effects are larger (i.e., more positive) for consumers who express low compared to high levels of uncertainty avoidance. 3   |   Empirical Studies We tested the conceptual model shown in Figure 1 through two studies. Study 1 was a survey conducted as an externally valid test of the conceptual model using a descriptive research design. The aim of Study 1 was to investigate how psychological ownership influences digital hoarding and digital piracy, as well as to assess their impact on anxiety and consumer well-being. We also controlled for participants' demographic variables (gender, age, education, and income), familiarity with pirating software, and familiarity with copyright laws and regulations. Study 2 was an experiment in which psychological ownership was manipulated between participants. The aim was to provide evidence of a causal relationship between psychological ownership and digital consumption behaviors (digital hoarding and digital piracy). In doing so, we aimed to ensure internal validity and provide causal evidence for the hypothesized effects. 3.1   |   Study 1—Design and Participants An online survey was developed using Qualtrics software. Respondents were recruited through the marketing research agency Centiment via an online consumer panel of US adults aged 18 years or older (see https://w ww.centiment.co/audience- panel for details regarding the consumer panel). The agency used national demographic statistics to establish minimum quotas based on age and gender, ensuring a fairly representative sample of adult consumers. There were 625 participants; of these, 154 (24.6%) reported having illegally downloaded files in the past. This percentage is comparable to, though somewhat higher than, the 17% of individuals who engaged in software digital piracy in the United States in 2016 (Business Software Alliance 2016). In the sample, 48.3% identified as male, 50.7% as female, and 1% as other gender. The median age was 43 years, with 31.7% of respondents reporting a highest education level of completed high school or lower, 57.8% having completed some college or obtaining a college degree, and the remaining 10.4% holding a graduate or professional degree. The median annual household income was $50,000. Ten respondents had missing values for key variables in the model and were removed from further analysis. 3.1.1   |   Measurement To measure the constructs of interest, existing measurement scales were adapted to the current context. Perceived psychological ownership was assessed using four items based on the studies of Pena-Marin and Bhargave (2016) and Atasoy and Morewedge (2018). The measure of digital hoarding comprised seven items based on the difficulty deleting scale developed by Neave et al. (2019). Anxiety was measured with eight items from Lovibond and Lovibond (1995). Well-being was assessed using a five-item harmony in life scale1 developed by Kjell et al. (2016). To evaluate the frequency of digital piracy behavior, the respondents were first asked if they had ever illegally downloaded digital files from the Internet. Those who responded “no” were assigned a frequency of 0 for their digital piracy behavior. The respondents who answered “yes” were asked further questions about how frequently they had illegally downloaded digital content in the previous month across various product categories (movies, music, e-books, games, business software, and others, based on Kos Koklic et al. 2016). The frequency of illegal downloading by digital pirates was measured on a 1–5 scale for each product category 9 of 21 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License argued that the stronger the connection between self-concept and a collective entity, the more psychological ownership is likely to manifest as a shared, collective sentiment. In contrast, individualistic cultures tend to experience ownership on a personal level. We also reference the limited literature suggesting that culture is a crucial moderator in digital behaviors (Eisend 2019) and that collectivistic value orientation drives personal motives, behaviors, and consumer ethics (Huang and Lu 2017). We first assessed the psychometric characteristics of the measures. A confirmatory factor model that included all constructs of interest was evaluated using AMOS. The model fit was good (Chi-square = 1476, df = 573, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.051). All constructs except uncertainty avoidance exhibited reliabilities above 0.80, as measured by Cronbach alpha, displaying high internal consistency. Uncertainty avoidance had a Cronbach alpha of 0.64. While this value is undesirable, it is not unacceptable (van Griethuijsen et al. 2015) and may result from the small number of measurement items. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing average variance extracted to the squared construct correlation between each set of constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Average shared variance (AVE) was 0.48 for uncertainty avoidance and above 0.50 for all other constructs. Although the AVE value of 0.48 for the uncertainty avoidance scale is slightly below the recommended threshold of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981), it is very close to the recommended value and is greater than the squared construct correlation for all sets of constructs, providing sufficient evidence of its discriminant validity. Given the relatively poor psychometric properties of Hofstede's uncertainty avoidance scale when measured at the individual level (e.g., Spector et al. 2001; Blodgett et al. 2008), these results are not surprising and are consistent with previous research. Nevertheless, researchers believe that this construct is an important predictor and moderator in many (digital) contexts and should be further investigated (Lu et al. 2015; Öz 2025; Shiu et al. 2015). Therefore, we decided to keep the construct in the model despite its borderline psychometric properties. Table 2 lists all measurement items, construct reliabilities (composite reliability and Cronbach Alpha), average shared variance, and descriptive statistics, while Table 3 depicts construct correlations. 3.1.2   |   Control Variables We measured demographic variables (gender, age, education, and income) and familiarity with pirating software, as well as familiarity with copyright laws and regulations, as potential control variables. Given that reporting dark-side consumer behaviors may be sensitive for some individuals, response bias could be present. Therefore, we also measured social desirability bias using Crowne and Marlowe (1960) 13-item scale. 3.1.3   |   Common Method Bias Since data were collected from the same respondents in a single survey, common method bias may be a concern. A marker variable test was used to evaluate this bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Specifically, we included a conceptually unrelated marker variable (consumer liking of the color blue) in the tested model. This inclusion did not alter the significance or direction of the hypothesized relationships. Furthermore, Lindell and Whitney's (2001) post hoc method indicated that correlations between the model variables and the marker variable were low (below 0.16) and 10 of 21 mostly nonsignificant. These results suggest that common method bias was not an issue. 3.2   |   Study 1—Results and Discussion 3.2.1   |   Testing Direct Effects To test the hypotheses regarding direct effects, we employed structural equation modeling in AMOS. In addition to the proposed relationships, we controlled for the effects of demographic characteristics, familiarity with pirating software, familiarity with copyright laws and regulations, and social desirability bias on all model variables. For parsimony, only significant effects of control variables (i.e., p < 0.05) were retained (Table 4). The structural model exhibited a good fit with the data (chi-square (df) = 1392 (532), p < 0.01; CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05). The model could explain 26% of the variance in digital hoarding, 25% in digital piracy, 32% in anxiety, and 31% in well-being, as indicated by multiple squared correlations (R-square). H1 and H2 predicted a positive relationship between psychological ownership and digital hoarding and digital piracy, respectively. The findings support H1, as digital hoarding increased with stronger consumer perceptions of psychological ownership (H1: β = 0.47, t = 10.74, p < 0.01). Similarly, the reported digital piracy behavior increased with psychological ownership (H2: β = 0.12, t = 2.92, p < 0.01), supporting H2. Digital hoarding (H3) and digital piracy (H4) were predicted to be positively related to consumer anxiety—which was, in turn, expected to negatively affect consumer well-being (H5). The findings indicate that as digital hoarding tendency increased, so did the reported anxiety (H3: β = 0.21, t = 5.36, p < 0.01), supporting H3. Similarly, as digital piracy increased, so did the reported anxiety (H4: β = 0.07, t = 1.87, two-sided p = 0.06, one-sided p < 0.05), supporting H5. However, the magnitude of this effect was smaller than that of digital hoarding. In addition, with increases in anxiety, perceived well-being decreased (H5: β = −0.33, t = −7.16, p < 0.01), supporting H5. H6 predicted that psychological ownership would positively affect consumer well-being. The findings confirmed this expectation (H6: β = 0.25, t = 6.09, p < 0.01). Finally, contrary to H7, digital piracy had no significant effect on the reported consumer well-being (H7: β = 0.03, t = 0.71, p > 0.01). These results are summarized in Table 4. 3.2.2   |   Evaluating Indirect Effects While the indirect effects were not formally hypothesized, the proposed hypotheses collectively suggest that digital hoarding and digital piracy indirectly lower consumer well-being through increased anxiety. Using bootstrapping (N = 5000 bootstrapped samples), we evaluated the indirect effects of digital hoarding and digital piracy on well-being through anxiety. The coefficient estimate for the indirect effect of digital hoarding was negative, and the 95% confidence interval did not include zero (b = −0.07; 95% CI −0.11, −0.04), supporting the expectation that digital hoarding indirectly reduces well-being. However, the indirect effect of digital piracy on well-being was non-significant (b = −0.02; 95% CI −0.04, 0.00; includes zero). We also evaluated the indirect effects of psychological Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License and then averaged across the categories. Finally, collectivism was measured using four items based on Yoo et al. (2011), while uncertainty avoidance was measured with two items from Reardon et al. (2006). Cronbach Alpha AVE Mean (St. dev.) Psychological ownership (adapted from Atasoy and Morewedge 2018; Pena-Marin and Bhargave 2016) I feel a high degree of personal ownership of online digital content that I acquire. I feel like I own online digital content that I acquire. I feel like online digital content that I acquire is mine. I feel a personal connection to online digital content that I acquire. 0.91 0.73 2.91 (1.11) Digital hoarding (based on Neave et al. 2019) Deleting certain files would be like deleting a loved one. I strongly resist having to delete certain files. I feel strongly that some files might be useful one day. I lose track of how many digital files I possess. Deleting certain files would be like losing part of myself. Thinking about deleting certain files causes me some emotional discomfort. At times I find it difficult to find certain files because I have so many. 0.91 0.58 2.81 (1.02) Piracy behavior (frequency of illegal downloading in each of the following product categories based on Kos Koklic et al. 2016) Movies; Music: E-books; Games; Business software; Other 0.98 0.89 0.53 (1.10) Anxiety (based on Lovibond and Lovibond 1995) I find it hard to wind down. I find myself getting upset by quite trivial things. I find myself getting agitated. I tend to over-react to situations. I find that I am very irritable. I feel that I am rather touchy or impatient. I am intolerant of anything that keeps me from getting on with what I was doing. I find myself getting impatient when I am delayed in any way. 0.93 0.64 2.71 (1.05) Well-being (harmony in life) (Kjell et al. 2016) My lifestyle allows me to be in harmony. Most aspects of my life are in balance. I am in harmony. I accept the various conditions of my life. I fit in well with my surroundings. 0.91 0.68 3.16 (0.99) Collectivism (based on Yoo et al. 2011) Group welfare is more important than individual rewards. Individuals should pursue their goals only after considering the welfare of the group. I focus on achieving societal goals more than individual accomplishments. Group rewards should take priority over individual rewards. 0.81 0.51 2.96 (0.88) Uncertainty avoidance (based on Reardon et al. 2006; reverse-coded) I'm the kind of person who would try anything at least once. I enjoy taking chances in doing unfamiliar activities, just for variety. 0.64 0.48 2.89 (0.98) Construct Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability. ownership on anxiety and well-being. In particular, psychological ownership indirectly increased anxiety (b = 0.09; 95% CI 0.05, 0.13; does not include zero) and decreased well-being (b = −0.03; 95% CI −0.05, −0.02; does not include zero). 3.2.3   |   Assessing Measurement Invariance and Testing Moderating Effects of Collectivism The moderating role of collectivism was tested by performing multi-group analysis in AMOS, with the two groups of interest being low (< 3) and high (> = 3) collectivism. The central tendency measures of this construct (Mean = 2.96; Median = 3; Mode = 3) were all very close to one another, and the two groups were formed using a median split at the scale value of 3. Prior to testing the moderating hypotheses, we evaluated metric invariance across the low and high collectivism groups. We subjected the confirmatory factor analysis model to multi- group analysis, comparing the unconstrained model with a model in which all measurement weights were constrained to be equal across the two groups. The majority of indices 11 of 21 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License TABLE 2    |    Construct items, psychometric construct characteristics and descriptive statistics. Psych. ownership Digital hoarding Digital piracy Anxiety Well-being Collectivism Psychological ownership 1 Digital hoarding 0.49*** 1 Digital piracy 0.29*** 0.19*** 1 Anxiety 0.17*** 0.32*** 0.23*** 1 Well-being 0.22*** 0.08* 0.04 −0.38*** 1 Collectivism 0.31*** 0.22*** 0.27*** 0.05 0.27*** 1 Uncertainty avoidance −0.32*** −0.19*** −0.28*** −0.11* −0.32*** −0.38*** Uncertainty avoidance Moderators 1 *p < 0.10. ***p < 0.01. indicated that the unconstrained model fit the data equally well (Chi-square = 2128; df = 1063, p < 0.001; IFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.04), as did the measurement weights constrained model (Chi-square = 2186; df = 1088, p < 0.001; IFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.04), thereby confirming metric invariance across the two groups. Since our objective was to develop a theoretical net of the constructs and test for the existence and direction of the hypothesized relationships, only metric invariance was required (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). To test the moderating hypotheses, we constrained all structural path coefficients (in addition to measurement weights) to be the same across the two collectivism groups. Next, we released the constraint on each hypothesized structural path to determine whether it led to a significant decrease in the chi-square value. A significant drop in this value indicated a significant difference in the magnitude of the specific path coefficients across the low and high collectivism groups, thereby confirming the moderating role of collectivism. High collectivism was proposed to be associated with larger (more positive) effects of psychological ownership on digital hoarding (H8), piracy (H8), and well-being (H8), as well as with more positive effects of digital piracy on consumer well-being (H8). Releasing the constraint on psychological ownership to the digital hoarding path resulted in a significant change in the chi-square statistic (ΔΧ 2 = 4.7, Δd.f. = 1, p < 0.05), confirming that collectivism moderates this relationship. In particular, the effect of psychological ownership on digital hoarding was larger (i.e., more positive) for the high (β = 0.53, t = 9.38, p < 0.01) vs. low collectivism group (β = 0.38, t = 5.94, p < 0.01), supporting H9. The effect of psychological ownership on digital piracy was also significantly stronger (ΔΧ 2 = 3.8, Δd.f. = 1, p = 0.05) for the high (β = 0.15, t = 2.70, p < 0.01) vs. low collectivism group (β = 0.04, t = 0.65, p > 0.10), supporting H9. The moderating effect of collectivism on the relationship between psychological ownership and consumer well-being was not significant (ΔΧ 2 = 0.03, Δd.f. = 1, p > 0.10). Thus, the effect of psychological ownership on well-being is equally strong (and positive) regardless of the consumers' expressed collectivistic 12 of 21 tendency, contrary to H8. Finally, the effect of digital piracy on consumer well-being was significantly larger (i.e., more positive; ΔΧ 2 = 14.3, Δd.f. = 1, p < 0.01) for the high (β = 0.11, t = 2.24, p < 0.05) versus low collectivism group (β = −0.18, t = −3.12, p < 0.01), supporting H8. In fact, the direction of the relationship was reversed in the two groups. In the high collectivism group, digital piracy significantly increased consumer well-being, while in the low collectivism group, it significantly decreased consumer well- being. The opposite nature of the effect in the two groups is likely the reason for the non-significant effect of digital piracy on well-being in the overall sample (H7). The above moderating results offer evidence that H7 can be confirmed for the highly collectivistic individuals. 