Identical but not interchangeable: Preschoolers view owned objects as non-fungible

McEwan, Stephanie; Pesowski, Madison L.; Friedman, Ori

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.011

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their circulation makes them interchangeable means to fulfill a goal. Therefore, consumers may use a good but not view it as MINE or unique or special (McEwan, Pesowski, and Friedman 2016). Their circulation also makes the symbolic meaning of accessbased goods particularly vulnerable to contamination by dissociative social groups, persons, or acts (Inbar, Pizarro, Knobe, and Bloom 2009).…”

Section: Change 1: Legal Ownership To Legal Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework

Morewedge¹,

Monga²,

Palmatier³

et al. 2020

Journal of Marketing

206

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological innovations are creating new products, services, and markets that satisfy enduring consumer needs. These technological innovations create value for consumers and firms in many ways, but they also disrupt psychological ownership––the feeling that a thing is “MINE.” The authors describe two key dimensions of this technology-driven evolution of consumption pertaining to psychological ownership: (1) replacing legal ownership of private goods with legal access rights to goods and services owned and used by others and (2) replacing “solid” material goods with “liquid” experiential goods. They propose that these consumption changes can have three effects on psychological ownership: they can threaten it, cause it to transfer to other targets, and create new opportunities to preserve it. These changes and their effects are organized in a framework and examined across three macro trends in marketing: (1) growth of the sharing economy, (2) digitization of goods and services, and (3) expansion of personal data. This psychological ownership framework generates future research opportunities and actionable marketing strategies for firms aiming to preserve the positive consequences of psychological ownership and navigate cases for which it is a liability.

show abstract

Section: Change 1: Legal Ownership To Legal Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework

Morewedge¹,

Monga²,

Palmatier³

et al. 2020

Journal of Marketing

206

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The assumption that money is fungible seems to underlie many everyday behaviors, from making change (e.g., a one‐dollar bill is equivalent to four quarters) to using bank accounts (e.g., if you put $100 into your bank account on Monday and then withdraw $100 on Friday, you do not expect to receive the same bills that you deposited). The fungibility of money stands in stark contrast to perhaps all other material items, which cannot be freely interchanged (e.g., Gelman, Manczak, & Noles, 2012; Hood & Bloom, 2008; McEwan, Pesowski, & Friedman, 2016). For example, if someone lends you a $20 bill, you may give them a different $20 bill in return, but if someone lends you their umbrella you may hesitate to give them a different, yet identical, umbrella back (see McEwan et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fungibility of money stands in stark contrast to perhaps all other material items, which cannot be freely interchanged (e.g., Gelman, Manczak, & Noles, 2012; Hood & Bloom, 2008; McEwan, Pesowski, & Friedman, 2016). For example, if someone lends you a $20 bill, you may give them a different $20 bill in return, but if someone lends you their umbrella you may hesitate to give them a different, yet identical, umbrella back (see McEwan et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dollar Is a Dollar Is a Dollar, or Is It? Insights From Children's Reasoning About “Dirty Money”

Tasimi

Gelman

2021

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Money can take many forms—a coin or a bill, a payment for an automobile or a prize for an award, a piece from the 1989 series or the 2019 series, and so on—but despite this, money is designed to represent an amount and only that. Thus, a dollar is a dollar, in the sense that money is fungible. But when adults ordinarily think about money, they think about it in terms of its source, and in particular, its moral source (e.g., dirty money). Here we investigate the development of the belief that money carries traces of its moral history. We study children ages 5–6 and 8–9, who are sensitive to both object history and morality, and thus possess the component pieces needed to think that a dollar may not be like any other. Across three principal studies (and three additional studies in Appendix ; N = 327; 219 five‐ and six‐year‐olds; 108 eight‐ and nine‐year‐olds), we find that children are less likely to want money with negative moral history, a pattern that was stronger and more consistent among 8‐ and 9‐year‐olds than 5‐ and 6‐year‐olds. These findings highlight pressing directions for future research that could help shed light on the mechanisms that contribute to the belief that money carries traces of its moral history.

show abstract

“…From early in development, people track individual agents and objects through space and time (Rich & Bullot, 2014; Xu & Carey, 1996), tag individual people (and sometimes animals and objects) with proper names (Hall, 2009), determine identity and ownership based on an item's historical path (Gelman, Manczak, & Noles, 2012; Gutheil, Gelman, Klein, Michos, & Kelaita, 2008; Nancekivell & Friedman, 2014), and treat owned objects as non-fungible (McEwan, Pesowski, & Friedman, 2016). Additionally, adults in modern Western societies place value (positive or negative) on certain objects because of their past.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Young children’s preference for unique owned objects

Gelman

Davidson

2016

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important aspect of human thought is the value we place on unique individuals. Adults place higher value on authentic works of art than exact replicas, and young children at times value their original possessions over exact duplicates. What is the scope of this preference in early childhood, and when do children understand its subjective nature? On a series of trials, we asked three-year-olds (N=36) to choose between two toys for either themselves or the researcher: an old (visibly used) toy versus a new (more attractive) toy matched in type and appearance (e.g., old vs. brand-new blanket). Focal pairs contrasted the child's own toy with a matched new object; Control pairs contrasted toys the child had never seen before. Children preferred the old toys for Focal pairs only, and treated their own preferences as not shared by the researcher. By 3 years of age, young children place special value on unique individuals, and understand the subjective nature of that value.

show abstract

Identical but not interchangeable: Preschoolers view owned objects as non-fungible

Cited by 18 publications

References 15 publications

Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework

Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework

A Dollar Is a Dollar Is a Dollar, or Is It? Insights From Children's Reasoning About “Dirty Money”

Young children’s preference for unique owned objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About