The price people are willing to pay for a good is often less than the price they are willing to accept to give up the same good, a phenomenon called the endowment effect. Loss aversion has typically accounted for the endowment effect, but an alternative explanation suggests that ownership creates an association between the item and the self, and this possession-self link increases the value of the good. To test the ownership account, this research examines three moderators that theory suggests should affect the possession-self link and consequently the endowment effect: self-threat, identity associations of a good, and gender. After a social selfthreat, the endowment effect is strengthened for in-group goods among both men and women but is eliminated for out-group goods among men (but not women). These results are consistent with a possession-self link explanation and therefore suggest that ownership offers a better explanation for the endowment effect. T he price people are willing to pay for a particular good is often significantly less than the price they are willing to accept to give up the same good (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler 1990, 1991). Many studies have shown that the valuations of a good from those randomly assigned to receive it (i.e., sellers "endowed" with the good) exceed the valuations of the good from those randomly assigned not to receive it (i.e., buyers;

No abstract

While a substantial body of research suggests that belongingness needs motivate consumers to use brands to assimilate with a reference group, relatively less attention has been devoted to understanding when and why consumers use brands to differentiate themselves from the group. The current research fills this gap in the literature and identifies two ways individuals can differentiate themselves from the group through the use of brands: horizontal and vertical differentiation. Horizontal brands offer differentiation through the expression of personality, taste, traits, and so forth, whereas vertical brands offer differentiation by conferring status or demonstrating one's superiority to others in a group. The results reveal that under social exclusion (inclusion), low self-esteem consumers increase perceptions of group heterogeneity (seek to protect their future belongingness) and subsequently increase their attachment to horizontal (vertical) brands. Overall, the results suggest that the belongingness goals of low self-esteem individuals drive such seemingly contradictory behaviors.

No abstract

We examine how the interplay of two partners’ interpersonal orientations (selfish vs. altruistic) in a decision‐making dyad impacts the extent to which the joint decision matches each partners’ individual a priori preferences. Two experiments, in which we manipulate and measure interpersonal orientations, as well as examine real consumption decisions, demonstrate the benefit of mismatching interpersonal orientations (selfish‐altruistic) in dyadic decisions. Specifically, altruistic and selfish consumers reach joint decisions that better reflect their individual preferences when working with a partner who has the opposite interpersonal orientation (heterogeneous dyad) versus a matching one (homogeneous dyad). Initial evidence suggests that this effect occurs because homogeneous dyads are more prone to engage in negotiation (communication that involves departure from one's initial position to a mutually serving position) than heterogeneous dyads. This leads homogeneous dyads to focus more on equally preferred options than on their own most preferred options, which pushes them further down both partners’ preferences lists. This research contributes to the literature on joint decision making and has important implications for consumer well‐being.