3.2.4   |   Assessing Measurement Invariance and Testing Moderating Effects of Uncertainty Avoidance The moderating role of uncertainty avoidance was tested similarly by performing multi-g roup analysis in AMOS, with the two groups of interest being low (< 3) and high (> = 3) uncertainty avoidance. The two groups were formed using the median split at the scale value of 3. Prior to testing the moderating hypotheses, metric invariance across the low and high uncertainty groups was evaluated in the same way as for collectivism. Most indices suggested that the measurement weight-constrained model fit the data equally well as did the unconstrained model, thereby confirming metric invariance across the two groups. To test the moderating hypotheses, we constrained all structural path coefficients (in addition to measurement weights) to be the same across the two uncertainty avoidance groups. Next, we released the constraint on each hypothesized structural path to determine whether the removal of the constraint led to a significant decrease in the chi-square value. Low uncertainty avoidance was proposed to be associated with larger (more positive) effects of psychological ownership on digital hoarding (H9) and digital piracy (H9) than high uncertainty avoidance. Releasing the constraint on psychological Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License TABLE 3    |    Construct correlations. Std. regr. coef. (t) Hypothesis outcome H1 +: Psychological ownership ➔ Digital hoarding 0.47 (10.74)*** Supported H2 +: Psychological ownership ➔ Digital piracy 0.12 (2.92)*** Supported H3 +: Digital hoarding ➔ Anxiety H4 +: Digital piracy ➔ Anxiety 0.21 (5.36)*** 0.07 (1.87)* Supported Supported H5 −: Anxiety ➔ Well-being −0.33 (−7.16)*** Supported H6 +: Psychological ownership ➔ Well-being 0.25 (6.09)*** Supported H7 +: Digital piracy ➔ Well-being 0.03 (0.71) Rejected Structural path stronger (ΔΧ 2 = 3.3, Δd.f. = 1, p = 0.07) for the low (β = 0.17, t = 2.74, p < 0.01) versus high uncertainty avoidance group (β = 0.06, t = 1.10, p > 0.10), supporting H9. In summary, uncertainty avoidance significantly affected the impact of psychological ownership on the two dark-side digital behaviors. High (as compared to low) uncertainty avoidance weakened the extent to which psychological ownership drives both digital hoarding and digital piracy. In fact, in the high uncertainty group, the effect of psychological ownership on digital piracy completely disappeared. 3.3   |   Study 2—Design and Participants 3.3.1   |   Method Significant covariates Age ➔ Digital piracy Age ➔ Anxiety Gender ➔ Digital piracy −0.15 (−3.64)*** −0.15 (−4.02)*** −0.09 (−2.48)** Gender ➔ Anxiety 0.10 (2.81)*** Income ➔ Digital piracy Income ➔ Well-being 0.16 (4.25)*** 0.24 (6.45)*** Social desirability ➔ Digital hoarding Social desirability ➔ Digital piracy −0.13 (−3.46)*** −0.15 (−4.12)*** Social desirability ➔ Anxiety −0.40 (−9.89)*** Social desirability ➔ Well-being Familiarity with pirating software ➔ Digital piracy 0.21 (5.11)*** 0.22 (5.25)*** Note: Model fit: Chi-square (df) = 1392 (532), p < 0.01; CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.051. *Two-sided p = 0.06. **Two-sided p < 0.05. ***Two-sided p < 0.01. ownership to the digital hoarding path resulted in a significant change in the chi-square value (ΔΧ 2 = 7.6, Δd.f. = 1, p < 0.01), confirming that uncertainty avoidance moderates this relationship. In particular, the effect of psychological ownership on digital hoarding was larger (i.e., more positive) for the low (β = 0.58, t = 9.40, p < 0.01) versus high uncertainty avoidance group (β = 0.39, t = 6.67, p < 0.01), supporting H9. The effect of psychological ownership on digital piracy was also marginally Since Study 1 had a descriptive research design, causality of the relationships could not be confirmed. Thus, the aim of Study 2 was to determine the existence of a causal relationship between psychological ownership as a driver and digital consumption behaviors (digital hoarding and digital piracy) as consequences. This study employed a one-factor (two conditions: low vs. high psychological ownership) randomized between- subjects experimental design. The study was conducted online using the Qualtrics platform. After reading through the informed consent statement, the participants were randomly assigned to either a low or a high psychological ownership condition. We designed the manipulation based on existing research that has successfully manipulated psychological ownership by incorporating elements such as personalization, control over customization, and investment of time and effort (e.g., Baer and Brown 2012; Li and Atkinson 2020). Exercising control over objects can integrate them into one's extended self, fostering feelings of ownership. Similarly, deeply understanding and investing oneself in a target can evoke personal ownership (Pierce et al. 2003). In the experimental scenario, all participants were told that they had visited a well-established online bookstore and downloaded a sample of an e-book they had been wanting to read for a long time. In the low psychological ownership scenario, they were further informed that the e- book sample was a random selection from the book, presented as plain text, and that nothing in the file indicated that it was theirs. They also could not meaningfully edit it. The file was named Ebook_Sample_01.pdf. They were told that many others had downloaded this exact file. In the high psychological ownership scenario, the participants were told that the e-book sample was personalized for them, their name appeared in the file's name, and that the file included the following note: “This reading sample has been created exclusively for you based on the selection of your prior book downloads.” They could also customize the cover page, highlight text, add notes, and save the file to their personal library. The experimental stimuli are provided in Appendix A. After reading through the scenario, the participants responded to questions about their digital consumption behavior intentions regarding the e-book/e-book sample, perceived psychological ownership, manipulation check and experimental realism questions, as well as a series of questions measuring potential control variables such as frequency of reading e- books and printed books, online privacy concerns, perceptions of risks of 13 of 21 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License TABLE 4    |    Conceptual model results–direct effects. ability to customize formatting. They could also select an option indicating that they did not remember the scenario. 3.3.2   |   Sample 3.4   |   Study 2-Results and Discussion Two hundred US-based participants aged 18 or older were recruited from a large online panel provider (Prolific) and compensated for their time for the study, which took 8–9 min. Twenty-three respondents incorrectly identified the scenario (a generic random book chapter or a personalized book chapter) they read or did not remember the scenario and were excluded from further analysis. Of the remaining 177 consumers, 34% were male, 65% were female, and 1% identified as non-binary or other gender. The average age was 34 years (median 33 years), and the median household income was in the range of $50,000– $74,999. Average agreement that the scenario was realistic was significantly greater than the midpoint of the scale (3.86 vs. the midpoint of 3, t = 15.42, p < 0.01) indicating that the respondents found the scenario realistic. The success of the psychological ownership manipulation was evaluated using an independent t- test, with perceived psychological ownership as the dependent variable and psychological ownership manipulation (low: a random generic book sample vs. high: a personalized book sample) as the independent variable. Respondents in the high psychological ownership condition expressed significantly stronger perceived psychological ownership compared to those in the low condition (Meanhigh psychological ownership = 4.11, Meanlow psychological ownership = 2.32, t = −12.72, p < 0.01). Manipulation was thus deemed successful. 3.3.3   |   Measures Psychological ownership was measured using a 4-item scale (Cronbach α = 0.93, CR = 0.93, AVE = 0.77) based on the studies of Pena-Marin and Bhargave (2016) and Atasoy and Morewedge (2018). Due to the hypothetical nature of the scenario, intentions regarding digital behaviors (rather than actual behaviors) were assessed. In particular, digital hoarding (Cronbach α = 0.91, CR = 0.91, AVE = 0.81) was evaluated with five items on a 5-point Likert scale, adapted from Neave et al.'s (2019) difficulty deleting scale to fit the current context: (1) I would strongly resist deleting this e-book sample, (2) I feel strongly that this e-book sample might be useful 1 day, (3) Thinking about deleting this e-book sample would cause me some emotional discomfort., (4) Deleting this e-book sample would be like losing a part of myself, and (5) Deleting the e- book sample would be like deleting a loved one. Digital piracy intent (Cronbach α = 0.87, CR = 0.88, AVE = 0.84) was measured using three items adapted from Barber et al. (2012) and Chen et al. (2008): (1) I would consider obtaining a free copy of this e-book without permission, (2) I would consider downloading a free copy of this e-book using a peer-to-peer file-sharing site, and (3) I would download a free copy of this e-book using a peer- to-peer file-sharing site. To ensure that the participants read the manipulation present in the scenario, they were asked to indicate whether the scenario involved downloading a generically formatted random chapter of an e-book or a personalized selection from an e-book with the The proposed main effects of psychological ownership on digital hoarding and digital piracy were evaluated using MANCOVA and regression analysis. In the MANCOVA analysis, digital hoarding and digital piracy intent served as dependent variables, while psychological ownership manipulation was treated as a factor. Social desirability bias, education, and familiarity with torrenting software were included as significant covariates. Other potential control variables were found to be non- significant. The MANCOVA results revealed a significant main effect of psychological ownership manipulation on both dependent variables: digital hoarding (F (1,172) = 49.39, p < 0.01) and digital piracy intent (F (1,172) = 4.32, p < 0.05). An investigation of the sample means further confirmed that high (as compared with low) psychological ownership manipulation led to a significantly greater digital hoarding (i.e., the perceived difficulty of deleting the e-book sample; Meanhigh psychological ownership = 3.02, Meanlow psychological ownership = 1.98) and digital piracy intent of the e-book (Meanhigh psychological ownership = 3.05, Meanlow psychological ownership = 2.81). These results support H1 and H2 and establish a causality of the effect from psychological ownership to digital hoarding and digital piracy. Table 5 summarizes the means and standard deviations for each experimental condition. Since psychological ownership manipulation aimed to induce varying levels of perceived psychological ownership, we also conducted a regression analysis to evaluate the effect of perceived (i.e., measured, not manipulated) psychological ownership on digital consumption behavior. A regression with perceived psychological ownership as the independent variable and digital hoarding as the dependent variable showed a significantly positive effect of psychological ownership on digital hoarding (i.e., the perceived difficulty of deleting the e-book sample file; b = 0.63, t = 12.73, p < 0.01). These results support TABLE 5    |    Descriptive statistics for Study 2 by experimental condition. Manipulation of psychological ownership Measured psychological ownership, mean (SD) Digital hoarding, mean (SD) Digital piracy, mean (SD) Low 2.32 (1.10) 1.98 (1.05) 2.81 (1.22) High 4.11 (0.69) 3.02 (0.99) 3.05 (1.03) Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation. 14 of 21 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License downloading files, familiarity with torrenting software, social desirability bias, and demographic variables. Following Study 1, we aimed to verify that psychological ownership affects dark-side digital consumption behavior. The experimental results confirmed the role of psychological ownership as an antecedent of digital hoarding and digital piracy, two types of such behavior. In particular, we demonstrated that both manipulated and perceived psychological ownership strengthen the intention to engage in digital hoarding and digital piracy, with the former being even stronger than the latter. This finding aligns well with the premise that psychological ownership may lead to negative or deviant behaviors (Pierce et al. 2003). 4   |   Discussion, Implications, and Future Research The unprecedented growth in digital access and the availability of digital content have brought many benefits but also led to dark-side digital consumer behaviors (Neave et al. 2019; Turel et al. 2019). This study contributes to the growing literature on consumer experiences and perceptions of digital assets and their psychological effects. It deepens our understanding of three key issues from the special issue's call for papers: (1) effects of psychological ownership on digital consumption, (2) dark sides of digital asset consumption, and (3) cultural value differences in consumer perceptions and attitudes toward digital assets. Given the potentially negative effects of digital consumer behaviors and the scarcity of research in this field (e.g., Sedera et al. 2022; Tomczyk 2021), our research explores psychological ownership as a root cause of two dark-side behaviors—digital hoarding and digital piracy, along with their effects on consumer well-being. To this end, we identify perceived psychological ownership as a significant driver of both digital hoarding and digital piracy behaviors, confirmed by both of our studies (descriptive and experimental). As a person's sense of “mineness” with respect to digital content (Peck and Shu 2018) increases, so do the tendencies to engage in these behaviors. This aligns with psychological ownership theory, suggesting that psychological ownership can lead to deviant behaviors (Pierce et al. 2003). While psychological ownership theory has previously been linked to predominantly positive outcomes in the consumer digital context (see Table 1), such as purchase intentions (Kim et al. 2016; Park and Kim 2025; Pick 2021), our results affirm that psychological ownership also plays a significant role in driving negative behaviors in digital settings (Peck and Luangrath 2023). Regarding the effects of the investigated dark-side behaviors, we find that digital hoarding results in consumers feeling anxious, ultimately decreasing their well-being. Furthermore, greater engagement in digital piracy significantly increases anxiety and decreases well-being for low collectivism consumers, while it increases well-being for high collectivism consumers. While this may seem surprising, a similar pattern of results has been observed in the literature on compulsive buying. Mrad and Cui (2020) demonstrated that compulsive buying negatively affected debt, self-esteem, and happiness, while brand addiction had no impact on debt and even boosted self-esteem and happiness. Similarly, our findings indicate that digital hoarding increases anxiety and indirectly reduces well-being, whereas digital piracy positively impacts well- being, albeit only for highly collectivist consumers. A possible explanation for this pattern of findings is that digital hoarding is a compulsive behavior, leading to stronger negative consequences for the affected individual (Sedera et al. 2022), while digital piracy is not and is thus less likely to negatively influence the consumer's psychological state. We speculate that even though digital piracy is illegal, it may be widely accepted among consumers (Bornas-Cayuela et al. 2024; Kukar-K inney et al. 2018; Vida et al. 2012), particularly those with collectivistic values. Our findings also reveal that psychological ownership of digital assets enhances consumer well-being. This finding aligns with previous research on ownership, suggesting that a consumer's sense of psychological ownership exerts a direct effect on happiness and well-being (Li and Atkinson 2020; Nguyen et al. 2024; Shahzad et al. 2023). It also indicates that psychological ownership not only shapes negative behaviors but simultaneously promotes a positive psychological state of well-being, with both findings consistent with psychological ownership theory (Pierce et al. 2003). With respect to explanatory mechanisms, our results indicate that the effects of psychological ownership on digital hoarding and digital piracy depend on collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. For highly collectivist consumers, the influence of psychological ownership on both dark-side digital behaviors is stronger than that for less collectivist consumers. This finding aligns with that obtained by Kos Koklic et al. (2022), which shows that collectivism moderates the relationship between de-ownership orientation (a construct opposite to psychological ownership) and digital acquisition. Conversely, for uncertainty avoidance, psychological ownership more strongly drives digital hoarding and piracy among consumers with low uncertainty avoidance. Even if consumers feel psychological ownership, they may suppress digital hoarding or piracy behaviors due to discomfort with inherent risks (Eisend 2019; Vinoi et al. 2024). As previously discussed, collectivism also moderates the relationship between digital piracy and well-being but only for highly collectivistic consumers. Unexpectedly, the low collectivism group exhibits a negative relationship between piracy and well-being. This group seems to feel more isolated, and their engagement in piracy as a solitary activity leads to lower well-being, highlighting the importance of belonging and feeling connected to others (Haim-L itevsky et al. 2023). Finally, we find no support for the moderating effect of consumer collectivism on the relationship between psychological ownership and well-being. One possible explanation is that individuals with a collectivist (vs. individualist) mindset might experience collective (vs. individual) psychological ownership (Jussila et al. 2015), with both forms leading to greater well-being through psychological ownership of digital assets. 15 of 21 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License H1, which predicted a positive relationship between psychological ownership and digital hoarding. Furthermore, a regression with perceived psychological ownership as an independent variable and digital piracy intent as a dependent variable showed a significantly positive effect of psychological ownership on digital piracy intent for the entire e-book (b = 0.22, t = 3.45, p < 0.01), supporting H2. This study contributes to the literature in consumer behavior, psychology, and online information management in several ways. First, we introduce psychological ownership, a person's sense of “mineness,” as a concept that enhances our understanding of how consumers use technology (Kirk and Swain 2018), particularly concerning digital hoarding and digital piracy and their effects. Our findings demonstrate the value of psychological ownership theory in understanding digital asset consumption. Unlike previous studies that have primarily focused on the positive outcomes of psychological ownership and its managerial implications (e.g., Pick 2021; Pino et al. 2022; Xie and Lou 2024), we show that the perceived psychological ownership of digital assets is a common antecedent of both dark-side behaviors—digital hoarding and digital piracy—that result in negative outcomes, including increased anxiety and reduced well-being. While consumer attachment to digital possessions is not necessarily a novel idea (Koles and Nagy 2021), its impact on these two dark-side behaviors and their negative consequences remains under- researched (Kim et al. 2024). Second, we build on existing research on dark-side consumer behaviors, which argues that negative consumer behaviors, such as compulsive and addictive behaviors, frequently occur together (e.g., Ye et al. 2021). Being aware of the potential co- existence of dark-side digital behaviors is important, as the presence of one such behavior may alert us to consumer vulnerability to another. We contribute to existing knowledge by showing that two dark-side digital consumer behaviors, that is, digital hoarding and digital piracy, while not directly influencing each other, are positively correlated and may co-occur. This relationship is likely due to their common antecedent: psychological ownership. Understanding shared antecedents is crucial, as it could inform the development of more effective preventative, rather than corrective, approaches to these dark-side behaviors by addressing the root drivers of digital hoarding and piracy. Third, this study uncovers a somewhat counterintuitive result regarding digital piracy and its impact on well-being. We provide evidence that increased engagement in digital piracy enhances the perception of well-being for collectivistic consumers but lowers this perception for individualistic consumers. In contrast, digital hoarding has only negative consequences, increasing anxiety and indirectly lowering the perception of well-being for all consumers. While prior research has found similar patterns in examining different yet co-existing dark- side digital behaviors (Mrad and Cui 2020), this result presents intriguing opportunities for future research. Fourth, identifying collectivism and uncertainty avoidance as moderators of the relationship between psychological ownership and the dark-side behaviors of digital hoarding and piracy adds to the knowledge of the rarely scrutinized boundary effects of these behaviors. It contributes to the literature on cultural values (Nam and Kannan 2020) and sheds new light on psychological ownership theory (Pierce et al. 2003) by investigating its effects through cultural value orientations. Our findings indicate that the effects of psychological 16 of 21 ownership and negative digital practices are rooted in culture, which influences an individual's sense of self and values concerning control, identity, self-expression, ownership, and possessions—all elements inherent in the conceptualization of psychological ownership (Pierce et al. 2003). Identifying individual- level cultural value orientations as explanatory mechanisms should be particularly valuable as a stepping stone for future research into dark-side digital consumption at a global, multi-country level. Finally, our study provides insights into two consequences of dark-side online behaviors: anxiety and consumer well-being. By illuminating consumer online and digital behavior along with its consequences, we contribute to the fields of consumer psychology and online information management, such as digital asset management. 4.2   |   Practical Implications Several public policy and practical intervention implications emerge from our research. As consumers increasingly develop a sense of ownership over digital content (Kirk and Swain 2018), two negative behaviors—digital hoarding and digital piracy— emerge, ultimately affecting consumer well-being. This suggests that a deeper understanding of how consumers perceive ownership in the digital realm could help businesses and policymakers reduce engagement in these behaviors. The most important implication is that public policy officials should strive to educate consumers about the importance of digital file management and the potential negative consequences of hoarding digital content for their overall well-being. Keeping one's digital content organized and up-to-date may instill a sense of calm in consumers' lives, reduce anxiety, and enhance feelings of harmony and well-being. This can be achieved through various initiatives. For example, awareness campaigns can encourage consumers to manage their digital possessions by deleting unnecessary files and discouraging the over-accumulation of digital content. This could be further supported by technical tools (apps) that gamify the clean-up process or provide storage dashboards, similar to apps for physical decluttering (Carlson 2025). Policymakers and marketers could further position digital minimalism as a well- being strategy, as it is associated with less stress and a higher sense of well-being (Kang et al. 2021). The second area for practical implications involves leveraging the levels of digital piracy through consumer education and industry initiatives, particularly by tailoring messages to different cultural contexts. Since digital piracy lowers perceptions of well- being for individualistic consumers, education about its negative psychological outcomes should be particularly effective for highly individualistic consumer segments and/or cultures. In this case, campaigns can emphasize personal responsibility and the individual risks associated with piracy. For example, marketing messages can portray piracy as an unfair appropriation of others' creative output. Additionally, highlighting the personal consequences of piracy, such as exposure to malware, data theft, or legal sanctions, could enhance deterrence. Industry representatives could develop targeted online ads or social media campaigns that illustrate real-life stories of individuals negatively affected by pirated content (e.g., identity theft). Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 4.1   |   Theoretical Implications In addition, public policies and industry efforts should prioritize consumer education on copyright, as well as the ethical and responsible use of digital content and effective management of digital assets. This is particularly relevant for younger consumers, who are most at risk for engaging in digital piracy (Tomczyk 2021), as evidenced by the negative relationship between age and piracy. These consumers are still in the process of developing lifelong digital habits. Educational initiatives should be integrated into digital literacy curricula through practical and engaging formats, such as interactive modules, game-based learning tools, or classroom activities that encourage students to review their digital libraries and reflect on the sources of content. To minimize the stimulating effect of psychological ownership on digital hoarding and piracy, public policy messages promoting individualism and high uncertainty avoidance should be developed. Individuals should be encouraged to take responsibility for their own actions, rather than relying on group behavior to guide their digital consumption decisions. To reduce feelings of psychological ownership and its significance, public policy messages could promote the concept of de-ownership, where access is prioritized over permanent ownership (Kos Koklic et al. 2022). This approach encourages consumers to recognize the value of temporary or shared access to digital resources, such as streaming services, subscriptions, or cloud-based services. Public campaigns could emphasize the flexibility, cost- efficiency, and environmental benefits of renting or sharing digital content (Pouri and Hilty 2021). Educational materials could include comparisons between the burden of digital clutter and the simplicity of access-based models. In schools, digital sustainability lessons could teach students about the benefits of platforms such as Spotify, Netflix, or Adobe Creative Cloud, where content is instantly available without the need to accumulate files. Governments could also support