No 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.

A cognitive level account of when and why radical innovations impact category representations of competing brands is developed and tested. The results suggest that competing brands are affected only when a dominant brand introduces a radical innovation that alters a core category attribute. Such an innovation leads consumers to see competing brands as less typical of the category with diminished evaluations. Crucially, neither core radical innovations introduced by a non-dominant brand nor equally radical innovations that alter peripheral (non-core) attributes have any impact on consumers' perceptions of competing brands. Implications for consumer preference formation and competition in the context of radical innovation are drawn.

No abstract