Property Lines in the Mind: Consumers’ Psychological Ownership and Their Territorial Responses

Abstract

Psychological ownership, or the feeling that something is mine, has garnered growing attention in marketing. While previous work focuses on the positive aspects of psychological ownership, this research draws attention to the darker side of psychological ownership—territorial behavior. Results of five experimental studies demonstrate that when consumers feel psychological ownership of a target, they are prone to perceptions of infringement and subsequent territorial responses when they infer that another individual feels ownership of the same target. Potential infringers are held less accountable when they acknowledge ownership prior to engaging in otherwise threatening behaviors, and when they could not be expected to know that a target is owned, as it was not clearly marked. In addition, high narcissists are subject to a psychological ownership metaperception bias, and are thus more apt than low narcissists to perceive infringement. A multitude of territorial responses are documented for both tangible (coffee, sweater, chair, pizza) and intangible (a design) targets of ownership. Further, consumers infer the psychological ownership of others from signals of the antecedents of psychological ownership: control, investment of self, and intimate knowledge. Theoretical implications for territoriality and psychological ownership are discussed, along with managerial implications and areas for future research.

Prospective intervention opportunities regarding device ownership and the reduction of damage to handheld ruggedized devices with shift workers

“…This intervention ties back to the very core concept of psychological ownership, where individuals perceive a specific device to be their own rugged handheld, scanner, or printer (Kirk et al, ; Kong & Kim, ). A “living relationship” is developed with a product over time by using it (Kirk et al, , p. 150; Pierce et al, , p. 92). Gift card: A drawing for a gift card every 3 months. Only employees who have returned zero damaged or destroyed devices during that 3‐month period are entered into the drawing.…”

“…The engineers felt that love for the company—should it exist—could be used to deter damage by using the logo to remind the workforce who the devices actually belong to. The theoretical basis for this assumption was also loosely founded upon psychological ownership signals, where territorial marking is used to communicate that the devices have been “claimed” so as to discourage improper usage (Brown & Baer, , p. 1785; Kirk et al, , p. 150).…”

“…The concept of psychological ownership is “the state of mind that makes individuals perceive a specific target object as their own” (Kong & Kim, , p. 1764) or, quite simply, a feeling of “It’s mine!” (Kirk, Peck, & Swain, , p. 149). There are three routes in which people develop feelings of ownership: (a) “exerting control over a target,” (b) “investing themselves in a target,” and (c) “coming to know a target intimately” (Kirk et al, , p. 150; Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, ). Given the context of the work environment within the large industrial company and their shift workers, the third route of achieving psychological ownership in this scenario seems more likely.…”

“…Given the context of the work environment within the large industrial company and their shift workers, the third route of achieving psychological ownership in this scenario seems more likely. Psychological ownership is developed with a product (e.g., ruggedized handheld equipment) by using it (Pierce et al, ) or by the user associating themselves with it (Beggan & Brown, ) and thus coming to know it intimately (Kirk et al, ). Over time, the users familiarize themselves with the object’s basic features as well as the ways that object differs from other objects of a similar sort, thereby facilitating those feelings of ownership (Pierce et al, ).…”

When consumers own their work: Psychological ownership and consumer citizenship on crowdsourcing platforms

“…Other outcomes for consumers' feelings of ownership include the aforementioned valuation and willingness to pay (Fuchs et al, ; Peck & Shu, ; Shu & Peck, ), whereas Jussila, Tarkiainen, Sarstedt, and Hair () conceptualize the outcomes as consumer satisfaction, loyalty, and word of mouth. In addition to such positive effects, and parallel to findings for people in organizations, Kirk, Peck, and Swain () show that PO can also trigger negative outcomes in consumers such as territorial behaviours (e.g., signalling ownership in a café by pulling one's coffee cup closer, or asking infringers to vacate a claimed seat).…”