initiatives that develop or subsidize community-based digital libraries, allowing users to legally “borrow” e-books, software, or media for a limited time. 4.3   |   Limitations of This Study and Directions for Future Research Our results suggest several opportunities for future research. We focused on perceived psychological ownership as an antecedent of dark- side digital behaviors. Other antecedents could be examined in the future; for example, Vinoi et al. (2024) found that anticipated regret and perceived materialism contribute to digital hoarding. Additionally, the consequences studied were limited to two consumer-level concepts: anxiety and well-being. Future research could explore other negative consumer-level outcomes, such as guilt or shame. Since dark- side behaviors affect not only individuals but also firms and societies at large (Turel et al. 2019), the investigated consequences could be expanded beyond the individual consumer level. Another area that could benefit from future exploration is the role of psychological ownership in an individual's engagement in illegal streaming compared to illegal file sharing. Given the relative infancy of research on dark-side digital asset consumption and the complexity of the proposed model, we focused only on two consumer value orientations—collectivism and uncertainty avoidance—as moderating factors. Future research should examine additional boundary conditions, both cultural and individual. This is particularly pertinent given our finding that digital piracy had no significant overall effect on well-being but exerted opposing effects for different levels of collectivism. Furthermore, variability in attitudes toward piracy, including the social acceptability of digital piracy based on factors such as age, socioeconomic status, economic constraints, and access to legal alternatives, should be considered in future research within collectivistic and other cultural contexts to determine the extent to which the positive effects of digital piracy on well-being are truly due to cultural factors. Given the poor psychometric properties of the existing uncertainty avoidance scale, there is also a need to develop more appropriate measures of cultural dimensions at the individual level (Yoo et al. 2011). Finally, our investigation focused on a single country. Since dark-side digital consumption practices are global phenomena, it would be valuable to study them in a multi-country setting. Existing digital consumption studies (e.g., Eisend 2019; Nam and Kannan 2020) demonstrate that consumption practices are deeply embedded within a cultural context. Thus, testing our model in different cultures would enhance the generalizability of our findings and guide public policy in designing effective country-specific and global anti-hoarding and anti-piracy measures. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Endnotes 1 We also considered using Diener et al.'s (1985) subjective well- being scale, which focuses on measuring life satisfaction. However, this scale assesses satisfaction with life in general, while the harmony in life scale measures the achievement of balance in one's life. Since the two investigated digital consumption behaviors may be perceived as negative for consumers and society, they may disrupt individuals' perceptions of 17 of 21 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Another implication is that digital piracy, as a dark-side digital consumer behavior, does not uniformly result in negative consequences for all consumers. This study shows that digital piracy enhances well-being for collectivistic consumers. Therefore, to reduce digital piracy behaviors, public policy officials in highly collectivistic cultures should avoid addressing the psychological consequences of piracy. Instead, they should focus on how piracy can ultimately harm the community (Kos Koklic et al. 2016), for example, by undermining local creative industries or jobs, thereby strengthening the collectivist ethic against digital theft. By shifting the focus to social responsibility and the consequences for the community, these strategies can be better aligned with collectivist values while curbing piracy. References Agogo, D., and T. J. Hess. 2018. ““How Does Tech Make You Feel?” A Review and Examination of Negative Affective Responses to Technology Use.” European Journal of Information Systems 27, no. 5: 570–599. Atasoy, O., and C. K. Morewedge. 2018. “Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods.” Journal of Consumer Research 44, no. 6: 1343–1357. Baer, M., and G. Brown. 2012. “Blind in One Eye: How Psychological Ownership of Ideas Affects the Types of Suggestions People Adopt.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 118, no. 1: 60–71. Barber, N., P. J. Kuo, M. Bishop, and R. Goodman Jr. 2012. “Measuring Psychographics to Assess Purchase Intention and Willingness to Pay.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 29, no. 4: 280–292. Baumeister, R. F., and M. R. Leary. 1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117, no. 3: 497–529. Benvenuti, M., D. Scarpi, and L. Zarantonello. 2023. “Information Technologies and Consumers' Well-Being: Latest Research and Future Research Directions.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 58, no. 2–3: 109–114. Blodgett, J. G., A. Bakir, and G. M. Rose. 2008. “A Test of the Validity of Hofstede's Cultural Framework.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 25, no. 6: 339–349. Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan, eds. 2004. Handbook of Self-Determination Research. University Rochester Press. Diener, E., R. A. Emmons, R. J. Larsen, and S. Griffin. 1985. “The Satisfaction With Life Scale.” Journal of Personality Assessment 49: 71–75. Eisend, M. 2019. “Explaining Digital Piracy: A Meta- A nalysis.” Information Systems Research 30, no. 2: 636–664. Fischer, R., and Y. H. Poortinga. 2012. “Are Cultural Values the Same as the Values of Individuals? An Examination of Similarities in Personal, Social and Cultural Value Structures.” International Journal of Cross- Cultural Management 12, no. 2: 157–170. Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18, no. 1: 39–50. Frost, R. O., and T. L. Hartl. 1996. “A Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Compulsive Hoarding.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 34, no. 4: 341–350. Guan, X., Y. Zhang, Y. Li, et al. 2023. “The Effect of Self-Investment on Hoarding Tendency of Chinese College Students: Role of Psychological Connections.” International Journal of Mental Health Promotion 25, no. 6: 755–766. Gupta, S., and B. Sharma. 2024. “A Bibliometric Study on Marketing Perspective of Psychological Ownership.” Management Research Review 47, no. 11: 1750–1776. Haim- Litevsky, D., R. Komemi, and L. Lipskaya- Velikovsky. 2023. “Sense of Belonging, Meaningful Daily Life Participation, and Well- Being: Integrated Investigation.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 5: 4121. Handa, M., and P. Ahuja. 2022. “The Grey and Dark Facets of Online Activities: A Study of Consumer Perceptions.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 20, no. 4: 495–515. Hofstede, G. 2011. “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2, no. 1: 8. Borja, K., S. Rodriguez, and C. Roby. 2025. “Streaming Movies, Series and Shows: Attitudes and Beliefs Among Gen Zers.” Young Consumers 26, no. 1: 96–115. Huang, C. C., and L. C. Lu. 2017. “Examining the Roles of Collectivism, Attitude Toward Business, and Religious Beliefs on Consumer Ethics in China.” Journal of Business Ethics 146: 505–514. Bornas- Cayuela, D., A. R. Djail, and N. Wajsman. 2024. “Online Copyright Infringement in the European Union: Films, Music, Publications, Software and TV (2017–2022).” Jennings, K., and A. M. Bossler. 2020. “Digital Piracy.” In The Palgrave Handbook of International Cybercrime and Cyberdeviance, edited by T. J. Holt and A. M. Bossler, 1025–1045. Palgrave Macmillan. Business Software Alliance. 2016. May. Seizing Opportunity through License Compliance. BSA Global Software Survey. Jiang, Y., J. Liao, J. Chen, Y. Hu, and P. Du. 2022. “Motivation for Users' Knowledge-Sharing Behavior in Virtual Brand Communities: A Psychological Ownership Perspective.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 34, no. 10: 2165–2183. Carlson, M. 2025. 15 Best Apps for Home & Apartment Cleaning 2025. Clutter, Inc. Carter, T. J., and T. Gilovich. 2012. “I Am What I Do, Not What I Have: The Differential Centrality of Experiential and Material Purchases to the Self.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102, no. 6: 1304–1317. Jingwen, W., and Y. Yisong. 2025. “Fugitive Film Copyright: Research on the Influencing Factors of Users Watching Pirated Film and Television Works.” Social Influence 20, no. 1: 2478941. Cedeño, M., W. Baxter, T. Porat, and J. Peck. 2022. “DRS2022: Bilbao.” In Toward a Method of Psychological Ownership Mapping, in Lockton. Bilbao. Jussila, I., A. Tarkiainen, M. Sarstedt, and J. F. Hair. 2015. “Individual Psychological Ownership: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications for Research in Marketing.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 23, no. 2: 121–139. Chen, Y. C., R. A. Shang, and A. K. Lin. 2008. “The Intention to Download Music Files in a P2P Environment: Consumption Value, Fashion, and Ethical Decision Perspectives.” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 7, no. 4: 411–422. Kang, J., C. M. J. Martinez, and C. Johnson. 2021. “Minimalism as a Sustainable Lifestyle: Its Behavioral Representations and Contributions to Emotional Well-Being.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 27: 802–813. Choi, J., and L. V. Geistfeld. 2004. “A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Consumer e-Shopping Adoption.” Journal of Economic Psychology 25, no. 6: 821–838. Karahanna, E., S. X. Xu, and N. Zhang. 2015. “Psychological Ownership Motivation and Use of Social Media.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 23, no. 2: 185–207. Crowne, D. P., and D. Marlowe. 1960. “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology.” Journal of Consulting Psychology 24, no. 4: 349–354. Keefer, L. A., M. J. Landau, Z. K. Rothschild, and D. Sullivan. 2012. “Attachment to Objects as Compensation for Close Others' Perceived Unreliability.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48, no. 4: 912–917. Danckwerts, S., and P. Kenning. 2019. ““It's MY Service, It's MY Music”: The Role of Psychological Ownership in Music Streaming Consumption.” Psychology & Marketing 36, no. 9: 803–816. Kim, H., J. Li, and K. K. F. So. 2024. “Psychological Ownership Research in Business: A Bibliometric Overview and Future Research Directions.” Journal of Business Research 174: 114502. 18 of 21 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License balance and harmony, making the harmony scale more relevant to our context. Therefore, we decided to use Kjell et al.'s (2016) model. We also assessed the robustness of the results using Diener et al.'s (1985) scale. While there were no differences in the direction and significance of the investigated relationships when comparing the two scales, using the life satisfaction scale resulted in a significantly worse model fit. Symptoms of Hoarding Disorder.” Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders 21: 60–68. Kim, S., S. G. Kim, Y. Jeon, S. Jun, and J. Kim. 2016. “Appropriate or Remix? The Effects of Social Recognition and Psychological Ownership on Intention to Share in Online Communities.” Human- Computer Interaction 31, no. 2: 97–132. Mamani-Benito, O., R. F. C. Esteban, R. Castillo-Blanco, T. Caycho- Rodriguez, M. Tito-Betancur, and R. Farfán-Solís. 2022. “Anxiety and Depression as Predictors of Life Satisfaction During Pre-Professional Health Internships in COVID- 19 Times: The Mediating Role of Psychological Well-Being.” Heliyon 8, no. 10: e11025. Kirk, C. P., and L. S. Rifkin. 2022. “When Physical Closeness Induces Psychological Distance: The Effects of Psychological Ownership and Contagion Threat on Social Connectedness.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 21, no. 2: 339–351. Kirk, C. P., and S. D. Swain. 2018. “Consumer Psychological Ownership of Digital Technology.” In Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior, edited by J. Peck and S. B. Shu, 69–90. Springer. Kjell, O. N. E., D. Daukantaitė, K. Hefferon, and S. Sikström. 2016. “The Harmony in Life Scale Complements the Satisfaction With Life Scale: Expanding the Conceptualization of the Cognitive Component of Subjective Well-Being.” Social Indicators Research 126, no. 2: 893–919. Koay, K. Y., P. C. H. Soh, F. Tjiptono, T. Ramayah, and H. S. Lom. 2024. “Understanding Consumers' Digital Piracy Behaviour: Explanation and Prediction.” First Monday 29, no. 7. Koles, B., and P. Nagy. 2021. “Digital Object Attachment.” Current Opinion in Psychology 39: 60–65. Kos Koklic, M., M. Kukar-K inney, and I. Vida. 2016. “Three-L evel Mechanism of Consumer Digital Piracy: Development and Cross- Cultural Validation.” Journal of Business Ethics 134, no. 1: 15–27. Kos Koklic, M., M. Kukar-K inney, and I. Vida. 2022. “Consumers’ De- Ownership as a Predictor of Dark-Side Digital Acquisition Behavior: Moderating Role of Moral Intensity and Collectivism.” Journal of Business Research 138, no. January: 108–116. Kukar-K inney, M., I. Vida, and M. K. Koklic. 2018. “An Examination of Digital Piracy Behaviour Through the Lens of Cultural and Non- Cultural Variables.” In Digital Piracy, 108–131. Routledge. Kwon, S. 2020. “Understanding User Participation From the Perspective of Psychological Ownership: The Moderating Role of Social Distance.” Computers in Human Behavior 105: 106207. Lee, J., and A. Suh. 2015. “How Do Virtual Community Members Develop Psychological Ownership and What Are the Effects of Psychological Ownership in Virtual Communities?” Computers in Human Behavior 45: 382–391. Li, D., and L. Atkinson. 2020. “The Role of Psychological Ownership in Consumer Happiness.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 37, no. 6: 629–638. Lindell, M. K., and D. J. Whitney. 2001. “Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross- Sectional Research Designs.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 1: 114–121. Liu, Q., M. Shono, and T. Kitamura. 2009. “Psychological Well-Being, Depression, and Anxiety in Japanese University Students.” Depression and Anxiety 26, no. 8: E99–E105. Liu, Y., and Y. Liu. 2025. “Hoarding Knowledge or Hoarding Stress? Investigating the Link Between Digital Hoarding and Cognitive Failures Among Chinese College Students.” Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1518860. Lovibond, P. H., and S. H. Lovibond. 1995. “The Structure of Negative Emotional States: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) With the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 33, no. 3: 335–343. Lu, L. C., H. H. Chang, and A. Chang. 2015. “Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention: The Mediate Role of Consumer Ethical Beliefs.” Journal of Business Ethics 127, no. 1: 205–219. Luxon, A. M., C. E. Hamilton, S. Bates, and G. S. Chasson. 2019. “Pinning Our Possessions: Associations Between Digital Hoarding and Miocevic, D., and I. Kursan Milakovic. 2023. “How Ethical and Political Identifications Drive Adaptive Behavior in the Digital Piracy Context.” Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility 32, no. 1: 256–273. Mogilner, C., J. Aaker, and S. D. Kamvar. 2012. “How Happiness Affects Choice.” Journal of Consumer Research 39, no. 2: 429–443. Moore, R., and E. C. McMullan. 2009. “Neutralizations and Rationalizations of Digital Piracy: A Qualitative Analysis of University Students.” International Journal of Cyber Criminology 3, no. 1: 441. Morewedge, C. K., A. Monga, R. W. Palmatier, S. B. Shu, and D. A. Small. 2021. “Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework.” Journal of Marketing 85, no. 1: 196–218. Mrad, M., and C. C. Cui. 2020. “Comorbidity of Compulsive Buying and Brand Addiction: An Examination of Two Types of Addictive Consumption.” Journal of Business Research 113: 399–408. Mubarik, M. S., and N. Naghavi. 2021. “Digital Technologies and Consumption: How to Shape the Unknown?” In The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in the Digital Era, edited by S. H. Park, M. A. Gonzalez-Perez, and D. E. Floriani. Palgrave Macmillan. MUSO. 2024. “What is Digital Piracy.” Nam, H., and P. K. Kannan. 2020. “Digital Environment in Global Markets: Cross-Cultural Implications for Evolving Customer Journeys.” Journal of International Marketing 28, no. 1: 28–47. Neave, N., P. Briggs, K. McKellar, and E. Sillence. 2019. “Digital Hoarding Behaviours: Measurement and Evaluation.” Computers in Human Behavior 96: 72–77. Nguyen, D. L., T. N. T. Nguyen, and T. M. Nguyen. 2024. “Flow, Job Performance and Psychological Wellbeing: The Role of Psychological Ownership and Trust in the ICT Work Place.” Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. Orben, A., and A. K. Przybylski. 2019. “The Association Between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use.” Nature Human Behaviour 3, no. 2: 173–182. Öz, H. 2025. “The Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Uncertainty Avoidance Levels of School Administrators.” Frontiers in Psychology 16: 1554768. Pai, C. L., and B. T. Chie. 2017. “Illegal Downloading of Pop Music Among University Students in Taiwan: An Agent- Based Model Simulation.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 16, no. 3: 197–211. Panova, T., and A. Lleras. 2016. “Avoidance or Boredom: Negative Mental Health Outcomes Associated With Use of Information and Communication Technologies Depend on Users' Motivations.” Computers in Human Behavior 58: 249–258. Park, J., and H. Y. Kim. 2025. “Psychological Ownership of Avatars in the Metaverse: Its Key Antecedents and Outcomes.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 0: 1–15. Peck, J., and A. W. Luangrath. 2023. “A Review and Future Avenues for Psychological Ownership in Consumer Research.” Consumer Psychology Review 6, no. 1: 52–74. Peck, J., and S. B. Shu, eds. 2018. Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior. Springer. Pellegrino, A. 2024. Decoding Digital Consumer Behavior. Springer Books. 19 of 21 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Kim, M. S., and S. Kim. 2025. “Why Do Individuals Use Online Video Piracy Websites?” Computers in Human Behavior 166: 108575. Pick, M. 2021. “Psychological Ownership in Social Media Influencer Marketing.” European Business Review 33, no. 1: 9–30. Pierce, J. L., T. Kostova, and K. T. Dirks. 2003. “The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research.” Review of General Psychology 7, no. 1: 84–107. Pino, G., M. Nieto-García, and C. X. Zhang. 2022. “My Place is Your Place”- Understanding How Psychological Ownership Influences Peer-to-Peer Service Experiences.” Psychology & Marketing 39, no. 2: 390–401. Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 5: 879–903. Poort, J., J. P. Quintais, M. A. van der Ende, A. Yagafarova, and M. Hageraats. 2018. “Global Online Piracy Study.” Amsterdam Law School Research Paper: 2018–21. Pouri, M. J., and L. M. Hilty. 2021. “The Digital Sharing Economy: A Confluence of Technical and Social Sharing.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 38: 127–139. Reardon, J., C. Miller, B. Foubert, I. Vida, and L. Rybina. 2006. “Antismoking Messages for the International Teenage Segment: The Effectiveness of Message Valence and Intensity Across Different Cultures.” Journal of International Marketing 14, no. 3: 115–138. Salo, M., H. Pirkkalainen, C. E. H. Chua, and T. Koskelainen. 2022. “Formation and Mitigation of Technostress in the Personal Use of IT.” MIS Quarterly 46, no. 2: 1073–1108. Sedera, D., and S. Lokuge. 2018. “Is Digital Hoarding a Mental Disorder? Development of a Construct for Digital Hoarding for Future IS Research.” In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2018). University of Southern Queensland. Sedera, D., S. Lokuge, and V. Grover. 2022. “Modern-Day Hoarding: A Model for Understanding and Measuring Digital Hoarding.” Information & Management 59, no. 8: 103700. Shahzad, M. F., X. Ling, and J. Yuan. 2023. “Does Psychological Ownership Influence Consumer Happiness in Playful Consumption Experience? Moderating Role of Consumer Personality and Game Performance.” Heliyon 9, no. 9: e20236. Shiu, E., G. Walsh, L. M. Hassan, and S. Parry. 2015. “The Direct and Moderating Influences of Individual- L evel Cultural Values Within Web Engagement: A Multi-Country Analysis of a Public Information Website.” Journal of Business Research 68, no. 3: 534–541. Skapinakis, P. 2024. “Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.” In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 6776–6779. Springer International Publishing. Spector, P. E., C. L. Cooper, and K. Sparks. 2001. “An International Study of the Psychometric Properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of Individual and Country/Province Level Results.” Applied psychology 50, no. 2: 269–281. Steenkamp, J.- B. E. M., and H. Baumgartner. 1998. “Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross- National Consumer Research.” Journal of Consumer Research 25, no. 1: 78–90. Thaichon, P., J. H. Cheah, and H. Ting. 2022. “The Dark and Bright Side of Online Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 21, no. 3: 445–449. Thorpe, S., A. Bolster, and N. Neave. 2019. “Exploring Aspects of the Cognitive Behavioural Model of Physical Hoarding in Relation to Digital Hoarding Behaviours.” DIGITAL HEALTH 5: 2055207619882172. Tomczyk, Ł. 2021. “Evaluation of Digital Piracy by Youths.” Future Internet 13, no. 1: 11. Turel, O., C. Matt, M. Trenz, et al. 2019. “Panel Report: The Dark Side of the Digitization of the Individual.” Internet Research 29, no. 2: 274–288. Turel, O., H. Qahri- Saremi, and I. Vaghefi. 2021. “Dark Sides of Digitalization.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce 25, no. 2: 127–135. van Bennekom, M. J., R. M. Blom, N. Vulink, and D. Denys. 2015. “A Case of Digital Hoarding.” Case Reports 2015: bcr2015210814. van Boven, L., and T. Gilovich. 2003. “To Do or to Have? That Is the Question.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, no. 6: 1193–1202. van Griethuijsen, R. A. L. F., M. W. van Eijck, H. Haste, et al. 2015. “Global Patterns in Students' Views of Science and Interest in Science.” Research in Science Education 45, no. 4: 581–603. Vida, I., M. K. Koklic, M. Kukar-K inney, and E. Penz. 2012. “Predicting Consumer Digital Piracy Behavior: The Role of Rationalization and Perceived Consequences.” Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 6, no. 4: 298–313. Vinoi, N., A. Shankar, A. Mehrotra, J. Kumar, and N. Azad. 2024. “Enablers and Inhibitors of Digital Hoarding Behaviour. An Application of Dual-Factor Theory and Regret Theory.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 77: 103645. Wang, J., and X. Jia. 2023. “Click It, and Increase Hedonic Consumption Ratio: How Does Online Shopping Improve the Long-Term Subjective Well- Being of Consumers?” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 22, no. 2: 235–252. Wąsowicz, G., S. Mizak, J. Krawiec, and W. Białaszek. 2021. “Mental Health, Well-Being, and Psychological Flexibility in the Stressful Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 647975. Watson, S. J., D. J. Zizzo, and P. Fleming. 2017. “Risk, Benefit, and Moderators of the Affect Heuristic in a Widespread Unlawful Activity: Evidence From a Survey of Unlawful File- Sharing Behavior.” Risk Analysis 37, no. 6: 1146–1156. Xie, Q., and C. Lou. 2024. “I Feel Like Owning It! Exploring the Antecedents of Psychological Ownership and Its Impact on Brand Loyalty in Digital Content Marketing.” Journal of Interactive Advertising 24, no. 1: 48–65. Yang, H. 2024. “The Genesis Effect: Digital Goods in the Metaverse.” Journal of Consumer Research 51, no. 1: 129–139. Ye, J., S. C. Lam, and H. He. 2021. “The Prevalence of Compulsive Buying and Hoarding Behaviours in Emerging, Early, and Middle Adulthood: Multicentre Epidemiological Analysis of Non- Clinical Chinese Samples.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 568041. Yoo, B., N. Donthu, and T. Lenartowicz. 2011. “Measuring Hofstede's Five Dimensions of Cultural Values at the Individual Level: Development and Validation of CVSCALE.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 23: 193–210. Yoon, C. 2011. “Theory of Planned Behavior and Ethics Theory in Digital Piracy: An Integrated Model.” Journal of Business Ethics 100: 405–441. Stough, R., and C. Graham. 2024. “Physical or Digital Media: The Mediating Role of Psychological Ownership.” Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 18, no. 3: 370–390. Zhang, X., and X. Chen. 2025. “What Drives Digital Hoarding? Understanding the Impact of Perceived Value and the Mediating Role of Security on Digital Hoarding Behavior.” Current Psychology 44: 1–1346. Sweeten, G., E. Sillence, and N. Neave. 2018. “Digital Hoarding Behaviours: Underlying Motivations and Potential Negative Consequences.” Computers in Human Behavior 85: 54–60. Zhao, Q., C. D. Chen, and J. L. Wang. 2016. “The Effects of Psychological Ownership and TAM on Social Media Loyalty: An Integrated Model.” Telematics and Informatics 33, no. 4: 959–972. 20 of 21 Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2025 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Pena-Marin, J., and R. Bhargave. 2016. “Lasting Performance: Round Numbers Activate Associations of Stability and Increase Perceived Length of Product Benefits.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, no. 3: 410–416. Low Psychological Ownership Scenario Please imagine yourself in the following scenario. You visit a well-established online bookstore and download a sample of an e-book that you have been wanting to read for a long time. The sample is a random selection from the book, presented as plain text without specific formatting or cover. Nothing on the file indicates that it is yours, and you cannot edit in a meaningful way. The file is named Ebook_Sample_01.pdf. You know that many others have also downloaded this exact file, so it is a shared and impersonal resource. High Psychological Ownership Scenario Please imagine yourself in the following scenario. You visit a well-established online bookstore and download a sample of an e-book that you have been wanting to read for a long time. The sample is personalized just for you: Your name is in the file's name, and the file includes a note: “This reading sample has been created exclusively for you based on the selection of your prior book downloads.” As you read through the sample, you customize the cover page, highlight text, add notes, and save the file to your personal library. The bookstore interface displays your name and reading preferences, indicating that this sample has been personalized for you and by you. 21 of 21 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.70011 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [28/08/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Appendix A: Experimental Stimuli

Dark Sides of Digital Asset Consumption: Psychological Ownership & Well-Being

Related documents

Products

Support

Dark Sides of Digital Asset Consumption: Psychological Ownership & Well-Being

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib