R E V I E W
Rented But MINE! Application of Psychological Ownership Theory to Access-Based Consumption and the Circular Economy
Paul Rogers1
Received: 3 February 2021 / Accepted: 30 March 2021 / Published online: 7 September 2021
#The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
Abstract
Most Circular Economy (CE) research to date has focused on supply-side factors such as the design, implementation, and monitoring of Circular business models, with compara- tively little attention given to the role consumers and consumer psychology are likely to play in CE transition. A key driver of the CE framework is widespread public engage- ment in non-ownership or “access-based” consumption. In the absence of legally established property rights, the extent to which consumers experience asubjectivesense of ownership over accessed (i.e., rented or shared) goods and services will be important in both understanding and fostering CE development. This paper introduces the construct and theory ofpsychological ownership(PO), discussing empirical evidence for its role in access-based consumption, primarily consumers’use of product-service systems (PSSs).
Overall, there is reasonable evidence that PSS users can and do develop a sense of psychological ownership for rented items with, by implication, accessed goods and services activating at least one behavioural pathway or“route”to its development. Once attained, PO tends to have a positive—often mediating—impact on users’perceptions, attitudes, intentions, and behaviour towards rented product-services, with stronger PO having greater influence. A conceptual application ofPsychological Ownership Theoryto access-based consumption—hence the Circular Economic framework—is forwarded, with potential frustrations to PO development, plus implications for marketers and CE strategists, also discussed. With relevant literature, still sparse various directions for future research are also suggested.
Keywords Psychological ownership . Circular economy . Access-based consumption . Product-service systems . Renting . Sharing
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00041-0
* Paul Rogers
1 Portsmouth, UK
Not to possess too much will one day be the criterion of progress, of independence and of liberty[1; p. 31]
The Circular Economy (CE) represents a collection of restorative business models that, through use of closed-loop supply chains, aims to replace the current“take-make-waste”linear mode of commerce [2]. Whilst the CE framework has attracted considerable academic attention, most work has focused on supply-side pragmatics and the macroeconomic impact of circular business models [e.g., 3, 4], with comparatively little attention given to the important role consumers will play throughout CE transition [5].
One demand-side reason for the seemingly radical nature of CE is that it actively promotes access-based consumption (ABC) where all property rights [6], costs, responsibilities, and risks associated with legal ownership remain with the provider, with consumers becoming“users” who are granted temporary access to the product(s) via renting product-service systems (PSSs) and/or engaging in peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing [2]1. The hope is that by stimulating a better appreciation of utilitarian value, ABC will help switch peoples’focus away from superfluous purchases to more sustainable consumption activity [2,14]. Consequently, widespread adop- tion of a Circular Economic framework incorporating ABC will have important legal and psychosocial implications, not least because it will change the fundamental meaning, nature, and dynamics of ownership. In general, circular business models will have to satisfy multiple value requirements (e.g., financial, utilitarian, hedonic, symbolic) whilst simultaneously giving more attention to other factors shaping value co-creation such as levels of customer input, satisfaction, well-being, and the quality of user-provider relationships [15]. With PSS products not privately owned their identity-shaping potential [16; see below] will also be diminished.
And as Ekins [17] recently exclaimed“You cannot get more fundamental than changing the rules of ownership!”
Whilst outright ownership remains the dominant mode of consumption recent trends suggest ABC is becoming increasingly popular, in part because of its expanding availability, convenience, preference matching, and perceived sustainability benefits [3]. Despite this, relatively little is known about the psychological mechanisms underlying this shift, with sceptics believing ABC is unlikely to satisfy people’s seemingly innate drives for ownership [18,19]. Others claim the assumptions and evidence for Economic Circularity are limited rendering the CE framework an
“essentially contested concept”[20].
In a recent review of consumer engagement in CE, two thirds (65%) of the 111 studies evaluated focused on ABC2with roughly half (49%) emphasising planned and/or rational decision-making.
By contrast, just 6% of papers stressed“other”psychological approaches [15]. This emphasis on homo economicusis surprising given criticisms ofRational Choice Theory[21] plus the numerous biases and non-conscious influences known to impact consumer behaviour [e.g.,22,23]. According to Singh and Giacoas [24] psychological ownership—broadly defined as an individual’ssubjective sense of ownership [25,26]—is one of four individual-level biases likely to influence consumers’
1With PSSs suppliers retain legal ownership of a product and, for a small rental or subscription fee, sell its benefits in the form of a service [7,8]. With P2P sharing personal assets are temporarily loaned between private individuals, often with exchanges arranged via an online coordinating platform [9]. These are the two most common forms of ABC. Whilst P2P sharing is sometimes referred to ascollaborate consumption[10] or the sharing economy[11], critics consider these to be broader concepts [12,13]. For clarity, only the term P2P sharing is used hereafter. For reasons that will become apparent, the present review focuses primarily on PSS use.
2The remainder focused on remanufactured products with the authors discussing trends across all CE practices.
CE acceptance3. To date, comparatively few studies have tested this claim directly, with just one paper in the aforementioned review exploring the role PO might play within Economic Circularity [27]. Of central concern to CE thinking is whether and to what extent consumers experience a subjective senseof ownership over items they have“merely”accessed relative to those they legally own [28].
Current Aims
The present paper reviews empirical evidence linking the various facets of consumer oriented Psychological Ownership Theory [29–31] to access-based consumption, in particular con- sumers’rental of product-service systems. As already noted, such work remains scant. By applying PO Theory to the Circular Economic framework, questions over the extent to which access-based consumption meets peoples’ “true”consumption needs can be reframed thus: to what extent does ABC afford behavioural pathways (“routes”) to PO development so that consumers’ motivational drives (“roots”) to possess things can be met? And if PO does develop how does this shape users’perceptions, attitudes, intentions, and behaviours towards accessed goods and services?
Remaining discussion is divided into five main sections. First, the concept and theory of psychological ownership is introduced. Second, extant literature linking PO to access-based consumption—hence the Circular Economy—is discussed starting with, for reasons of logic, the boundary conditions shaping the development of PO for accessed items followed by the various behavioural routes to and consequences of PO for access-based consumption. Third, PO Theory is then conceptually applied to ABC generally with potential frustrations to PO development in a non-ownership context also discussed. Fourth, is a brief overview of implications for marketers and CE strategists. Finally, ideas for future research are presented before a general conclusion pertaining to PO’s role in aiding ABC and Circular Economic transition is drawn.
Psychological Ownership: Construct and Theory
Construct Formally, PO reflects the motivations, perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, feelings, intentions, and behaviours pertaining to a sense of possessiveness over some (tangible or intangible) target item as expressed through pronouns such as“my”or‘mine’(e.g.mycar;my religion) [25,26]. As already implied, PO differs from legal ownership in that it reflects a subjective sense of ownership—rather than who has legally defined property rights [6]—over the item in question. Consequently, legal versus psychological ownership are not always congruent. In addition, PO can become stronger over time whereas legal ownership remains fixed until property rights are legally transferred [29]. In short, consumer-oriented PO Theory claims it is peoples’subjectivesenseof ownership—not their legal ownership status—that is key to fulfilling their possession drives [29–31].
3The other three being consumers’attitudes, habitual behaviours, and person-product relationships. The same authors also describe three social-level biases (consumer ideology, subjective norms, and psychological essen- tialism) plus a single cultural-level bias (power distance beliefs). Given current aims, these are not considered further.
ROOTS (Motives) MODERATORS & MEDIATORS (PO-Outcomes)
Mediators
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
Efficacy & Effectance Place to Dwell
Communicate Self-Identity Stimulation
ROUTES (Behavioural Pathways) Control Intimate Knowledge Investment of Self
MODERATORS (Routes-PO)EFFECTS (Outcomes) Motivational Attitudinal Behavioural
VisibleAttractive
Open Manipulable
Available
Accessible
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS (Target Attributes)
Moderators Moderators
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP Fig.1Psychologicalownershiptheory(adaptedfromJussilaetal.,[30])
PO is also a different and somewhat broader construct than material product attachment [32]. For example, only PO includes a cognitive dimension [Kirk, personal communication];
only PO can developpriorto item acquisition [33]; only PO can be experienced at the group or collective level [34]; and only PO can develop for intangible constructs like personal charac- teristics (e.g.mythriftiness), events (e.g.myconsumption experience), ideas (e.g.mydesign), and social constructs (e.g.myreputation) [25,26,30,31]4. Importantly for current discussion, only PO can be applied to the immaterial service component of PSSs.
Theory According to Pierce and colleagues [25, 26, 31] people have various drives or motivational“roots”to possess things which can be realised by traversing certain behavioural pathways or“routes”to PO development at which point the target item is perceived to be
“MINE”. Once developed, PO can be expressed either positively (e.g. through acts of stewardship) or negatively (e.g. as defensive hostility, possessiveness, territoriality and/or property rights violations) with this shaping a person’s motivations, attitudes and (intended) behaviour towards the target product or service [e.g., 36,37]. Over time, psychologically owned items become embodied into the possessor’s self-identity to become part of the
“extended self” (i.e. part of ME) at which point it is cared for in a symbolic act of self- completion and self-nurturance [16,38]. The nature and strength of PO development is also shaped by potential moderators and boundary conditions, the latter reflecting key attributes of the target item [30]. Likewise, the nature of PO-outcomes relationships can be influenced by moderating and mediating factors [30] as depicted in Fig.1.
Motivational Roots for PO As Fig.1shows, four independent motivational roots for PO exist, with these explainingwhypeople are driven to possess things. Briefly, efficacy and effectance reflects the need to have dominion over one's immediate environment.Communication of self- identityreflects the drive to express one's personality, values, interests, and group affiliations to the social world. Having a place to dwell reflects peoples’need for feelings of security, comfort, and belongingness—in short, a psychological safe-space to call“home”—which can be attained not only from different physical locations (e.g.mybedroom), but also via personal possessions (e.g. my cuddly toy) and/or other important self-referential constructs (e.g. my religion). The final PO root,stimulation, reflects peoples’need to experience positive hedonic sensations like excitement, pleasure and satisfaction.
Behavioural Routes to PO As Fig.1also shows, three independent behavioural pathways explainhow people satisfy their PO motives. The first, control,represents an individual’s ability to exert direct or indirect influence over a particular item (e.g. by using or granting others use of it). The second,intimate knowledge, reflects a person’s awareness familiarity, and depth of understanding for a particular target (e.g. its individuating marks and/or performance idiosyncrasies). The final PO route, investment of the self, represents the input of personal resources such as time, physical and/or mental effort, expertise, creativity plus relevant material assets into the design, construction, modification, and general maintenance of the item concerned.
Moderators of and Boundaries Conditions to Route-PO Relationships The extent to which each of the three behaviour routes lead to PO development can be moderated by factors such as
4Of course, certain creative ideas can be legally owned as“intellectual property”[35].
a target’s physical versus digital format [39], its real or imagined contamination [40], a person’s status, role, relevant experience, cognitive focus, affective state, and level of empow- erment [41, 42] and importantly, whether the target item is possessed as opposed to say, merely handled [43,44]. PO development is also shaped by boundary conditions derived from certain attributes of the target such as its visibility, accessibility, manipulatability, adaptability, attractiveness, and openness [25,26,30]. Such factors are likely to have direct relevance in the context of ABC [29].
Consequences of PO Once developed, PO tends to have a positive impact on consumers’ motivations, perceptions, attitudes, and intended or actual behaviours (Fig.1). These might include perceiving the target item to have more economic, utilitarian, social, hedonic and/or symbolic value; reporting more intention to buy, (re) use, switch to, or engage in acts of stewardship over the item; indicating a willingness to pay/accept more to buy/sell it; and finally, displaying more affective commitment, loyalty, and favourable word-of-mouth rec- ommendations for the product, brand, or supplier in question [e.g., 30]. As already stated, potential negative outcomes include feelings of defensive territoriality [36,37] and difficulties with item dispossession [29].
Moderators and Mediators of PO-Outcome Relationships Finally, PO is context dependent with its relationship to behavioural outcomes potentially shaped by moderating and/or medi- ating factors such as the target’s price [45] or perceived value-in-use [46]. Often, however, PO servesasa mediating factor between some independent variable or predictor and a specific behavioural outcome. To illustrate, PO has been shown to mediate the impact (short vs.) long endowment duration has on the perceived economic value of a target item, in this case a pen [42Study 2].
Interim Summary According to PO Theory, behaving in ways that engender sufficient control over, intimate knowledge of, and/or self-investment into a target item (object or construct) will eventually lead to its symbolic merging with the extended self, such that the target item becomes“part of ME”. Through this embodiment the“psychological owner”will attain efficacy and effectance over his/her world, express his/her self-identity, develop a psychologically safe and homely place in which to dwell (belong), and experience more hedonic stimulation. Each of these root × route combinations, together with relevant moder- ating and mediating influences, will shape final PO development which in turn will mould that individual’s thoughts, feelings, intentions, and actual behaviours towards the item in question.
Psychological Ownership for Access-Based Consumption
As already stated, PO Theory is likely to have relevance for CE practices such as use of product-services systems and engagement in peer-to-peer sharing. In principle, both forms of ABC could present affordances5 to target PO in ways that are comparable to those for equivalent but legally owned items. For instance, driving (controlling) a rented sports car would enable PSS users to satisfy their drives for efficacy and effectance (e.g. quicker journey
5Affordancesrepresent opportunities for certain behavioursgiven the capabilities of the user. For example, a ladder affords potential“climb-ability”but only if an individual is physically able to climb it [47].
times), communication of the self (e.g. the symbolic display of personal wealth or success), a place to dwell (e.g. a means of escaping everyday stresses), and/or stimulation (e.g. the thrill of driving fast). That said, constraints set down in the terms, conditions, and limited duration of PSS agreements are likely to curtail certain routes to PO potentially frustrating one or more roots for it [cf.30,31]. One rationale for reviewing ABC from a psychological ownership standpoint is to examine these assertions.
The present section reviews the empirical evidence linking consumer orientated PO to access-based consumption6. In general, consumers develop stronger PO for owned relative to non-owned but otherwise identical items regardless of whether these are rented, borrowed or non-possessed (i.e. merely handled [42–44]). Early researchers claimed ABC was too ineffi- cient, inconvenient, transient and/or brief to fully satisfy people’s PO motives [48,49]. Despite this initial scepticism, there is now reasonable evidence to suggest people can and do develop a subjective senseof ownership over items they have non-ownership access to. Given the present dearth of academic literature linking PO to non-marketized peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing, focus will be on the role psychological ownership plays in the rental of PSSs including those supplying digitised products.
Boundary Conditions To date, only one research team has explored boundary conditions to PO. Taking a Circular design perspective Baxter and colleagues [27] investigated which attributes pertaining to four everyday objects (a car, mobile phone, pair of shoes and park bench) generate affordances for PO. Contextual analysis of interview data identified 16
“affordance principles”as outlined in Table1below with, as expected, noticeable differences emerging across four object types. In general, affordance principles for cars, mobile phones and shoes reflected user actions that were performedontargets, with these facilitating mainly control and self-investment routes and thus more closely aligned to efficacy-effectance and communication of self motives for PO. To illustrate, users could make a mobile phone psychologically “theirs”through acts of configuration control(e.g. changing the ringtone).
By contrast, affordance principles for park benches tended to reflect the impact objects hadon users, with these facilitating the intimate knowledge route and more aligned to the place to dwell motive. Thus, users felt a park bench was“theirs”by virtue of, say, its function as a place of retreat (enabling).
With several affordance principles (e.g. spatial, configuration and in some instances tempo- ral and/or rate control) potentially applicable to PSSs and P2P sharing, Baxter et al.’s [27] work offers first evidence that psychological ownership might not be (too) compromised by access- based consumption. In follow-up work, Baxter, Aurisicchio, and Childs [48] tested this assertion by examining PO motive × affordance principle × PO route interactions in peoples’general use of everyday objects. These interactions were examined in relation to four“possession biogra- phies”where each item had either been kept and used for a long time, disposed of whilst still functional, previously owned by another person (i.e. was second-hand), or previously used by one or more person(s) (i.e. was a rental item). Overall, interviewees’reasons for rejecting ABC were consistent with the basic tenets of PO Theory in that the transient nature of renting appeared to threaten efficacy-effectance, self-communication and place to dwell motives for PO7, with
6Full details of the literature search procedure are presented inSupplementary Data file Section Awith preliminary findings pertaining to publication source, methodological procedures, sampling types, and demo- graphic characteristics presented inSupplementary Data file Section B.
7Baxter et al. [48] did not explore affordance principles for the stimulation root presumably because this was yet to be acknowledged by Pierce and colleagues [25,26].
Table1Sixteenaffordanceprinciplesbythethreebehaviouralroutestopsychologicalownership† Behaviouralroute&affordanceprincipleReflectingOpportunitiesto…MobilePhoneExample Control 01.Spatial·Manipulateatargetiteminphysicalspace·Re-positioningtotakea‘selfie’ 02.Configuration·Rearrangethetargetitem’ssettings·Changingtheringtone 03.Temporal·Usethetargetitemwhendesired·Usinganytime,anywhere 04.Rate·Useasmuchofthetargetitemasdesired·Havingapay-as-you-gocontract 05.Transformation·Alterafundamentalaspectoftargetitem,leavingapersonalmark·Scratchingapersonalisedserialcodeoncasing IntimateKnowledge 06.Ageing·Witnessaestheticchangestothetargetitemasitagesandisused·Screenwearandtear 07.Disclosure·Conveyfacts,meaningorvalueofitemindependentofcurrentuser·Havinga‘heavymetal’case 08.PeriodicSignalling·Anticipateand/orcommunicatesubtleidiosyncrasiesoftargetitem·Appsfreezingduringaparticularsequenceofuse 09.Enabling·Createmeaningfulexperiencesfromusingtargetitem·Enablesusertostayverballyconnectedwithfriends 10.Simplification·Minimiseexternaldistractionstofocusattentionontargetitem·Usingheadphoneswhilstlisteningtocalls 11.Proximity·Enhancefamiliaritythroughphysicalclosenesswithtargetitem·Keepingone’smobilephoneinatrouserpocket Self-investment 12.Creation·Bringthetargetitem,orsomepartofit,intoexistence·Recordingthenuploadinganewringtone 13.Maintenance&Repair·Servicethetargetiteminordertosustainitsvalue·Replacingabrokenscreen 14.Repository·Collectorstoreadditionalvaluewithintargetitem·Inputtingcontactdetailsintoaddressbook 15.Emblems·Signalinformationaboutownidentitythroughtargetitem·Usingtechnicallyadvancedphonetolooksuccessful 16.PreferenceRecall·Remembersettingsdeterminedfromprevioususeoftargetitem·Downloadedapps TakenoradaptedfromBaxteretal.[27]
these perceived threats subsequently diminishing users’development of PO for accessed prod- ucts. Early research demonstrated such scepticism in the context of marketized car-sharing where regular Zipcar users reported little if any sense of (psychological) ownership over rented vehicles, with this seemingly due to the perceived temporality, anonymity, and contamination potential of that PSS [49].
By contrast, more recent work has found consumers can and do attain various of forms of
“value-in-use”(VIU)—including economic (price-to-performance), effectance (productivity, convenience), self-expressive (e.g., flexibility, freedom), hedonistic (self-fulfilment), social (privacy, interaction) and perceived environmental worth—from using car-sharing services [46 Study 1]. The implication here is that car-sharers are traversing at least one of the three routes to PO through vehicle rental. Indeed, the same authors [46 Study 2] later confirmed that efficacy and effectance, communication of self and place to dwell roots, together with two further PO antecedents—accountability for and territoriality towards the target item—all predicted PO for rented cars. Noticeably, all antecedent-PO relationships were mediated by at least three VIU dimensions. In short, service users who attained more control over, intimate knowledge of and/or self-investment into the rented vehicle subsequently developed stronger PO for it by virtue of the various value benefits having access to that product-service afforded.
Comparable acts of appropriation highlighting all three PO routes have been observed elsewhere; not only in car-sharing [50], but also via digital music streaming [51,52], e-book [53], healthcare [54,55], banking [56], and restaurant [57] services, whilst also being posited for retail and hotel sectors [58]. For example, Gruen [50] found regular patrons of the French car- sharing serviceAutoLibeither mentioned or indicated engaging in a range of behaviours that engender a personal sense of control (e.g. adjusting seat and mirror positions), intimate knowl- edge (e.g. paying attention to model features), and/or investment of the self (e.g. booking, start-up, operating, re-charging, and return rituals) when accessing AutoLib’s fully electric BlueCar.
Related antecedents such as intimacy, identity-relevance, and communal identification with a particular service have also been positively associated with developed PO in the context of both car-sharing [38, Studies 1, 2a and 3] and digital music streaming [38Study 2b].
Possession Type Few PO studies have contrasted different types of possession. In a mock tea- tasting task, Bagga et al. [43Study 2] found self-reported control over the target item (a mug) was more pronounced for those who owned (vs. rented) and rented (vs. borrowed or merely handled) it. Whilst parallel trends were found for investment of the self as well as developed PO, intimate knowledge was surprisingly unaffected by variation in possession type. Importantly, only the control and self-investment routes predicted eventual PO for the mug, with control having more impact if respondents invested more of themselves into that item. These data suggest two of the three routes outlined in PO Theory play an important role in facilitating a sense of subjective ownership over rented, and to a lesser extent borrowed, objects (although see below for criticism).
Product PO Versus Service PODanckwerts and Kenning [51] found noticeable differences in how the three routes predict PO development for the product versus service components of the digital music streaming serviceSpotify. Whilst control was positively associated with PO for the product but not service, the opposite was true for self-investment. Furthermore, the relationship self-investment had with product PO was mediated by service PO. In other words, individuals who invested more of themselves when usingSpotify(e.g. storing and organising downloads, creating, and sharing playlists) subsequently experienced a stronger sense of ownership over their music downloads by virtue of their stronger sense of ownership for the
Table2Reviewedstudiesbytargetcategory:tangibleitems TargetcategoryNo.DetailsNotesReference Bicycle1RoadsterbikeNobranding;customisation(patternvsmotifvs.none)[62] Book1UnspecifiedaForenjoyment;nottextbookorreferencebook[61Study1] Car6Unspecified--[46Study1] Unspecified--[46Study2] Unspecified--[45] BluecarFullyelectric;linkedtoAutoLib[50] Unspecifieda,b--[27] Zipcar--[49] Clothing4Fashionitems--[74] IceskatesForuseinpublicicerink[43Study1] Shoes(pair)a,b--[27] T-shirtParticipantpreferenceinfrommockmarketingtask[41Study2] Mobilephone1Mobilephonec--[27] Mug2Tea/coffee--[43Study2] Thermos--[66] Pen2Unspecified--[43Study3] Fountainpenc--[61Study2] Publicgood1Parkbench--[27] Toy/kit3Flyingkit;FlyingDiscorTurboAirAssembledbyparticipant[65] Legokit;frogorlizardAssembledbyparticipant[65] Woodenkit;WoodcraftbutterflyAssembledbyparticipant[65] Other1AirbnbpeersFellowaccommodation-sharinghosts[75] Unspecified3Everydayitems--[48] Variousb--[76Study1] Variousb--[76Study2] Total25 Notes:studieslistedbycategorythenspecificitemtype;physicalitemsaccessedviaPSSunlessstatedotherwise;somestudiesincludemorethanonetargetcategoryand/orspecific item;aparticipantoruserselected;blegallyownedbyparticipant;cnotABC
Table3Reviewedstudiesbytargetcategory:intangibleitems TargetcategoryNo.TargetitemNotesReference Digitizedproduct2MusicaStreamed[51ModelA] E-bookE-booksgenerally[53] Digitalplatform1AirbnbAccommodation-sharingorganiser[75] Publicgood8LakecPublickayaking[79Study1] ParkdCityorstatepark[79Study2] ParkeCityorstatepark[79Study3] ParkdCityorstatepark[79Study4] NaturepathImaginedparkvisit[79StudyA.2] PicnicareaImaginedoutdoorparty[79StudyA.3] PathImaginedvisittonaturereserve[79StudyA.4] BeachImaginedtriptobeachvia360°videoorstaticweblink[79StudyA.5] Service-car-sharing8MoveIt--[38Study1] Unspecified--[38Study2a] Unspecified--[38Study3] UnspecifiedSameGermancity[46Study1] UnspecifiedSameGermancity[46Study2] Zipcarservice--[49] Zipcarbrand--[49] Unspecifieda,b--[78] Service–DMS5Spotify--[38Study2b] VariousMostlySpotifyorAmazonMusicUnlimited;basicorpremium[51ModelA] DeezerorSpotifyBasic(free)serviceonly[51ModelB] Unspecifiedb--[52Phase1] Unspecifiedb--[52Phase2] Service-financial1BankingadviceServiceuser-employeemeeting;pairsmatched[56] Service-healthcare3TreatmentplanFordiabetes[54Phase1] TreatmentplanFordiabetes,obesityorrespiratoryillness[54Phase2] TreatmentplanFordiabetes,obesityorrespiratoryillness[55] Service-hospitality4RestaurantMostfrequentlyvisited[57] HotelshHotelsservicesgenerally[58] HolidayexperienceplannerCo-createdwith(vs.createdby)hotelstaff[69Study1] HolidayexperienceplannerCo-createdwith(vs.createdby)hotelstaff[69Study2] Retailservicesgenerally
Table3(continued) TargetcategoryNo.TargetitemNotesReference Service-retail1Retailh[58] Service-travel1HolidaypackageHolidayco-createdwith(vs.arrangedby)travelagent[67] Other6WebsiteMockfoodwebsite[79StudyA.1] TeamworkoutputfReal-worldproject;duration1+month(s)[77Study1a] TeamworkoutputfReal-worldproject;duration1+month(s)[77Study1b] TeamworkoutputfReal-worldproject;duration1+month(s)[77Study2] TeamworkoutputfReal-worldproject;duration3-6months[77Study3] TeamworkoutputgStockmarketsimulation;duration5weeks[77Study4] Total40 Notes:studieslistedbycategorythenspecificitemtype;somestudiesincludemorethanonetargetcategoryand/oritem;aparticipantselectedorimagined;bvarious;cPOcuedvia nicknaming(vs.none);dPOcuedviasignpoststatingyour(vs.the)park;ePOcuedviapathwaymapping(vs.none);fteamactivitiesratedbyindividualteammembers;gcollective teamratingscalculatedasmeanofindividualmemberratings;hconceptualpaperwithdataforthcoming DMSdigitalmusicstreaming
Spotifyservice. By contrast, intimate knowledge was either unrelated else negatively related to service PO ([51] Models A and B respectively) possibly because users are never guaranteed permanent access to their digital music collections. Similar trends have been reported for general use of social media [59].
PSS Agreements Many consumers report being anxious or frustrated by the restricted legal terms and conditions in PSS contracts [60; see35]. Presumably with this in mind, Bagga et al. [43 Study 3] attempted to constrain either participants’control or their investment of self into a rented item (a high-quality pen) by manipulating instructions in an experimental writing task. Specifi- cally, participants were instructed to copy (write) text from a PC screen onto a sheet of paper using the pen. Individuals in the control-restricted condition were told to write in prescribed boxes using only uppercase lettering, and to then clean the pen. By comparison, those in the investment- restricted condition had to sign an agreement to only use the pen for the task at hand. As expected, both route restrictions lessened product PO, confirming the key role these two behavioural pathways play in the development of psychological ownership for rented goods.
Product Personalisation and Consumer Empowerment Factors such as opportunities for product customization or personalisation [61Study 2,62]8, the degree of person-product“fit”
[62,64] and the nature of customer-supplier relationships [58,64] have all been shown to impact on PO development asPsychological Ownership Theorywould imply [30,31]. For example, items that are perceived to match one’s personality or social image tend to elicit more positive evaluations and, by strengthening PO, should help satisfy peoples’drive for self- expression [62,64].
The impact item personalisation has on (routes to) PO development has yet to be tested in the context of access-based consumption. However, other studies have shown greater con- sumer empowerment9—including involvement in final marketing decisions [41], in item assembly [65], in the co-design of product packaging [66], or in the co-creation of PSS content [67–69]—have, in each case with (more) empowerment enhancing PO for the target.
For instance, Robbert et al. [67] asked participants to imagine visiting a travel agent to plan a customized trip to their favourite country. Those assigned to thehigh involvementcondition were also asked to imagine verbalising their holiday desires, past experiences, and ideas regarding holiday content—that is, to actively engage in PSS co-creation—whilst those in thelow involvementgroup read that the travel agent planned all aspects of their holiday—the flights, destinations, accommodation, and daily activities—according to participants’initial wishes. As expected, the former reported having more control over, intimate knowledge of, and investment of self into the travel service, with all three routes predicting more service PO.
Such trends are consistent with theI-Designed-It-Myself Effect[70] and the comparableIKEA Effect[71] which respectively show that being (more) involved at the design and assembly stages of production has a positive impact on consumers’ evaluations and behavioural intentions toward the item being produced. However, with the operation of PSSs more akin to service rather than product co-creation [72], it is the work of Robbert et al. [67] and Sembada [69] that may have more direct relevance to Circular Economic transition.
8Personalizationis“the process that defines or changes the appearance and/or functionality of a product to increase its personal relevance to an individual”[63; p. 468].
9Empowermentis a deliberate marketing strategy designed to give (potential) customers a sense of control over a firm’s product selection process [41; p. 65].
Interim Summary Various forms of access-based consumption seem able to generate suffi- cient affordances for the three routes outlined in PO Theory—control, intimate knowledge, and investment of the self [30,31]—to be traversed, with development of PO for items that are accessed but not legally owned at least possible. But for this to occur, motivational roots for PO must first be strong [27,46]. Importantly for CE implementation, (routes to) PO can be strengthened by encouraging customers to take a more active and empowered role in the co- design of, say, product-service systems. For some writers, empowerment is best achieved by allowing service users to make minor and temporary customisations (personalisations) to what is otherwise a prototypical product-service package, the latter being based on the“average” attributes for that item category [62; see also48,73]. Regardless of how it is enacted, customer empowerment should generate affordances to both control and self-investment routes to PO development [cf.27,64].
Developed POAs already implied, developed PO has been reported or observed for both tangible and intangible accessed targets. Excluding “trivial” objects like mugs, pens, and inexpensive toy construction kits, the former has mostly been the product component within marketized car-sharing PSSs and clothing rental (see Table2) whereas the latter has mostly focused on the service element of car-sharing and digital music streaming PSSs else natural public goods (see Table3). Whilst somewhat limited in scope10, these findings suggest PSS users come to view as least some accessed products and certain service elements as belonging to“ME”[cf.30,31].
Direct Effects of PO on Access-Based Consumption Once developed, PO tends to have a broadly positive impact on consumer perceptions, attitudes, intentions, and behaviour relating to owned goods [e.g.,42,43]. The same can now be said of access-based consumption with (stronger) PO also directly linked to more intended use of online fashion renting [74] as well as certain aspects of travel [67], leisure [43], hospitality [57,75] and car-sharing [38,46; see also 76] services. Likewise, stronger PO has also been directly linked to rented items being ascribed more economic value [43,46,57,69], more hedonic value [38,61; see also41Study 2], more social, relational, status or symbolic value [38,57,77,78] and perhaps of most relevance to ABC, more environmental value [46Study 2; see also79], greater substitutive value, and more pronounced material ownership reduction [38Studies 2a and 3]. Other direct consequences of PO development include the target being ascribed more convenience, flexibility, privacy and freedom [46Study 2]; users being more satisfied [78], engaging in more acts of stewardship [79,80], and reporting more emotional attachment, commitment, or loyalty to the product, service providers or fellow team members [cf.65Study 3,46Study 2,77Study 1 respec- tively]11; users indicating greater willingness to publicly defend, promote/champion, or give favourable word-of-mouth recommendations for the target [41Study 2,46Study 2,51Model B,57,69;77Study 3;79Study A.5]; and finally, users displaying greater adherence to service providers’advice [55]. More broadly, PO has also been directly related to users reporting greater satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, enhanced psychological well-being, higher self-esteem, and more acts of altruism [61,81].
10Furthermore, several papers include multiple studies with the same target type. Consequently, trends may be skewed by virtue of the research team(s) involved.
11This work may have relevance to user-provider“teams”during initial PSS negotiations (see below).
