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

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 hedonismutilitarianism and consumers' tightwad-spendthrift tendency on the valuation of rented and borrowed objects is also examined.

Following the Flow: Exploring the Impact of Mobile Technology Environment on User’s Virtual Experience and Behavioral Response

“…The findings are consistent with that of Moeller and Wittkowski [60] who stated that non-ownership services is negatively influenced by possession importance ,i.e., consumers are attached to products with full ownership as compared to temporary ownership. Research by Bagga et al [7] also confirmed that rented objects are not valued higher than possessed objects. It was found during the study that individuals who prefer to purchase furniture are not fully convinced with the idea of renting.…”

Price negotiating for services: elucidating the ambivalent effects on customers’ negotiation aspirations

“…To cope with these difficulties, we kept constant the object to be negotiated-a car-and manipulated the pricing model of how this car was provided to customers. More specifically, in the goods condition, participants were purchasing a car whereas in two alternative services conditions, participants were either leasing the car or entering a pay-per-use contract (e.g., Bagga et al 2018).…”

Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework

“…First, fractional ownership models of access-based consumption divide property rights across agents, who may each possess one or more of the legal rights to (i) use a good, (ii) profit from its use or sale, (iii) modify the form, substance, or location of the good, or (iv) transfer possession of some or all of these rights between agents (Haase and Kleinaltenkamp 2011). This change impinges on perceived control over access-based goods, a critical antecedent of psychological ownership (Bagga, Bendle, and Cotte 2019). Second, the impermanence associated with access-based goods also threatens psychological ownership (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017).…”

“…Consumers feel less psychological ownership for borrowed than rented goods. Indeed, they feel no more psychological ownership for borrowed goods than goods they merely evaluate (Bagga, Bendle, and Cotte 2019). Marketing actions can be taken to counter threats posed by fractional ownership.…”

“…Consumers may thus not feel ownership even for the digital goods they can “permanently” access. Indeed, consumers are willing to pay more to purchase than rent utilitarian physical goods (e.g., a hardcover textbook), but they are not willing to pay more to purchase than rent similar digital goods (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018; Bagga, Bendle, and Cotte 2019). We suggest that marketers respond to impermanence threats by assuring consumers that they will have continued access to the same digital goods.…”