Category Archives: New Research

My meat or my Earth?

Posted on by

Getting consumers to adopt a more sustainable behavior is not an easy task. Even with the right mindset, overcoming psychological barriers and changing one’s habits can be hard.

Prior research finds that Psycholigical Ownership can be an effective tool in pursuit of this challenge. For example, PO is shown to be effective in increasing recycling intention through eliciting the sense of stewardship over our planet (Felix & Almaguer, 2019).

When it comes to sustainable consumption, one particularly stubborn area is diet. Food production is responsible for roughly 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Crippa et al., 2021; van Dijk et al., 2023). Yet many consumers, even those environmentally conscious, frequently fail to connect their dietary choices with environmental consequences.

In their recent paper published in Appetite (2025) Frem and Nguyen explore how Psychological Ownership can help tackle this challenge. The authors address a famously tough dietary topic – meat eating and hybrid meat alternatives. Hybrid meat is a meat product that contains both meat and alternative plant-based protein sources (van Dijk et al., 2023). Recent consumer research shows that hybrid meat is more appealing than fully plant-based meat alternatives both for its sensory properties and for the minimal degree of behavioural change required. Yet, many meat eaters are still sceptical.

In two studies, Frem and Nguyen show that making a call encouraging customers to help take care of  “Your Earth” (vs. “The Earth”)  increases the sense of Psychological Ownership resulting in a significant increase of Purchase Intention. Interestingly, anthropomorphising Earth also has a positive effect on purchase intention of hybrid meat products. Importantly, in case of  anthropomorphism, the stewardship manipulation (“Your Earth” vs. “The Earth”)  does not carry any added value for the purchase intention.

These findings underscore the power of messaging in shifting consumer behavior even in such challenging domains as diet. The results show that there is a variety of tools marketers can use to encourage sustainable consumption and not all of these tools need be employed at once. While some branding contexts may be better fitting for anthropomorphism, in others Psychological Ownership may be the right tool for the job.

You can read the full article here.

How do circular take-back programs shape the way we value products and what psychological ownership has to do with it?

Posted on by

Sustainability is on everyone’s mind every step of the product life cycle. Many companies are implementing  circular take-back programs as part of their sustainability initiative programs. But these programs are doing more than just benefiting the planet—what consumers can do with the product at the end of its life is changing how they perceive and value these products.

A recent article by Anna Tari and Remi Trudel dives deep into the psychology behind these programs, revealing how they enhance a consumer’s connection to their purchases and increase the price people are willing to pay.

In 8 studies, Tari and Trudel find that consumers are willing to pay significantly more for the products from the circular take-back programs. The effect holds across different domains, be it apparel, stationary, furniture or tea set. The boost in valuation for take-back products is explained by increase in disposal control and psychological ownership.

Establishing a circular take-back program can be a challenging and costly task for the company: setting up the infrastructure, considering possible liability issues, forecasting the demand — are just a few things to consider. But if it is good for the environment and consumers are ready to pay more for that feeling of closeness and control, it might just be worth it!

You can read the full article here.

Do consumers feel more innovative when owning an innovative smartphone?

Posted on by

How anthropomorphism attenuates the effect of psychological ownership on product‐to‐self judgment

When we own a product, it’s not uncommon to feel a sense of connection and identification with it. Consumers may even judge themselves by assimilating the characteristics of products they own. For instance, someone owning an innovative smartphone might feel more innovative.

In their recent study, Zhang (Renmin University of China), Zhou (Renmin University of China), and Yan (NYU Shanghai) sought to explore whether product‐level variables could impact product‐to‐self judgment. They aimed to understand why consumers tend to integrate certain products with the self while excluding others, even when experiencing psychological ownership of the product.

Through a series of three experiments, the researchers shed light on the interplay between psychological ownership, product anthropomorphism, and consumer self-perception. They found that the product-to-self judgment effect does not hold for anthropomorphized products: Consumers are less likely to categorize anthropomorphized products as part of the “Self.” Instead, they view these products as entities separate from their own self.

You can read more about the research of Zhang, Zhou, & Yan (2023) here.

“Nature is mine”: How can we measure psychological ownership of nature?

Posted on by

The concept of psychological ownership of nature, or the feeling that nature is “mine” or “ours,” has gained significant attention in recent years as a way to encourage pro-environmental behaviors. However, until now, there has been a lack of psychometrically validated measures to assess this construct accurately, limiting its potential impact in research and practical applications.

Xiongzhi Wang, Kelly S. Fielding, and Angela J. Dean address this gap in their recent paper (published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology) by developing and validating scales to measure individual and collective psychological ownership of nature, using a representative sample of Australian adults.

Different to other approaches measuring feelings of psychological ownership, their measure did not capture the associated attributes of ownership feelings toward nature (e.g., control, intimate familiarity), but rather directly assessed the ownership core (i.e., “mine-ness/our-ness”). The authors developed and validated scales of both individual (“Nature is mine”) and collective psychological ownership of nature (“Nature is ours”). Their results also indicate that these two forms of psychological ownership may have different affects on pro-environmental behaviors, as collective psychological ownership was more strongly associated with environmental concern and environmental self-identity and individual psychological ownership was more strongly associated with territoriality and dominionistic beliefs toward nature. Both scales offer a new tool for researchers interested in understanding psychological ownership and promoting pro-environmental behaviors.

You can read more about the research of Wang, Fielding, & Dean (2023) here.

What motivates us to feel ownership over a target?

Posted on by

People experience feelings of ownership not only for physical goods (i.e. products they can touch and see), but also for digital goods, ideas, designs, other people, or public goods, like organisations.

But what motivates us to feel ownership over those different targets? In a review article on psychological ownership in marketing and consumer research, Joann Peck (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Andrea W. Luangrath (University of Iowa) are discussing the underlying motivations behind psychological ownership, as well as considering its antecedents and consequences. As key motives, they are discussing (1) effectance motivation, (2) signaling self-identity, (3) feeling at home, and (4) need for stimulation. If a person feels psychological ownership of a target, more than one motive can be active, e.g. if you experience psychological ownership of a parking space (My parking space) or a book (My edition of ‘The old man and the sea’) or a pet (My black cat).

You can find more about the research of Peck and Luangrath (2023) here.

Can’t touch this! How digitalization affects psychological appropriation

Posted on by

The complex relationship between digitalization and psychological appropriation is the topic of a recent work by Bernadette Kamleitner and Michail Kokkoris published in the latest edition of The Routledge Handbook of Digital Consumption (edited by Rosa Llamas and Russell Belk). In their work, the authors propose that digitalization has a profound psychological impact in that it blurs numerous perceptual and conceptual boundaries. As a consequence of this “Big Blur”, people struggle to “grasp” blurred entities and concepts, because the ability to grasp the essence of things is a deep-seated human need. Therefore, digital consumers respond to diminished graspability by craving for psychological ownership. The authors review various contemporary market trends that support this proposition, such as the use of “my” claims in marketing, regionality, voluntary simplicity and minimalism. At the same time, digitalization is also used to combat this lack of graspability. Digital market offerings promise consumers to help them psychologically appropriate entities and concepts. However, what appears to be a promise of graspability in the digital world is often a mere façade (e.g., user-friendly interfaces) that cannot adequately satisfy consumers’ appropriation needs and deliver what it promises. This inevitably leads to a vicious circle, where digitalization simultaneously erodes and fuels the desire for psychological appropriation.

You can read the full chapter here.

Do you already own virtual land in the Metaverse?

Posted on by

Well, you could. If you spent some money, you could be the owner of a Metaverse real estate. With its augmented and virtual reality technologies, the Metaverse extends your physical world. But can you actually own something in an extended reality, a virtual space, like the Metaverse? And how do such forms of digital consumption change our understanding of possessions and ownership?

Russell Belk (York University), Mariam Humayun (University of Ottawa) and Myriam Brouard (University of Ottawa) took a closer look at the Metaverse, NFTs (non-fungible tokens), cryptocurrencies and other forms of digital and virtual consumption. In their recent article, they discuss problems that arise as metaverses evolve and change, as well as consequences of fractional ownership and fractional property rights. For instance, if you own a real-world item (e.g., a painting) you have the right to modify it (e.g., cut it up), to sell it to someone else, or to dispose of it. But ownership of virtual objects is complicated, and in some ways different from ownership of physical objects, as Belk, Humayun, and Brouard (2022) explain. By buying an NFT, you usually do not gain the right to manipulate it, nor do you usually gain any right (like copyright or intellectual property rights) to the original art object (whether it be physical or digital). Will our understanding of ownership change in light of these developments?

