Having, Holding, Being - Universität St.Gallen

Transcription

Having, Holding, Being
The Relevance of Graspability for the Self-Extension Function of
Symbolic Objects and Their Symbolized Meanings
DISSERTATION
of the University of St. Gallen,
School of Management,
Economics, Law, Social Sciences
and International Affairs
to obtain the title of
Doctor of Philosophy in Management
submitted by
Philipp Scharfenberger
from
Germany
Approved on the application of
Prof. Dr. Torsten Tomczak
and
Prof. Dr. Andreas Herrmann
Dissertation no. 4237
Rosch-Buch, Schesslitz 2013
The University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social
Sciences and International Affairs hereby consents to the printing of the present
dissertation, without hereby expressing any opinion on the views herein expressed.
St. Gallen, October 21, 2013
The President:
Prof. Dr. Thomas Bieger
III
Acknowledgments
In your hands, you hold the graspable outcome of my work on this dissertation.
It seems intriguing to me how this work began with just a few incidental thoughts and
how it evolved from those through many days of reading, observing, thinking, and
discussing; finally resulting in this particular sequence of words that, in their material
state, to a certain extent, objectify this period of my life. Without exaggeration I can
say that – at least knowingly – the last years of working on this thesis have been the
most enlightening, formative, and intense years of my life so far. I have experienced it
as a particular privilege to live in a surrounding and to have access to resources that
have made it possible to work on this topic in the way that I have. There are certain
people that I would like to thank in this regard.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Torsten Tomczak. He
has been an extraordinarily supportive, as well as a critical and creative guide
throughout the entire dissertation process. I am very thankful for his impressive
capability to see at what times and steps I needed support and in which phases I could
work autonomously. As a result, I had the possibility to work freely on this research
while still being guided and never feeling lost. Without his thoughtful supervision, this
dissertation would not have developed as it did. Likewise, I would like to thank my cosupervisor Prof. Dr. Andreas Herrmann for his support throughout recent years and
for his helpful thoughts and suggestions, which enhanced this dissertation.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Daniel Wentzel who has been – and still
is – a very important mentor to me. His “painful” questions, in combination with his
invaluable academic and personal advice, have been essential for this dissertation and
my development. Similarly, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Luk Warlop for his offer to
cooperate and for his helpful input, especially on the conducted experiments. I would
also like to use this opportunity to thank Prof. Dr. Christian Belz for his indefatigable
efforts to motivate his students to develop good ideas and think differently. Thank you
also to Prof. Dr. Sven Henkel for being such an openhearted, outspoken, and creative
supporter and companion in recent years. In a similar vein, I would like to thank
Dr. Kai Kruthoff for his amicable cooperation on many enthralling industry projects.
Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to Veronika Hauser, Arlette
Niedermann, and Dr. Klaus Edel for their support in all kinds of matters, and for the
helpful steadiness that they brought to our prospering and therefore ever-changing
department.
IV
I would like to thank Suleiman Aryobsei for being such a great “vis-à-vis” colleague
and such a trusty and kindhearted pal throughout recent years. Also, I would like to
thank Dr. Christian Purucker who became an important colleague and friend to me in
the early phase of my dissertation and who will remain an inseparable part of my
memories of that time. Similar is true for Dr. Klemens Knöferle and Dr. Benjamin von
Walter, whom I would like to thank for all the great research related and non-research
related discussions, which contributed to this dissertation. Thank you also to
Dr. Christian Hildebrand – it is a great pleasure to work with someone who is so
remarkably energetic, unconventional, and inspiring. