Access-Based Services as Substitutes for Material Possessions: The Role of Psychological Ownership

Abstract

<jats:p> Access-based services (ABS)—in which consumers do not physically own material goods but gain access to services by registering with the provider—have risen in popularity as an alternative to individual ownership and conventional consumption. Yet companies still face key challenges in promoting these services. Prior research indicates that consumers assign significant importance to their material possessions; the current study investigates how psychological ownership, the mental state of perceiving something as one’s own, attained through ABS might lead customers to increase their service use and forgo material ownership. With four studies, using cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental data, as well as combined self-reports with usage data, we theorize and demonstrate this effect. Firms that offer ABS can increase customers’ service psychological ownership, which acts as a psychological substitute for physical ownership and increases ABS use. The results suggest ways managers can leverage the psychological power of ownership feelings, rather than try to fight the lack of actual ownership, in access-based consumption contexts. </jats:p>

Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework

“…Third, marketers may also seek to retain psychological ownership at the group level, developing consumer communities around common geographic regions, interests, or goals (e.g., Uber Brooklyn; Uber Coachella; "Uber Pool" for work). Membership in such groups could reduce behaviors associated with reduced personal responsibility, such as obstructing sidewalks with electric scooters, and increase the attractiveness of sharing goods as a substitute for private goods (Fritze et al 2020).…”

“…Moreover, the feeling that a good is “MINE” enhances attitudes toward the good, strengthens attachments to the good, and increases its perceived economic value (for reviews, see Ericson and Füster 2011; Morewedge and Giblin 2015; Peck and Shu 2009; Peck and Shu 2018). Downstream consequences of value to firms include increased consumer demand for goods and services offered by the firm, willingness to pay for goods, word of mouth, and loyalty (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018; Fritze et al 2020; Fuchs, Prandelli, and Schreier 2010; Vandewalle, Dyne, and Kostova 1995). Given these important consequences, we argue that preserving psychological ownership in the technology-driven evolution of consumption underway should be a priority for marketers and firm strategy.…”

Resilience building in service firms during and post COVID-19

“…The second sub-strategy of ideal business model transformation is asset sharing, which refers to sharing valuable material and non-material assets with stakeholders. It may take the following forms: (1) business-to-customer (B2C) access-based services in which customers obtain access to services by registering with providers (Fritze et al, 2020), (2) peer-to-peer sharing in which private individuals rent their assets to peers who need them (Wilhelms et al, 2017), and (3) business network asset sharing through which businesses share their assets with their partners (Faridian & Neubaum, 2021). All forms of asset sharing create value for the parties involved.…”

Digital ecosystem and consumer engagement: A socio-technical perspective

“…There is no digitality without physicality because engagement platforms, interfaces, apps, or social media are syntactic entities that need to reside in the physical devices humans interact with. Complementing recent work on the technologies of engagement (Fritze et al, 2020, Larivière et al, 2017Wirtz et al, 2020) and the omni-channel nature of customer experiences (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016), this study calls for a replacement of the dichotomies (digital/non-digital, online/offline, material/dematerialized) with a more explicit focus on the materiality of digital technologies: the ways and means by which technologies are significant to action (Leonardi, 2013).…”