1
From Categorization to Judgment: Seeing Your Traits in what you own (and their
Opposite in what you don’t)
LIAD WEISS, GITA JOHAR
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
2
Liad Weiss
Doctoral candidate of marketing
Columbia Business School
Columbia University
3022 Broadway
New York, NY 10027-6902
lw2296@columbia.edu
Gita V. Johar
Meyer Feldberg Professor of Business
Columbia Business School
Columbia University
3022 Broadway
New York, NY 10027-6902
gvj1@columbia.edu
3
Ample consumer research concludes that consumers judge a product more favorably
once they own it. The present research demonstrates that ownership can also lead to lower
product evaluations. Four experiments support a cognitive framework, Egocentric
Categorization, that accounts for both increases and decreases in product judgment following
ownership. The framework postulates that under some conditions, consumers classify
possessions as belonging to the category “self.” Therefore, they intuitively include self-related
information in the way they mentally represent possessions, and evaluate owned products by
assimilating judgments of the product to their judgments of the self on specific traits. Nonowned products on the other hand are classified as external to the category “self.”
Consequently, their mental representation excludes self-related information and their judgments
are contrasted away from the very same self-judgments. This framework predicts, for example,
that less innovative consumers may judge a product as less innovative when they feel ownership
over it, but as more innovative when they do not. Theoretical as well as substantive implications
of this view are discussed.
4
When Google introduced its smartphone Nexus-One, a designated website encouraged
prospective customers to visualize holding the gadget. Website visitors could adjust the size of a
virtual hand on the screen to the size of their own hand and experience how the phone would
look and feel. Google may have encouraged visualization in order to induce potential customers
to feel ownership over the phone (Peck and Shu 2009), a feeling that has been found to increase
product evaluations. For example, ample research shows that after consumers own a product
they judge it as more attractive (Huang, Wang, and Shi 2009; Kirmani, Sood, and Bridges 1999;
Swaminathan, Page, and Gurhan-Canli 2007) and more valuable (Kahneman, Knetsch, and
Thaler 1990, 1991). These findings have often been explained using motivational accounts such
as mere ownership (Beggan 1992), motivated reasoning (Kunda 1990), and brand attachment
(Park, MacInnis, and Priester 2008). In this view, owned objects are evaluated positively
because people are motivated to enhance the self.
In the present paper, we demonstrate that under certain conditions, ownership can
actually lead to lower product evaluations. Further, we put forth a cognitive framework of
egocentric categorization, that accounts for both increases and decreases in judgment following
product ownership. The framework postulates that under certain conditions, consumers classify
objects they own as belonging to the category “self,” but classify objects that they do not own as
external to the category “self.” As a result, they are likely to include information about the self
in the way they mentally represent owned objects, but exclude such information from the way
they represent non-owned objects. Therefore, based on the inclusion/exclusion model of
assimilation and contrast (Bless and Schwarz 2010), they are likely to judge products in a selfcentered manner. In particular, they may assimilate owned products to the way they evaluate
their own traits at the time of product judgment, but contrast non-owned products against these
very same self-evaluations. According to this framework, a consumer who temporarily feels less
5
innovative (e.g., due to negative feedback on an “innovation test”) would judge a product as less
innovative when he or she feels product ownership, but as more innovative when he or she does
not. Thus, inducing prospective customers to feel product ownership may backfire, hurting
product attractiveness and appeal among individuals with low self-evaluations.
Notably, our theoretical framework does not directly predict a positive or negative
‘ownership effect’ on product evaluation, as is typical in motivational accounts of product
evaluation. Instead, it posits that ownership moderates the relationship between a consumer’s
self-evaluation and product judgment, such that self-evaluation has a direct relationship with
product judgment when people own the product, but an inverse relationship when they do not.
Further, a set of boundary conditions helps to highlight that egocentric categorization underlies
the role of ownership in judgment. Specifically, ownership is expected to moderate judgment
only among individuals who egocentrically categorize objects based on whether they own them,
and those attuned to self-related information.
In what follows, we first review the literature on the positive effect of ownership on
product evaluation, and then develop our framework. Next, we demonstrate that consumers
judge products in assimilation or contrast to the way they evaluate themselves (experiment 1).
Experiments 2, 3, and 4, examine the underlying mechanism by manipulating and measuring
factors that govern whether people use the self as a category for objects. Finally, we discuss
implications of our framework for consumer and social-categorization researchers as well as
marketing managers.
6
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Objects can become close, attached or associated to their owners’ selves. This assertion
is found in early philosophical treatments of the concept “self" (James 1890; Sartre 1943) and
psychological research on personality (McClelland 1951), as well as in more recent research in
socialization (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981) and consumer behavior (Belk
1988). Empirical research has examined this assertion in different ways.
Ownership and Self-Enhancement
Ample literature has demonstrated that consumers evaluate a product more positively
after they own it (Huang et al. 2009; Kirmani et al. 1999). Consumer research has interpreted
such findings through a motivational lens. In particular, building on the associations of
possessions to the self, this research has suggested that consumers evaluate possessions more
positively in order to enhance the self (Beggan 1992; Nesselroade, Beggan, and Allison 1999).
From this perspective, people will always judge a product more favorably once they own it.
However, a motivation to think that ‘mine is better’ might be counteracted by a drive to
be accurate (Kunda 1990). The two motivational forces may countervail each other, which may
attenuate the overall effect of motivation on judgment. This may allow cognitive implications of
ownership, such as potential differences between mental-representations of owned and nonowned objects, to govern product evaluation. Research on these cognitive implications has been
surprisingly scant. To begin filling this gap, the current research investigates cognitive
(categorization-based) implications of ownership and their consequences for product judgment.
7
Ownership and Egocentric Categorization
Egocentric categorization. Our starting assumption is that a person may construe the self
as a category that includes owned objects and excludes non-owned ones. This is because people
tend to categorize closely associated entities together (Medin and Schaffer 1978; Wertheimer
1938) around an underlying concept or core (Medin, Wattenmaker, and Hampson 1987). We
suggest that consumers may categorize objects they own as part of themselves, using the self as
an organizing concept for this category. While previous research has hinted at this possibility
(e.g., research on the extended self; Belk 1988), the implications of this view have not been
fully explored. We develop this notion and describe the important implications for product
evaluations below.
Assimilation to self-evaluation. If consumers categorize possessions as part of the self,
their judgments of these possessions are likely to assimilate to their judgments of themselves.
This is because judgments of a target are assimilated to judgments of its category when the
target is included in the mental representation of the category (Bless and Schwarz 2010;
Schwarz and Bless 1992). In particular, when consumers judge a possession on authenticity,
creativity or other human-like traits, this may bring to their mind thoughts about how they
evaluate themselves on that trait at the time of judgment. This evaluative information is likely to
concern their actual (vs. ideal or ought) self-evaluation because it is closer in nature, and thus
more applicable, to the task that is expected to trigger it, namely evaluating how the product
actually is (Bruner 1957; Higgins 1996). Because they categorize possessions as part of the self,
they may intuitively include such self-evaluations in the way they mentally represent the object
they evaluate. Based on the inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast (Bless and
8
Schwarz 2010), this may cause consumers to evaluate the possession by assimilating it to the
way they judge their own traits and abilities.
When consumers evaluate themselves positively on a trait on which they judge a
product, our prediction and that made by motivational research align. In particular, both
accounts predict that consumers judge a product more favorably when they own it. However,
when the consumer’s self-evaluation on the evaluated product characteristic is low, our
egocentric categorization model departs from the motivational framework.
In particular, egocentric categorization predicts that consumers judge a product less
favorably when they own it because they assimilate the product’s traits to their own (negatively
evaluated) traits. A motivational account predicts that a negative self-evaluation on a desirable
trait would actually increase product evaluations, because positive evaluation of a possession
could help to restore self-view (as implied by Gao, Wheeler, and Shiv 2009; Wicklund and
Gollwitzer 1982). Although empirical evidence in support of such a prediction is very limited
(see Beggan 1992; study 3), it suggests that a high drive to repair self-view may lead consumers
to evaluate possessions more positively. While we do not disagree with this perspective, we
focus on cases where the drive to repair self-view is relatively low. This is the case, for
example, when people feel low on a single trait (vs. on overall self-esteem, Beggan 1992; study
3). We expect that, in such cases, cognitive mechanisms such as egocentric categorization will
govern product evaluation.
Contrast against self-evaluation. How does the assertion that individuals categorize
products with respect to their selves affect the evaluation of non-owned products? Our theory
predicts that when people do not feel ownership over a product, they may judge it in contrast to
the way they evaluate themselves. As stated previously, when consumers judge a product on
9
human-like traits, this may bring to mind thoughts about their self-evaluation on this trait at the
time of judgment. Because non-owned objects are categorized as external to the self, consumers
will exclude active information about the self from the way they mentally represent the object.
Consequently, based on the inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast (Bless and
Schwarz 2010; Schwarz and Bless 1992), self-evaluation may serve as a standard of
comparison, leading consumers to judge the object in contrast to their self-evaluation.
Notably, the egocentric categorization account developed above does not predict
(positive or negative) ‘ownership effects’ on product evaluation. Instead, ownership moderates
whether consumers’ self-evaluation affects product judgment via assimilation or via contrast.
Moderators of Egocentric Categorization
“Me-Mine” sensitivity. According to our theory, consumers categorize a product vis-àvis the self based on whether they feel ownership over the product. However, not all individuals
are likely to self-categorize objects based on whether they own them. For instance, one
consumer may feel that all objects, both owned and non-owned, are part of himself or herself.
Another consumer may feel that no object, owned or non-owned, is part of himself or herself.
Both consumers are insensitive to the role of ownership in classifying objects relative to the
self, namely, are low in “Me-Mine” sensitivity, because ownership does not determine how they
self-categorize objects. Previous consumer research has examined individual differences in the
tendency to incorporate or attach objects and brands to the self (e.g., Ball and Tasaki 1992;
Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009), but has not studied consumers’ sensitivity to the role of
ownership in the process. According to the egocentric categorization framework, when
ownership does not foster categorization, it cannot moderate the effect of self-evaluation on
10
product evaluation. Therefore, we hypothesize that product ownership will moderate the effect
of self-evaluation on product judgments only for people who are sensitive to the role of
ownership in categorizing objects relative to the self. We develop an individual difference
measure on “Me-Mine” sensitivity to examine this prediction.
Self awareness/consciousness. Our framework postulates that egocentric categorization
leads people to assimilate or contrast their product judgments to their self-evaluation.
Nonetheless, if self-evaluation information is not readily available in consumers’ minds,
categorization with respect to the self has no predictable effect on product judgments. People
who are low on self-awareness (the state) or private self-consciousness (the trait) are less
attuned to information about their self, such as their self-evaluation (Duval and Wicklund 1972;
Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss 1975; Hull et al. 1988). As a result, they think about self-related
information less than their self-aware counterparts do, which renders self-related information
less accessible (Higgins 1996; Neely 1977). Therefore, for consumers who are less (vs. more)
self-aware, evaluating a product on a trait is less likely to activate self-evaluative information on
that trait. Consequently, we hypothesize that product judgments by self-aware or self-conscious
individuals are more likely to display egocentric categorization effects.
We test the predictions derived above in the experiments described next.
11
EXPERIMENT 1: SENSE-OF-OWNERSHIP, SELF-EVALUATION AND PRODUCT
JUDGMENT
Overview
In this experiment, we manipulate participants to feel either more or less creative. We
subsequently induce them to feel either a higher or a lower sense-of-ownership over a product.
This results in a 2 (creativity self-evaluation: low, high) x 2 (Sense-of-ownership: low, high)
between-subjects design. Finally, participants rate the product on creativity. Consistent with the
interaction implied by the assimilation and contrast predictions developed above, we predict
that when consumers have a high (low) sense-of-ownership over a product, their creativity selfevaluation will directly (inversely) affect their product evaluations.
Product category. As a product category that varies on creativity, we chose pens. We
made this coupling based on previous market examples of a moderately creative pen, the ‘Space
Pen’ that can write in zero gravity. We described the pen along the lines of the ‘Space Pen’,
referring to it as the ‘Atmosphere Pen’ and positioning it as moderately creative (See appendix
A) to mitigate potential floor or ceiling effects. For instance, we informed participants that due
to the pen’s special nature, people can use it lying on their back, and that it was a nominee for
the 'Most Creative Industrial Design of the Year' award of 2008.
Self-evaluation on creativity: Manipulation development and pretest. Building on metacognitive ease-of-retrieval principles (Schwarz et al. 1991), we developed a manipulation of the
extent to which people feel creative (for details, see appendix B). The manipulation consists of
12
two levels of perceived creativity, high and low. In both conditions, participants are asked to (1)
provide two creative usages for a brick, each from a different usage category, (2) indicate the
category of each usage (e.g., construction, art), and (3) avoid naming usages from six specific
prohibited categories. However, in the easy (difficult) condition, the prohibited categories
excluded roughly 15% (80%) of the usages that participants of the examined population tend to
come up with (based on a pretest of a different set of 110 participants). Compared to
participants in the easy-to-retrieve condition, we expected those in the difficult-to-retrieve
condition to find the task to be relatively hard, which would make them feel less creative. A
pretest of the manipulation among 41 students revealed that its effect on perceived level of
creativity was significant. In particular, participants in the high task difficulty condition
reported greater task difficulty (M = 6.03) and lower creativity self-evaluation (M = 5.15) then
those in the lower task difficulty condition (M = 4.97, F(1, 39) = 4.49, p < .05; M = 6.52, F(1,
39) = 4.90, p < .05, respectively).
Procedure
One hundred and fifteen respondents were approached on campus and participated in the
short study for no compensation. Participants were randomly assigned to the high or low
perceived creativity condition (manipulated using the procedure described above). Next, all
participants were provided with information about a pen and asked to evaluate it. The
information portrayed the pen as moderately creative. Then, employing a previously established
sense-of-ownership manipulation (Peck and Shu 2009), participants in the [high / low] sense-ofownership condition were asked to “Take a minute and imagine [taking the pen home with you /
your favorite pen, the pen that you like the most]. Where [would / do] you keep it? What [would
13
/ do] you do with it? How [would / does] it feel to use it to put your most intimate thoughts in
writing?” Finally, as a dependent variable, participants rated the extent that they thought the pen
was creative on a semantic differential scale, anchored at -3: not creative and 3: creative.
Results and Discussion
The pen’s creativity ratings were adjusted to a 1-7 scale and were submitted to a 2
(creativity self-evaluation: low, high) x 2 (sense-of-ownership: low, high) ANOVA. We report
the means in figure 1. The analysis revealed the expected interaction between sense of
ownership and induced creativity (F(1, 111) = 6.62, p = .01). No other effects were significant.
Planned comparisons provide support for the assimilation hypothesis, and reveal that among
high sense-of-ownership participants, those in the high perceived creativity condition rated the
pen as more creative (M = 5.48) than those in the low perceived creativity condition (M = 4.79,
F(1, 111) = 3.29, p = .07). In line with the contrast hypothesis (hypothesis 1.2), among low
sense-of-ownership participants, those in the high perceived creativity condition rated the pen as
less creative (M = 4.59) than those in the low perceived creativity condition (M = 5.36, F(1,
111) = 3.33, p = .07). Additionally, analyses reveal a positive ‘ownership effect’ in the high
perceived creativity condition (Difference high-low ownership = .89, F(1, 111) = 4.43, p < .05). A
directional (but non-significant) negative ownership effect was revealed in the low creativity
condition (Difference high-low ownership = - .57, F(1, 111) = 2.35, p = .13).
---------------------------------------------Insert figure 1 about here
----------------------------------------------
14
The results of the current experiment support the predicted interaction indicated by the
egocentric categorization account. They show that self-evaluation of participants with high
(low) sense-of product ownership directly (inversely) affects their evaluation of the focal
product. The experiment yielded the predicted results in minimalist settings (i.e., low
involvement, short duration) that commonly characterize marketplace arenas, which implies that
the framework can prove useful to marketers. However, the setting did not allow us to verify
that categorizing possessions in terms of the self underlies the results. The next experiment
addresses this limitation.
EXPERIMENT 2: THE ROLE OF “ME-MINE” SENSETIVITY
Overview
The current experiment aims at testing our assertion that categorizing possessions in
terms of the self is the mechanism that underlies the results. In this experiment, participants rate
themselves on creativity and, after completing a filler task, half of them are induced to feel
ownership over the ‘Atmosphere Pen’ (that was used in experiment 1). Subsequently they rate
the pen on its creativity. Finally, we measured their sensitivity to the role of ownership in
categorizing possessions in terms of the self. This yielded an experiment with ownership (no vs.
yes) as a manipulated factor, and creativity self-evaluation as well as “Me-Mine” sensitivity as
measured ones.
Based on our egocentric categorization model, we predict that when consumers own (do
not own) a product, their creativity self-ratings will be directly (inversely) related to their
product evaluations. However, this interaction (i.e., between ownership and self-evaluation) is
15
only expected for participants who are ownership-sensitive. We develop a scale for “Me-Mine”
sensitivity that measures the difference between the extent to which people categorize a product
they own (i.e., the shirt they are wearing) and one they do not own (i.e., their seat in the lab) as
part of their self. A smaller difference between self-categorization ratings of owned and nonowned objects indicates lower “Me-Mine” sensitivity. We verified in a separate pretest that the
scale is not related to an overall feeling of product ownership. Participants rated the extent to
which they felt ownership over a product that half of them was supposed to keep and evaluated
the product on items such as “I feel a very high degree of personal ownership over the product I
am evaluating” (adapted from Peck & Shu 2009). In addition, participants responded to the
“Me-Mine” sensitivity scale as well as a scale measuring the extent to which they viewed the
product as part of the self. Analyses revealed that their “Me-Mine” score did not interact with
whether they were supposed to keep the product on their ownership evaluation. In other words,
only the ownership manipulation affected their feeling of ownership. However, as expected, the
“Me-Mine” sensitivity scale interacted with the ownership manipulation to affect the extent to
which they viewed the product as part of the self. That is, those with a higher “Me-Mine”
difference score were indeed more likely to categorize products they were induced to “own” as
a part of their self.
To examine the predictions derived above, 109 students of a large East Coast University
participated in an experimental session that included several unrelated studies for a $7
participation fee. For their participation in the focal experiment, described as an ‘extra’
experiment, participants were promised an additional reward according to the experimental
condition (as described below).
16
Pretesting the Basic Tenets of Egocentric Categorization
Categorization involves “treating two or more distinct entities as in some way
equivalent…” (Medin 1989, p. 1469). Therefore, inducing individuals to feel product ownership
should have predictable implications on how they categorize the product relative to themselves.
In particular, the consumer should categorize it as part of himself or herself (1) more than others
would, (2) closer to the way he or she classifies an already owned product, and (3) further away
from how he or she classifies a non-owned product.
-----------------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 around here
--------------------------------------------------To examine these predictions, 53 students of a large East Coast University came to the
behavioral lab and were asked to evaluate a particular pen to help the Business School to choose
a gift for invited visitors. As compensation for their effort, they were either promised that they
could keep the pen they evaluated (ownership condition) or that they would receive a luxurious
mechanical pencil (no-ownership condition). After evaluating the pen, participants rated it, as
well as the shirt they were wearing (an already owned object) and their lab seat (a non-owned
object) on the extent that they categorize each as part of their selves. Following Prelinger
(1959), items were anchored between 1- ‘not part of my self’ to 7- ‘part of my self’. The
instruction stated that “if you think of all the objects in the world, you may notice that they can
be categorized into two groups: The objects of which you think of as being part of your self and
the rest of the objects, which are external to your self. For different people, each group is
comprised of different objects. Indicate to what extent the items below are part of your own
self.”
17
We submitted the ratings of the three objects to a mixed ANOVA with ownership as a
between-subjects factor and the different objects as a repeated factor (we report means in Figure
2). In line with our starting assumption, participants in the pen ownership condition categorized
it as part of themselves (M = 3.58) more than those in the no-ownership condition (M = 2.00,
F(1, 51) = 14.95, p < .001). In addition, we uncovered the predicted interaction between
whether the rated object was the pen or the lab seat and pen ownership (F(1, 107) = 15.12, p <
.001). In particular, self-categorization of the pen (M = 2.00) was not higher than the one of the
chair (M = 1.96) in the no-ownership condition (F < 1, NS), but was significantly higher in the
ownership condition (M = 3.57 vs. M = 2.38, F(1, 51) = 13.18, p < .001). We also found the
predicted interaction between whether the rated object was the pen or the shirt and pen
ownership (F(1, 51) = 7.02, p = .01). In particular, self-categorization of the pen (M = 2.00) was
much lower than that of the shirt (M = 4.63) in the no-ownership condition (Difference = 2.79,
F(1, 51) = 45.41, p < .0001), but this difference was significantly less in the high ownership
condition (M = 3.58 vs. M = 4.73, Difference = 1.15, F(1, 51) = 8.42, p < .01).
Main Experiment Procedure
Participants arrived at the lab for a series of unrelated experiments. They started with a
supposedly unrelated questionnaire that asked how descriptive the traits creativity,
innovativeness and originality were of them on a 5 point scale anchored by 1-not at all to 5very much so. This served as a measure of their self-evaluation on creativity. Subsequently,
participants completed a filler task that lasted approximately 15 minutes and then received
questionnaires that informed them of the cover story. They learned that the business school was
selecting a pen that it would hand out to invited visitors and that the school would like their
18
input in the process. We informed participants in the ownership (no ownership) condition that in
appreciation of their input, they would receive the evaluated pen (a luxurious mechanical pencil
not featured in the experiment). Next, participants received a pen and a booklet with
information about it. The booklet informed participants that they had received the ‘Atmosphere
Pen’ and described the pen as moderately creative. The description was accompanied by a
picture of the specific pen that the subject was assigned. Subjects were assigned one of three
different pens in order to increase the experimental realism and the generalizability of the
results across different products within the pen category. After reading the information,
participants completed a series of tasks using the pen, including copying a drawing and
answering open questions. We designed these tasks to allow participants to get a rich experience
with the pen as well as to support the cover story.
Subsequently, participants were asked to rate the pen on four semantic differential items
that pertained to the pen’s creativity (creative – not creative, original – not original, unique – not
unique, fresh – not fresh), anchored at -3 and 3. After evaluating the pen, participants rated it, as
well as the shirt they were wearing (an already owned object) and their lab seat (a non-owned
object) on the extent that they categorized each of them as part of their selves following the
procedure described in the pretest. We calculated “Me-Mine” sensitivity measures of
participants by creating a difference score (i.e., subtracting their chair rating from their shirt
rating). This measure was followed by a series two control questions about involvement (two
items: involved and interested anchored between 1-not at all and 7-very much so) and positive
affect (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988).
19
Results and Discussion
Confounding check. The three self-descriptive creativity items were averaged into a
single measure (α = .79). Then, to verify that “Me-Mine” sensitivity was not affected by the
other factors, it was submitted to an analysis with ownership and self-described creativity as
predictors in a general linear model (the latter factor was used in its continuous form; all factors
were mean-centered). The analysis revealed neither a main nor an interaction effect on “MeMine” sensitivity (all F’s ≤ 1.35, p ≥ .25). Subsequently, the two control variables, namely
involvement (α=.62) and positive affect (α=.85) were submitted to an analysis with ownership,
self-described creativity and “Me-Mine” sensitivity as predictors in a general linear model (the
two latter factors were used in their continuous form; all factors were mean centered). The
analysis revealed a positive relationship between self-described creativity and positive affect.
However, no interaction effect with any of the other factors was significant.
Because “Me-Mine” sensitivity is a difference score, we wanted to confirm that low
scores do not merely reflect a blind repetition of the same response, which would appear as low
“Me-Mine” sensitivity while actually reflecting low involvement. However, correlation analysis
of “Me-Mine” sensitivity with an explicit involvement measure (r = -.13, p > .16) and an
implicit involvement one, namely the number of words used to rate the pen in an open-ended
question (r = 0, p = 1), found no evidence for this potential confound.
Pen creativity ratings. The four semantic differential questions that pertain to pen
creativity were recoded to a 1-7 scale and summed to form a single measure of pen creativity
(α=.90). Pen creativity was submitted to an analysis with ownership, self-described creativity
and “Me-Mine” sensitivity as factors in a general linear model (the two latter factors were mean
20
centered and used in their continuous form). We report the means in figure 3 based on a median
split of the two continuous factors (the results are the same when a spotlight analysis is used).
Replicating the results of experiment 1, the analysis revealed a two-way interaction between
self-described creativity and ownership (F(1, 101) = 9.13, p < .005). As predicted, this two-way
interaction was qualified by “Me-Mine” sensitivity; a significant three-way interaction of
ownership, self-descriptive creativity and “Me-Mine” sensitivity emerged (F(1, 101) = 5.19, p <
.05)
---------------------------------------------Insert figure 3 about here
---------------------------------------------Among individuals with high “Me-Mine” sensitivity, the interaction between ownership
and self-evaluation was significant (F(1, 101) = 12.28, p < .001). Additional planned
comparisons indicate that, in line with the assimilation hypothesis, for the ownership condition,
pen owners who had higher creativity self-evaluation rated the pen as more creative (M = 5.69)
than those who had lower creativity self-evaluation (M = 4.4, F(1, 101) = 5.75, p < .05). In line
with the contrast hypothesis, for the non-ownership condition, non-owners with higher selfevaluation on creativity viewed the pen as less creative (M = 4.25) than those with lower
creativity self-evaluation (M = 5.36, F(1, 101) = 6.88, p < .01). In addition, analyses reveal a
positive ‘ownership effect’ among participants with high creativity self-evaluation (difference
high-low ownership
= 1.44, F(1, 101) = 7.20, p < .01) and a negative ‘ownership effect’ among
participants with lower creativity self-evaluation (difference high-low ownership = -.96, F(1, 101) =
5.10, p < .05). Among participants with low “Me-Mine” sensitivity the interaction between
ownership and self-evaluation was not significant (F < 1), nor were the other planned contrasts
(All F’s ≤ 1.5, NS).
21
To sum, experiment 2 shows that, when people are less sensitive to ownership in
determining what is ‘part of me’, they do not display the predicted interaction between selfevaluation and ownership on product evaluation. However, when they are sensitive to
ownership as determining the “self” category, their product evaluations are either assimilated or
contrasted to their self-evaluation, under ownership and no-ownership conditions, respectively.
Together, these findings help to pin down the underlying role of categorizing possessions in
terms of the self in producing the documented assimilation and contrast effects. One limitation
of the current study is that participants were informed whether or not they would keep the pen
they evaluated prior to receiving information about it. This could potentially affect their
information search due to differential involvement (Celsi and Olson 1988) or hypothesis testing
processes (Snyder and Swann 1978; Trope and Liberman 1996). Although these factors cannot
explain the pattern of results, the next experiment controls for them.
EXPERIMENT 3: THE ROLE OF SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS
Overview
This experiment aims to remove potential information acquisition differences between
owners and non-owners by informing participants of their ownership allocation only after they
experience and read about the pen. It also uses a more indirect measure of creativity, namely
product recommendation likelihood for creative and uncreative people, which enables us to
verify that individuals form product trait evaluations spontaneously (vs. upon a direct request to
form them). It also investigates the role of private self-consciousness, namely people’s
tendency to attend to their inner thoughts and feelings, in support of our theory. For these
22
purposes, we manipulated participants’ creativity self-evaluation as well as their perceived
ownership over the product. Subsequently, as a dependent variable, participants rated the
likelihood of recommending the product to creative and non-creative people. Finally, we
measured participants’ self-consciousness. This yielded a 2 (sense-of-ownership: no vs. yes) x 2
(creativity self-evaluation: low vs. high) design, with self-consciousness as a third measured
variable.
Consistent with the interaction implied by our model, we predicted that, when
consumers feel (do not feel) ownership over a product, their creativity self-evaluation will
directly (inversely) affect their product recommendation likelihood to creative (but not to noncreative) people. Additionally, we expected the interaction to affect participants who were more
self-conscious.
Procedure
One hundred twenty one students of a large East Coast university arrived at the lab to
participate in a series of supposedly unrelated studies in return for $7. Participants did all parts
of the experiment on a computer. When they allegedly had to move on to a new experiment,
they had to reenter their ID.
Manipulations. The first part of the experiment manipulated participants’ self-evaluation
of creativity, using the same manipulation that we used in experiment 1. Following the
creativity self-evaluation manipulation, participants received the same cover story as in
experiment 2 (i.e., helping the business school in choosing a pen to hand out as a gift for special
guests). Participants expected either to keep the pen they evaluated or to receive a mechanical
23
pencil, and were informed that the computer would later inform them about their allocation.
Subsequently, they chose which of the available three pens to evaluate. Next, as in experiment
2, all participants were asked to copy a geometric sketch to a sheet of paper using the pen they
were evaluating. Then, participants in the ‘high sense-of-ownership’ condition completed the
dependent measures without knowing whether they would keep the pen. Those in the ‘low
sense-of-ownership’ condition, on the other hand, were informed that they would receive a
mechanical pencil (i.e., not the evaluated pen) prior to completing the dependent measures.
DV and self-consciousness measurement. As a dependent variable, participants rated the
likelihood that they would recommend the pen to people from three creative professions
(journalist, sketch-artist and a copywriter). As a control, we incorporated recommendation
likelihood ratings for people from two less creative professions (a teacher and a clerk) among
these ratings. Following these ratings, participants completed the private self-consciousness
scale (Fenigstein et al. 1975), which includes items such as “I am generally attentive to my
inner feelings” and “I reflect about myself a lot,” were debriefed, and thanked.
Results
Pen Recommendation Likelihood. The pen recommendation likelihoods for the three
creative professions were summed into a single measure (α = .67). This measure was submitted
to an analysis with the two manipulated factors—ownership and creativity self-evaluation-- as
well as measured self-consciousness as predictors in the general linear model (the last factor
was mean-centered and used in its continuous form). We report the means in figure 4 (left
column) based on a median split of the self-consciousness variable (the results are the same
24
when a spotlight analysis is used). The analysis revealed no main effect, the predicted
significant two-way interaction between ownership level and creativity self-evaluation (F(1,
113) = 4.25, p < .05), and the predicted significant three way interaction between selfconsciousness (as a continuous variable), sense-of-ownership and creativity self-evaluation
(F(1, 113) = 6.27, p = .01).
---------------------------------------------Insert figure 4 about here
---------------------------------------------Among self-conscious participants, the interaction between ownership and selfevaluation was significant (F(1, 113) = 11.22, p < .01). Additional planned comparisons support
the assimilation hypothesis among participants in the high sense-of-ownership condition such
that those in the high induced creativity condition were more likely to recommend the pen to
creative individuals (M = 4.94) than those in the low induced creativity condition (M = 4.03,
F(1, 113) = 3.98, p < .05). However, consistent with the contrast effect prediction, among
participants in the no sense-of-ownership condition those in the high induced creativity
condition were less likely recommend the pen to creative individuals (M = 4.20) than those in
the low induced creativity condition (M = 5.38, F(1, 113) = 7.71, p < .01). Analyses also
revealed a (marginally significant) positive ‘ownership effect’ within the high creativity
condition (Difference high-low ownership = .74, F(1, 113) = 2.91, p = .09) and a negative ‘ownership
effect’ within the low creativity condition (Difference high-low ownership = -.1.35, F(1, 113) = 9.06, p
< .01).
Among less self-conscious individuals, the interaction between ownership and selfevaluation was not significant (F < 1), nor were the other simple contrasts (all F’s < 1). Finally,
we explored the pen recommendation patterns for individuals in less creative professions. They
25
were summed into a single measure (α = .72), which was submitted to a 2 (ownership) x 2
(creativity self-evaluation) general linear model with self consciousness as a third independent
variable. We report the means in figure 4 (right column), based on a median split of the selfconsciousness variable. The analysis did not reveal any main effect, two-way interaction, or
three-way interaction effect (all F’s < 1; using recommendations to creative vs. less creative
professions as a repeated measures factor confirms these results).
Discussion
The findings demonstrate that the predictions of the suggested framework can also
manifest through product recommendation-likelihood. Beyond the practical benefit of affecting
recommendation likelihood, the recommendation scale serves as a method to elicit product
creativity judgments in an indirect manner. The fact that the same pattern of results of
assimilation and contrast is replicated using an indirect, subtle measure of product evaluations
(i.e., one that does not ask participants to form product evaluations), implies that these
evaluations form spontaneously.
Moreover, the findings provide direct evidence for a critical assertion in our theory,
namely that one’s self-evaluation governs product judgment. This is because manipulating
respondents’ creativity self-evaluation affected recommendation likelihood patterns to creative
people, but not to non-creative ones, indicating that the specific feeling of creativity governed
the results. The finding that the creativity manipulation only affected judgments by selfconscious individuals provides further support to this assertion.
Furthermore, by inducing all participants to feel high ownership over a pen and allowing
them to learn about it while being in this state, we mitigated potential information acquisition
26
differences between high and low sense-of-ownership individuals. Finally, by replicating the
predicted pattern of results following product choice, we verified that our framework is not
limited to cases where products are randomly assigned. In the next study, we move on to
examine the robustness of self-consciousness as a moderator and the generalizability of our
findings to other traits and product categories.
EXPERIMENT 4: GENERALIZABILITY AND ROBUSTNESS
Overview
One hundred and eight students from a large East Coast university participated in an
experimental session in return for $7. In order to verify that the effects that have obtained thus
far are robust, we move away from the creativity trait and focus on sincerity, using headphones
as a new product category as further elaborated below. We manipulated participants’
perceptions of their own sincerity. Subsequently, we increased attention to self-related
information for half of the participants by subtly inducing them to feel greater self-awareness
(as opposed to measuring their self-consciousness). Finally, we manipulated half the
participants to feel ownership over a product. This resulted in a 2 (sincerity self-evaluation: low,
high) x 2 (self-awareness: low, high) x 2 (Ownership: no, yes) factorial design. As in
experiment 3, we predicted that, when consumers feel (do not feel) ownership over a product,
their sincerity self-evaluation will directly (inversely) affect their product evaluation, especially
when they are self-aware.
27
Product category. As a product category that can vary on sincerity, we chose
headphones. We reasoned that the headphones’ sound reproduction, or fidelity, is related to
sincerity through notions of authenticity and realness. In line with that idea, we created
moderate levels of sincerity in the product description by stating, for instance, that the
headphones reveal concealed aspects of the sound (see appendix C).
Procedure
Sincerity self-evaluation manipulation. Participants arrived at the lab to participate in a
series of supposedly unrelated experiments. Before taking their place by the computer, they sat
down by a desk and responded to a question that we presented as a pretest for a different
experiment. This question employed a meta-cognitive ease-of-retrieval manipulation (Schwarz
et al. 1991) to influence the extent that they feet that they were sincere. First, participants read a
paragraph about what it means to be sincere. In the passage, we purposely incorporated sound
related lingo (e.g., ‘letting your true voice be heard’) to set the ground for a later evaluation of
the headphones in terms of sincerity. In particular, all participants were informed that “Being
sincere is not just about not lying; it is also about letting your true voice be heard, about saying
things as you see them, as they are, without making them look nicer or sound better. And it is
about doing so even if that is not the popular or the easy thing to do; even if things would sound
smoother or better if you would make some adjustments to the hard evident truth.”
Following that, participants in the high (low) sincerity condition were asked “how easy
would it be to list two (ten) incidents in which you have acted sincerely?”, anchored between 1very difficult and 9-very easy. To increase involvement, as suggested by previous research
28
(Novemsky et al. 2007), the question was followed by a comment pertaining to the possibility
that participants would be requested to describe such incidents in a follow up questionnaire.
Participants who were asked about two (ten) such incidents would anticipate that it
would be easy (difficult) to do so, thus increasing (decreasing) their self evaluations on sincerity
(cf. Wanke, Bless, and Biller 1996). The manipulation was pretested, and the results were in the
predicted direction. In particular, among 40 participants who were randomly assigned to one of
the conditions, those who were asked about two incidents ended up rating themselves as more
sincere (M = 6.65) than those who were asked about ten such incidents (M = 5.3, p < .001).
Self-Awareness Manipulation. Based on previous research (Carver and Scheier 1978;
Pham et al. 2010), we manipulated self-awareness by the presence of a small mirror.
Participants in the high self-awareness condition completed the task while seated at a station
with a small mirror facing them, which was ostensibly for another experiment. To achieve that
appearance, we attached a small note to the mirror, saying, ‘For the 4pm experiment. Please do
not remove!’ Participants in the low-self-awareness condition completed the same tasks at
stations without a mirror. To avoid potential effects of the mirror on the sincerity manipulation,
all participants completed the initial sincerity manipulation at a different station prior to taking a
seat at their designated station.
Ownership Manipulation. As a cover story, we informed participants that the
university's Department of Music was evaluating gift-headphones that it wanted to hand out to
invited visitors and was looking for student input in this process. Next, to reduce further the
appropriateness of making inferences about the headphones based on their allocation to the
participant, we provided each participant three sets of actual headphones. Then, only after they
29
looked at them, the computer informed them which set it “chose” for them to evaluate, thus
emphasizing the random assignment of the headphone to be evaluated. As in experiment 3, all
participants were informed that they would receive a supplemental reward for their evaluation;
either the headphone set they were to evaluate or a different set, as would be determined by a
later draw. Next, participants received product information, which was pretested to portray the
headphones’ sound reproduction as moderately authentic. All participants then plugged in the
headphones they were assigned to evaluate to the computer and listened to 30 seconds of a
classical piece by Franz Schubert (German Dances (16) and Ecossaises (2) for piano, D. 783
(Op. 33)). Next, all participants were informed whether they are going to get the evaluated set of
headphones (the ownership condition) or a different set (the no-ownership condition) prior to
responding to the dependent variable.
DV and controls. Participants evaluated the headphones’ sound reproduction on its
authenticity (two semantic differential items: False-genuine and falsified-authentic, anchored
between -3 and 3). This was followed by a series of control questions, similar to those used in
experiment 2, and queries about the purpose of the initial sincerity questionnaire, the mirror and
the study in general.
Results and Discussion
Confounding and Awareness Check. The control variables, namely involvement and
positive affect were submitted to a 2 (sincerity self-evaluation) x 2 (self-awareness) x 2
(ownership) ANOVA. None of the effects were significant. Furthermore, none of the
participants was close to guessing the purpose of the study.
30
Headphones-Set Authenticity Ratings. The headphone authenticity ratings were summed
into a single measure (r = .78, p < .0001). It was then submitted to a 2 (sincerity self-evaluation)
x 2 (self-awareness) x 2 (ownership) ANOVA. We report the means in figure 5. The analysis
revealed an unexpected main effect of mirror (F(1, 100) = 3.94, p = .05), no two-way
interactions, and an expected three-way interaction between self-awareness, ownership and
sincerity self-evaluation (F(1, 100) = 6.51, p < .01).
-----------------------------------------------Insert figure 5 about here
--------------------------------------------------Among self-aware participants, the interaction between ownership and self-evaluation
was significant (F(1, 100) = 8.10, p < .01). Additional planned comparisons show the predicted
assimilation for the ownership condition. Specifically, owners in the high sincerity condition
evaluated the headphone’s sound reproduction as more authentic (M = 6.28) than those in the
low sincerity condition (M = 5.40, F(1, 100) = 4.24, p < .05). However, in line with the contrast
prediction for the no-ownership condition, non-owners in the high sincerity condition evaluated
the headphone’s sound reproduction as less authentic (M = 5.15) than those in the high sincerity
condition (M = 5.97, F(1, 100) = 3.86, p < .05). Further analysis reveals a positive ‘ownership
effect’ in the high sincerity condition (Difference high-low ownership = 1.21, F(1, 100) = 6.99, p <
.01) and a directional (not statistically significant) negative ‘ownership effect’ in the low
sincerity condition (Difference high-low ownership = -.57, F(1, 100) = 1.87, p = .17). Finally, among
participants in the low self-awareness condition, neither the interaction between ownership and
self-evaluation, nor the other planned contrasts were significant (all F’s < 1).
31
The results of experiment 4 further support our egocentric categorization account of
product evaluation. Specifically, when consumers felt (did not feel) ownership over a product,
their sincerity self-evaluation directly (inversely) affected their product evaluation, but only if
their self-awareness was high. The concepts of fidelity and sincerity are not related strongly
enough for the effect to emerge when self-awareness was not high (i.e., no mirror condition).
Replicating the results using a new product category and a new trait supports the
generalizability of the suggested framework. Moreover, replicating the facilitating effect of high
self-consciousness through a manipulation of self-awareness supports its robustness. Finally, the
fact that participants were unable to spell out that their self-view may have affected their
product judgment implies that they are not consciously aware of these observed effects.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The associations between self and possessions are well established in social sciences
(e.g., Belk 1988; James 1890). The consumer behavior literature has used a motivational lens to
study the implications of this idea for product evaluation. Consequently, a great deal of research
has asserted that consumers evaluate products more positively once they own them since they
are motivated to construct (Escalas and Bettman 2005), maintain (Gao et al. 2009) or enhance
(Beggan 1992) the self. This paper offers a cognitive framework, egocentric categorization, that
accounts for previous findings of an increase in product evaluation following ownership but
also predicts the opposite pattern in some cases. This framework also suggests that ownership
may not directly affect product evaluation, rather, it moderates whether the consumer’s selfevaluation on the evaluated characteristic affects product judgment via assimilation or contrast.
32
Key Results
Results across four experiments demonstrate a pattern of self-centered product
judgment, whereby the way consumers view themselves on a certain trait directly affects the
way they judge possessions, but inversely affects the way they judge objects they do not own.
These results were obtained by manipulating either actual (experiment 2 and 4) or psychological
(experiment 1 and 3) ownership. Moreover, the same pattern was shown to also apply for
recommendation likelihood to people that are considered high (but not to those that are
considered low) on the trait (experiment 3). Experiments 1, 3 and 4 manipulate self-evaluation
and experiment 2 measures it. Results were replicated across two sets of product categories and
self-evaluation characteristics, pens and creativity (experiments 1-3) as well as headphones and
sincerity (experiment 4). Consistent with the “categorizing possessions in self” mechanism, we
demonstrated that these effects were facilitated by consumers’ sensitivity to the role of
ownership in egocentric-categorization (i.e., their “Me-Mine” sensitivity, experiment 2) and by
their self-awareness, which we either measured (experiment 3) or manipulated (experiment 4).
Additionally, in support of the suggested framework we found that inducing a consumer to feel
ownership over a product affects the way the product is categorized with respect to the self. In
particular, it is categorized as part of the self (1) more than others, (2) closer to the way a
product that is already owned is categorized, and (3) further away from how a product that is
not owned is categorized (egocentric-categorization pretest).
Taken together, the aforementioned studies help rule out several alternative explanations
for the observed pattern of results. In particular, the observed effects could have been amplified,
or even alternatively explained, by consumer inference (see Kardes, Posavac, and Cronley 2004
for a review). According to an inference account, consumers may think that a product is low or
33
high on a trait because they chose it and they think of themselves as respectively low or high on
that trait. However, an inference account cannot hold in cases of random assignment of
ownership (Studies 1, 2 and 4), because in such cases, owning a product is not informative and
thus cannot support inference making. In addition, an inference driven result should not be
moderated by “Me-Mine” sensitivity (experiment 2). By contrast, the egocentric-categorization
account represents an intuitive process that occurs outside of conscious awareness, and therefore
does not require ownership to be informative in order to predict its moderating effect on product
evaluation.
Another rival account is product self-association (Gawronski, Bodenhausen, and Becker
2007). This account suggests that consumers feel that the product is like them because
ownership merely associates the product to their self, which transfers affective associations
from the self to the product. However, this rival account cannot explain contrast effects (studies
1-4). Moreover, it views ownership only as a manner to associate an object to the evaluator’s
self. However, this view is negated by the results of experiment 2 that demonstrate that
ownership has a categorizing ‘functionality’. It shows that, when ownership does not determine
how an object is classified relative to the self, the effect of self-evaluation on product judgment
diminishes.
Overall, the current findings are consistent with an “unaware process” by which
consumers intuitively categorize products with respect to their selves. Consequently, they
assimilate or contrast their product evaluation to their self-evaluation. Nonetheless, they are
more likely to do so when they are more self-aware and more sensitive to the role of ownership
in determining whether products are part of the self.
34
Contributions
The current work extends research in social-categorization, which asserts that the social
(relational or collective) self is an organizing concept for social categories. Such research finds
that people use the social-self to classify others with respect to the self and maintain a subjective
notion of ‘we’ (Aron et al. 1991; Brewer and Gardner 1996; Tajfel et al. 1971). However, from
that perspective, the individuated self is a ‘standalone’ concept that underlies no category
(Brewer 1991). The current research extends this view by asserting that the individuated-self is
an organizing concept for a category of objects. Accordingly, people may use the individuatedself to classify objects with respect to the self and to maintain a subjective notion of ‘me’.
Our account draws an analogy between in-group members and owned objects, as two
types of entities that people tend to categorize as part of the self. Accordingly, in line with our
assimilation findings, research in the domain of person perception finds that self-evaluation
directly affects evaluations of in-group members (Cadinu and Rothbart 1996; Gramzow and
Gaertner 2005; Otten and Wentura 2001). That is, people evaluate others in an egocentric
manner (Clement and Krueger 2002; Krueger 1998), viewing in-group individuals as similar to
them, namely projecting the way they see themselves on the way they see others (Ames 2004).
Moreover, in accordance with our contrast prediction, such research documents that people use
their self-evaluations as a standard for evaluating others (Gilovich, Medvec, and Savitsky 2000;
Mussweiler, Epstude, and Rüter 2005). For example, people use their own attitudes and abilities
as a standard for the evaluation of attitudes of out-group members (Hovland and Sherif 1952),
and the abilities of specific others (Dunning and Hayes 1996).
The notion that a person can view possessions as part of the self has been suggested
previously and is central to several accounts that highlight the role of objects in constructing
35
and maintaining the self (Ball and Tasaki 1992; Belk 1988; Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995).
However, the current research complements that research, by stressing the role of self in
mentally representing objects, and its implications for their evaluation. Further, previous
research has shown that when people are asked to classify personality-traits by self-relevance,
they remember them better (Hull et al. 1988; Rogers, Kuiper, and Kirker 1977). The current
research supplements that view by showing that people also classifying inanimate objects
relative to the self, and that they do so spontaneously, based on ownership over them.
Finally, the finding that people assimilate the way they see possessions to the way they
judge their own traits and abilities may shed new light on previous research on the selfcongruency hypothesis (e.g., Birdwell 1968; Hughes and Guerrero 1971; Sirgy 1985). In
particular, it implies that such research, which suggests that consumers choose to own a good
because they view it as similar to them, may be a result of reverse causality. In particular,
people may see an object as similar once they own it rather than choose to own it because it is
self-similar. This confound is particularly likely because studies on the self-congruency
hypothesis did not manipulate, but measured (e.g., “do you own this product?”), product
ownership.
Beyond the theoretical significance of understanding the consequences of inducing
consumers to feel ownership over a product and their antecedents, this topic has important
practical implications for marketing communication. We find that inducing consumers to feel
ownership over a product can lead them to ‘project’ their self-evaluation on that product (i.e.,
assimilate product evaluation to their self-evaluation). This suggests that marketers should
verify that prospective customers have positive self-evaluations on relevant personality traits
before they induce them to feel product ownership. By doing so, marketers can improve product
evaluations and reduce the likelihood that inducing product ownership will backfire.
36
The current work opens way for diverse future research on the unexplored cognitive
effects of categorizing possessions in self on product evaluations and consumer behavior.
Future research can leverage on the suggested analogy between group membership and product
ownership. Based on this analogy, it can draw on the rich psychological research in the domain
of person perception. For example, just as different social identities determine whether an
individual is an in-group member, different individuated identities may determine whether an
object is an ‘in-good’ or an ‘out-good’, namely is part of or external to the self. This may lead to
potential contrast effects in the evaluations of possessions that are external to one’s active
identity. Another example relies on additional sources for evaluative self-information beyond
the actual-self, such as the ideal, ought or future self. Under diverse conditions, such selfevaluations may also affect product evaluation through assimilation or contrast. Finally, our
theory may offer new predictions for how product ownership can affect self-evaluation of
product users. Importantly, our framework predicts, for instance, that although less innovative
people will view a product as less innovative once they own it, at the same time, they will view
themselves as more innovative. This is because categorizing possessions in-self is viewed as a
symmetric process, whereby self-evaluation affects object judgment, while object judgment is
affecting self-view. Future research should examine this and related predictions.
To summarize, this research demonstrates that consumers view products they feel
ownership over as more similar to the way they evaluate their own traits and abilities, but view
non-owned ones as more dissimilar to the very same self-evaluations. Consequently, product
evaluation can either increase or decrease following product ownership.
37
APPENDIX A – STUDY 1-3 STIMULI
Five Facts about the Atmosphere Pen™
1. The Atmosphere Pen™ can write in zero gravity.
2. The Atmosphere Pen™ uses an ink-feeding mechanism that forces the ink out using
compressed nitrogen at a pressure of nearly 35 pounds per square inch.
3. The Atmosphere Pen‘s™ ink-feeding mechanism allows people to use the pen lying on
their back or writing upside down.
4. The Atmosphere Pen™ was a nominee for the 'Most Creative Industrial Design of the
Year' award of 2008.
5. The Atmosphere Pen™ was considered by the American and Russian space agencies to
substitute the currently in use Space-Pen.
*One of the above pens was presented to participants as the one that the information
refers to.
38
APPENDIX B – CREATIVITY MANIPULATION DEVELOPMENT
To develop the manipulation, 110 participants provided as many creative usages for a
brick as they could in three minutes. Then, two research assistants categorized the usages into
13 categories. Next, the two research assistants separately classified each usage into one of the
categories. Following that, based on the frequency of each category in participants’ answers,
averaged across the two RAs, we calculate relative frequency for each category by taking its
proportion of appearance.
Six of the categories, namely body care tool (e.g., weight for working out), art (e.g.,
abstract art exhibit), counter weight (e.g., paperweight), support (e.g., sitting on it), violence
(e.g., breaking windows), and construction (e.g., build a wall) covered roughly 80% of the
usages. Additional six categories, namely commodity (e.g., trading it), writing tools (e.g., use it
as a chalk), shop/hardware tools (e.g., pound something into place), kitchen (e.g., knife
sharpener), measuring (e.g., length/weight standard), Aesthetic (e.g., Home décor) covered
roughly 15% of the usages.
In the pretest and later studies, we prohibited participants in the difficult condition from
using the first (more common) set of categories, leaving them only with relatively rare and
difficult to generate usages, while prohibiting participants in the easy condition from using the
later (more rare) ones. The category games, which covered 5% of the usages, was not excluded
in either condition.
39
APPENDIX C – STUDY 4 STIMULI
Five facts about the Fidelity™ Headphones
1. The Fidelity Headphones™ use a technology that refines the sound by reducing ambient
noise.
2. The Fidelity Headphones'™ technology reproduces sound close to how it was recorded,
providing merely mild improvements.
3. The Fidelity Headphones™ reveal concealed aspects of the sound by closely
approximating a live sound experience.
4. The Fidelity Headphones™ was a nominee for the Musicians' Headphones Set Award
2009, for its "rich sound reproduction.”
5. The Fidelity Headphones™ have been widely adopted by individuals who need to get
the most of sound recordings of any kind.
*All participants ended up evaluating the headphone set on the right. Participants in the highownership condition were to receive the exact set. Participants in the low-ownership condition
were to receive the set on the left.
* Headphone models from left to right: Koss’s ED1TC HB, Labtec’s Elite 810 and 820B
40
REFERENCES
Ames, Daniel R. (2004), "Strategies for Social Inference: A Similarity Contingency Model of
Projection and Stereotyping in Attribute Prevalence Estimates," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87 (5), 573-85.
Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, Michael Tudor, and Greg Nelson (1991), "Close Relationships as
Including Other in the Self," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (2), 24153.
Ball, A. Dwayne and Lori H. Tasaki (1992), "The Role and Measurement of Attachment in
Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (2), 155-72.
Beggan, James K. (1992), "On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception - the Mere Ownership
Effect," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 229-37.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journal of Consumer Research,
15 (September), 139-68.
Birdwell, Al E. (1968), "Study of Influence of Image Congruence on Consumer Choice,"
Journal of Business, 41 (1), 76-88.
Bless, Herbert and Norbert Schwarz (2010), "Mental Construal and the Emergence of
Assimilation and Contrast Effects: The Inclusion/Exclusion Model," in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 42, Vol. 42, San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press
Inc, 319-73.
Brewer, Marilynn B. (1991), "The Social Self - on Being the Same and Different at the Same
Time," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (5), 475-82.
41
Brewer, Marilynn B. and W. Gardner (1996), "Who Is This ''We''? Levels of Collective Identity
and Self Representations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1), 83-93.
Bruner, Jerome S. (1957), "On Perceptual Readiness," Psychological Review, 64 (2), 123-52.
Cadinu, Maria R. and Myron Rothbart (1996), "Self-Anchoring and Differentiation Processes in
the Minimal Group Setting," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (4), 66177.
Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier (1978), "Self-Focusing Effects of Dispositional SelfConsciousness, Mirror Presence, and Audience Presence," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36 (3), 324-32.
Celsi, Richard L. and Jerry C. Olson (1988), "The Role of Involvement in Attention and
Comprehension Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 210-24.
Clement, Russell W. and Joachim Krueger (2002), "Social Categorization Moderates Social
Projection," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38 (3), 219-31.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981), The Meaning of Things:
Domestic Symbols and the Self, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Dunning, David and Andrew F. Hayes (1996), "Evidence for Egocentric Comparison in Social
Judgment," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 213-29.
Duval, T. Shelly and Robert A Wicklund (1972), A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness, New
York: Academic Press.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2005), "Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and
Brand Meaning," Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378-89.
Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier, and Arnold H. Buss (1975), "Public and Private SelfConsciousness - Assessment and Theory," Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 43 (4), 522-27.
42
Gao, Leilei, S. Christian Wheeler, and Baba Shiv (2009), "The "Shaken Self": Product Choices
as a Means of Restoring Self-View Confidence," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (1),
29–38.
Gawronski, bertram, Galen V. Bodenhausen, and Andrew P. Becker (2007), "I Like It, Because
I Like Myself: Associative Self-Anchoring and Post-Decisional Change of Implicit
Evaluations," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (2), 221-32.
Gilovich, Thomas, Victoria H. Medvec, and Kenneth Savitsky (2000), "The Spotlight Effect in
Social Judgment: An Egocentric Bias in Estimates of the Salience of One's Own Actions
and Appearance," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 211-22.
Gramzow, Richard H. and Lowell Gaertner (2005), "Self-Esteem and Favoritism toward Novel
in-Groups: The Self as an Evaluative Base," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88 (5), 801-15.
Higgins, E. Tory (1996), "Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Applicability and Salience," in
Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, ed. E. Tory Higgins and Arie W.
Kruglanski, New York: Guilford Press.
Hovland, Carl I. and Muzafer Sherif (1952), "Judgmental Phenomena and Scales of Attitude
Measurement - Item Displacement in Thurstone Scales," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 47 (4), 822-32.
Huang, Yunhui H., Lei Wang, and Junqi Shi (2009), "When Do Objects Become More
Attractive? The Individual and Interactive Effects of Choice and Ownership on Object
Evaluation," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 (6), 713-22.
Hughes, G. David and Jose L. Guerrero (1971), "Automobile Self-Congruity Models
Reexamined," Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (1), 125-27.
43
Hull, Jay G., Ronald R. Vantreuren, Susan J. Ashford, Pamela Propsom, and Bruce W. Andrus
(1988), "Self-Consciousness and the Processing of Self-Relevant Information," Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (3), 452-65.
James, William (1890), The Principles of Psychology Vol. 1, New York: Henry Holt.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler (1990), "Experimental Tests of the
Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, 98 (6),
1325-48.
--- (1991), "Anomalies - the Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status-Quo Bias," Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 193-206.
Kardes, Frank R. , Steven S. Posavac, and Maria L. Cronley (2004), "Consumer Inference: A
Review of Processes, Bases, and Judgment Contexts," Journal of Consumer Psychology,
14 (3), 230–56.
Kirmani, Amna, Sanjay Sood, and Sheri Bridges (1999), "The Ownership Effect in Consumer
Responses to Brand Line Stretches," Journal of Marketing, 63 (1), 88-101.
Kleine, Suzan S., Robert E. Kleine, and Chris T. Allen (1995), "How Is a Possession ''Me'' or
''Not Me''? Characterizing Types and an Antecedent of Material Possession
Attachment," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 327-43.
Krueger, Joachim (1998), "On the Perception of Social Consensus," in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 30, Vol. 30, San Diego: Academic Press Inc, 163240.
Kunda, Ziva (1990), "The Case for Motivated Reasoning," Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3), 48098.
McClelland, David (1951), Personality, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
44
Medin, Douglas L. (1989), "Concepts and Conceptual Structure," American Psychologist, 44
(12), 1469-81.
Medin, Douglas L. and Marguerite M. Schaffer (1978), "Context Theory of Classification
Learning," Psychological Review, 85 (3), 207-38.
Medin, Douglas L., William D. Wattenmaker, and Sarah E. Hampson (1987), "Family
Resemblance, Conceptual Cohesiveness, and Category Construction," Cognitive
Psychology, 19 (2), 242-79.
Mussweiler, Thomas, Kai Epstude, and Katja Rüter (2005), "The Knife That Cuts Both Ways:
Comparison Processes in Social Perception," in The Self in Social Judgment, ed. J.
Krueger, M. D. Alicke and D. Dunning, New York: Psychology Press.
Neely, James H. (1977), "Semantic Priming and Retrieval from Lexical Memory: Roles of
Inhibitionless Spreading Activation and Limited-Capacity Attention," Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 106 (3), 226-54.
Nesselroade, K. Paul, James K. Beggan, and Scott T. Allison (1999), "Possession Enhancement
in an Interpersonal Context: An Extension of the Mere Ownership Effect," Psychology
& Marketing, 16 (1), 21-34.
Novemsky, Nathan, Ravi Dhar, Norbert Schwarz, and Itamar Simonson (2007), "Preference
Fluency in Choice," Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 347-56.
Otten, Sabine and Dirk Wentura (2001), "Self-Anchoring and in-Group Favoritism: An
Individual Profiles Analysis," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (6), 52532.
Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, and Joseph Priester (2008), "Brand Attachment:
Constructs, Consequences, and Causes," Foundations and Trends® in Marketing, 1 (3),
191-230.
45
Peck, Joann and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), "The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 434-47.
Pham, Michel Tuan, Caroline Goukens, Donald R. Lehmann, and Jennifer Ames Stuart (2010),
"Shaping Customer Satisfaction through Self-Awareness Cues," Journal of Marketing
Research, 47 (5).
Prelinger, Ernst (1959), "Extension and Structure of the Self," Journal of Psychology, 47 (1),
13-23.
Rogers, T. B., N. A. Kuiper, and W. S. Kirker (1977), "Self-Reference and Encoding of
Personal Information," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (9), 677-88.
Sartre, Jean-Paul (1943), Being and the Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology,
New York: Philosophical Library.
Schwarz, Norbert and Herbert Bless (1992), "Constructing Reality and Its Alternatives: An
Inclusion/Exclusion Model of Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Social Judgment," in
The Construction of Social Judgments, ed. Leonard L. Martin and A. Tesser, Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwarz, Norbert, Herbert Bless, Fritz Strack, Gisela Klumpp, Helga Rittenauerschatka, and
Annette Simons (1991), "Ease of Retrieval as Information - Another Look at the
Availability Heuristic," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (2), 195-202.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1985), "Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase
Motivation," Journal of business research, 13 (3), 195-206.
Snyder, Mark and William B. Swann (1978), "Hypothesis-Testing Processes in SocialInteraction," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (11), 1202-12.
46
Sprott, David, Sandor Czellar, and Eric Spangenberg (2009), "The Importance of a General
Measure of Brand Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a
Scale," Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (1), 92-104.
Swaminathan, Vanitha, Karen L. Page, and Zeynep Gurhan-Canli (2007), ""My" Brand Or
"Our" Brand: The Effects of Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on
Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 248-59.
Tajfel, Henri, Michael G. Billig, Roberet P. Bundy, and C. Flament (1971), "Social
Categorization and Intergroup Behavior," European Journal of Social Psychology, 1 (2),
149-77.
Trope, Yaacov and Akiva Liberman (1996), "Social Hypothesis Testing: Cognitive and
Motivational Factors," in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, ed. E. T.
Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski, New York: Gilford Press.
Wanke, M., H. Bless, and B. Biller (1996), "Subjective Experience Versus Content of
Information in the Construction of Attitude Judgments," Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22 (11), 1105-13.
Watson, David, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen (1988), "Development and Validation of
Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The Panas Scales," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 1063-70.
Wertheimer, Max (1938), "Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms," in A Source Book of
Gestalt Psychology, ed. W. Ellis, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 71-88.
Wicklund, Robert A and Peter M. Gollwitzer (1982), Symbolic Self-Completion, Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
47
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PEN CREATIVITY RATINGS, EXPERIMENT 1
48
FIGURE 2: EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR CATEGORIZING POSSESSIONS IN SELF
49
FIGURE 3: PEN CREATIVITY RATINGS, EXPERIMENT 2
“Me-Mine”
Sensitivity
High
Low
Pen Creativity Ratings
50
FIGURE 4: PEN RECOMMENDATION LIKELIHOOD, EXPERIMENT 3
SelfConscious
ness
High
Low
Pen Recommendation Likelihood to…
Creative Professions
Not Creative Professions
51
FIGURE 5: HEADPHONES SINCERITY RATINGS, EXPERIMENT 4
Self-Awareness
High
Low
Headphones Authenticity Ratings