You can find more about the research of Belk, Humayun, and Brouard (2022) here.

How to promote psychological ownership for a shared resource?

Posted on by

Shared resources, such as safe water infrastructure, have the potential to positively affect the environment and people’s health. In recent decades, there has been increased efforts around the world to install new shared safe water infrastructure. However, ensuring such infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries remains a challenge, often due to negligent operation and maintenance. One possible solution to ensure long-term functionality and access would be the participation of communities in planning, installing, and managing the shared resources. In their article, Benjamin Ambühl, Bal Mukunda Kunwar, Ariane Schertenleib, Sara J. Marks,  and Jennifer Inauen (Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation, University of Bern) address this issue by investigating the effects of a participatory intervention on the acceptance, use, and management of community-based safe water infrastructure in rural Nepal and the mediating role of psychological ownership. The authors conducted a nonrandomized cluster-based controlled trial with pre–post intervention assessment in 33 villages in rural Nepal. Their results reveal that participatory intervention activities, such as influence in decision-making or contributing materials and labour, favourably affected self-reported outcomes and use of the water supply infrastructure but not observed functionality or drinking water quality. Certain participatory activities related to increased psychological ownership, such as involvement in decision-making, attending meetings, and contributing materials. Concerning the mediating role of psychological ownership, the study reveal that the effects of some forms of participation on outcomes were mediated by psychological ownership whereas others were not. By examining community managed systems and environments, the authors extend previous research on the effect of psychological ownership on stewardship of public goods (see research by Peck et al., 2021).

You can find more about this research here.

New update? Maybe later! Procrastinating in adopting digital product updates

Posted on by

Consumers who own digital products, such as mobile apps or software, are frequently offered updates to integrate new features. Although delaying an update may lead to non-optimized performance and privacy or security risks, users often hesitate to install available updates. In their current research, Yazhen Xiao (University of Tennesse) and Jelena Spanjol (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) introduce the concept of adoption procrastination and examine why consumers delay adopting what appear to be improvements to already used digital products. The authors take a closer look at the relationship between perceived change, annoyance, anticipated inaction regret and adoption procrastination, as well as the role of perceived benefit and psychological ownership of the digital product. The empirical studies show that users are more likely to be annoyed with an app update that makes a major change to the app and, hence, procrastinate about adoption. As psychological ownership is related to users’ desire to control the product’s status quo, users are more annoyed with changes introduced with an update. These findings are particularly relevant as a longer gap between adoption intention and implementation can slow down market acceptance and in turn negatively influences the product’s success. In order to reduce user procrastination, it is necessary to understand that consumers are often psychologically bonded with digital products. As a result, Xiao and Spanjol recommend that digital product marketers need to reduce users’ sense of loss that accompanies adopting a new digital product version.

You can read more about this research here.

Have you ever felt like your Airbnb hosts’ property is yours? Psychological Ownership and P2P services

Posted on by

In their current research, Giovanni Pino (University of Chieti-Pescara), Marta Nieto-García (Portsmouth Business School) and Carol X. Zhang (Nottingham Business School) take a closer look at psychological ownership in the context of peer-to-peer (P2P) services. P2P services, like AirBnB or carpooling, do not involve ownership transfer; consumers can make use of resources without the responsibility associated with ownership. However, consumers still may experience psychological ownership toward their service providers’ resources, such as their house or car. The research of Pino and colleagues demonstrates that (1) customer–service provider identification engenders a sense of psychological ownership toward a P2P service setting, (2) psychological ownership, in turn, fosters customer attitudinal and behavioral loyalty, and, (3) cooperative interactions between customers and service providers moderate the effect that customer–service provider identification exerts on customer loyalty via psychological ownership. Thus, the consumers’ feeling of psychological ownership is relevant to P2P services as it might result in a favourable disposition toward a certain service and motivates consumers to use the same service again in the future. A lack of connection might not only result in limited interest in reusing the resources but, in some cases, might even promote misbehaviour.

You can read more about this research here.