Search

Research on psychological ownership is prevalent in the consumer domain. This article details the theoretical core of psychological ownership, integrating research in consumer psychology and marketing. The underlying motivations behind psychological ownership are also considered as well as the antecedents and consequences of feeling ownership. This article discusses how consumers signal and infer a sense of ownership, acknowledging that the characteristics of the target of ownership vary greatly to include physical targets as well as those that are intangible. Research is discussed on the lifecycle of ownership considering the formation, perception, and eventual dissolution of psychological ownership. The authors note various avenues for future research in psychological ownership with the aim to spur research in consumer psychology and feelings of ownership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article details the theoretical foundation of haptics in consumer research. We structure the review using a continuum from proximal touch‐based interactions to increasingly distal interactions through devices, imagery, or language use. We begin with a focus on product/object touch in marketing highlighting touch for haptic information, touch for haptic pleasure, and touch for nonhaptic functional reasons. We then elaborate on research considering work compensating for actual touch through various mechanisms including device‐mediated touch and imagery processing. Next, we examine interpersonal touch followed by a discussion on touch in sensory words and textual paralanguage. The authors note various avenues for future research in haptics with the aim to encourage research in consumer psychology and marketing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has shown that a touch or haptic element attached to a persuasive appeal can increase persuasion, particularly for individuals who have a clear preference for touch to enjoy its sensory feedback (high autotelics). This research extends previous work by including involvement in the context of an appeal by a nonprofit. We find, in an experiment where we manipulate involvement, that when a haptic element is present, high autotelics are more persuaded regardless of their involvement with the message. However, for low autotelics, a haptic element increases persuasion under conditions of low versus high involvement with the message. A second experiment measures involvement and finds that again, under low involvement conditions, both high and low autotelics are persuaded by a touch element. Finally, a field study with a local symphony orchestra is conducted in which involvement with the message is low but involvement with the company is high. In this case, a touch element is only persuasive for high autotelics. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While past work has explored some of the reasons why people themselves may remain silent in a group, almost no research has examined the mirror image of this question: How do consumers construe the silence of others? Do they project the opinions of the speakers in a conversation onto the silent individuals, assuming that silence signals agreement? Do they have a usual or "default" naïve theory of silence that they use to explain it across multiple contexts—i.e., "silence usually signals disagreement?" Or does silence act as a mirror, reflecting observers' own opinions back at them? Three experiments contrasted perceivers' estimates of conversational silence with their estimates of unknown opinions outside the conversation. Estimates of opinions outside the conversation generally followed an agreement‐with‐the‐speakers rule—the more an opinion was expressed in the group, the more consumers assumed others would support it too. In contrast, silence inside the conversation was interpreted very differently, serving as a mirror for participants' own thoughts, even when the vocal majority favored the opposite position. Results suggest a process whereby observers project the reason they personally would have been silent in the group (given their opinion) onto silence, leading to an inference that the silents agree with the self. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]