Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Object valuation and non-ownership possession: how renting and borrowing impact willingness-to-pay

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior research on object valuation ignores the effect of non-ownership physical possession types such as renting and borrowing. Evidence from four experiments demonstrates that the valuation (i.e., willingness-to-pay) for rented objects is greater than the valuation for non-possessed or borrowed objects. Borrowed objects are not valued any differently than non-possessed objects. Psychological ownership mediates the relationship between valuation and non-ownership physical possession. Additionally, psychological ownership varies for different possession types (ownership, renting, and borrowing) as its contributing routes (control, self-investment, and knowledge) operate differently for each possession type. As further evidence of the psychological ownership based theoretical account, the research shows that rented objects are not valued higher than non-possessed objects if the control or self-investment routes of psychological ownership are suppressed. The moderating influence of product hedonism–utilitarianism and consumers’ tightwad–spendthrift tendency on the valuation of rented and borrowed objects is also examined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the term borrowing in a non-financial sense. In commercial financial terms, borrowing money typically involves an interest cost.

References

  • APRO (2016). The Rent to Own Industry. Retrieved Feb 9, 2017 from http://apro.epaperflip.com/v/about-rto/.

  • Ariely, D., Huber, J., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). When do losses loom larger than gains? Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 134–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beggan, J. K. (1991). Using what you own to get what you need: The role of possessions in satisfying control motivation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6), 129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994). Association as a psychological justification for ownership. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 365–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2014). Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: How varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 226–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brough, A. R., & Isaac, M. S. (2012). Finding a home for products we love: How buyer usage intent affects the pricing of used goods. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 78–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2000). Focusing on the forgone: How value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 360–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, P., Irmak, C., & Rose, R. L. (2013). The endowment effect as self-enhancement in response to threat. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 460–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, N. W., & Han, T. S. (2008). Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and psychological ownership for the organization: The mediating role of organizational justice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(4), 691–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.

  • Dasgupta, S., Siddarth, S., & Silva-Risso, J. (2007). To lease or to buy? A structural model of a consumer's vehicle and contract choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 490–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, I. M., Antonides, G., Read, D., & van Raaij, W. F. (2009). The effects of direct experience on consumer product evaluation. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(3), 509–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. (1974). Toward a theory of property rights. In Classic papers in natural resource economics (pp. 163–177). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

  • Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dommer, S. L., & Swaminathan, V. (2012). Explaining the endowment effect through ownership: The role of identity, gender, and self-threat. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1034–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhan, D. F., Johnson, S. D., Wilcox, J. B., & Harrell, G. D. (1997). Influences on consumer use of word-of-mouth recommendation sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enterprise (2018). Exotic Car collection by Enterprise. Retrieved mar 26, 2018 from https://exoticcars.enterprise.com/en/vehicles/tesla-model-s.html

  • Epstein, R. A. (1993). Holdouts, externalities, and the single owner: One more salute to Ronald Coase. The Journal of Law and Economics, 36(1, Part 2), 553–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. Journal of social behavior and personality, 6(6), 465–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S. (2011). Overestimating others’ willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., & Schreier, M. (2010). The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on Consumers' product demand. Journal of Marketing, 74, 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furby, L. (1978). Possessions: Toward a theory of their meaning and function throughout the life cycle. Life-span development and behavior.

  • Furby, L. (1980). The origins and early development of possessive behavior. Political psychology, 30–42, 2.

  • Gal, D. (2006). A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion. Judgment and Decision making, 1(1), 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmeling, C. M., Moffett, J. W., Arnold, M. J., & Carlson, B. D. (2017). Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 312–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

  • Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Wang, L., & Shi, J. (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), 713–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S., Kirchsteiger, G., & Oechssler, J. (2005). Learning to like what you have–explaining the endowment effect. The Economic Journal, 115(505), 689–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). The consciousness of self. The principles of psychology, 8.

  • Jenkins, R., Molesworth, M., & Scullion, R. (2014). The messy social lives of objects: Interpersonal borrowing and the ambiguity of possession and ownership. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(2), 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivetz, R. (1999). Advances in research on mental accounting and reason-based choice. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Self-control for the righteous: Toward a theory of pre- commitment to indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurt, D., & Inman, J. J. (2012). Mis-predicting others’ valuations: Self-other difference in the context of endowment. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality.

  • McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShane, B. B., & Böckenholt, U. (2017). Single-paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1048–1063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R. J., Zhao, S., & Han, J. K. (2008). Biases in valuation vs. usage of innovative product features. Marketing Science, 27(6), 1083–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: An integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(6), 339–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge, C. K., Shu, L. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 947–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayakankuppam, D., & Mishra, H. (2005). The endowment effect: Rose-tinted and dark-tinted glasses. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 390–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). How do intentions affect loss aversion? Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 139–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford (2017a). Rent. Retrieved Feb 9, 2017 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rent.

  • Oxford (2017b). Borrow. Retrieved Feb 9, 2017 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/borrow.

  • Palmatier, R. W., Jarvis, C. B., Bechkoff, J. R., & Kardes, F. R. (2009). The role of customer gratitude in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2007). Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory? The American Economic Review, 97(4).

  • Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17(1), 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision making, 2(2), 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rick, S. I., Cryder, C. E., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Tightwads and spendthrifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 767–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. M. (1985). Possession as the origin of property. The University of Chicago Law Review, 52(1), 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). Further meta-analytic procedures for assessing cognitive gender differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 708–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanburn J. (2012). Retrieved Feb 9, 2017 from http://business.time.com/2012/07/11/whats-behind-gms-new-60-day-money-back-guarantee/.

  • Sartre, J. P. (1969). Being and nothingness: A phenomenological essay on ontology. New York: Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1943).

  • Sen, S., & Johnson, E. J. (1997). Mere-possession effects without possession in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1), 11–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011). Psychological ownership and affective reaction: Emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 439–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slangen, L. H., & Polman, N. B. (2008). Land lease contracts: Properties and the value of bundles of property rights. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 55(4), 397–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soman, D., & Gourville, J. T. (2001). Transaction decoupling: How price bundling affects the decision to consume. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strahilevitz, M. A., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 276–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 66–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. T., Ong, L. S., & Tan, J. H. (2015). Sense and sensibility of ownership: Type of ownership experience and valuation of goods. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 58, 171–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waymo (2018). Waymo–Early Riders–How it works? Retrieved Mar 26, 2018 from https://waymo.com/apply/.

  • Weaver, R., & Frederick, S. (2012). A reference price theory of the endowment effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 696–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, L., & Johar, G. V. (2013). Egocentric categorization and product judgment: Seeing your traits in what you own (and their opposite in what you don't). Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 228–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S. L. (2001). Remote purchase environments: The influence of return policy leniency on two-stage decision processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Fishbach, A. (2005). The role of anticipated emotions in the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 316–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Charan K. Bagga

  2. Ivey Business School, Western University, 1255 Western Road, London, ON, N6G 0N1, Canada

    Neil Bendle & June Cotte

Authors
  1. Charan K. Bagga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neil Bendle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. June Cotte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charan K. Bagga.

Additional information

Kelly Haws served as Area Editor for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1095 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagga, C.K., Bendle, N. & Cotte, J. Object valuation and non-ownership possession: how renting and borrowing impact willingness-to-pay. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 47, 97–117 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0596-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0596-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation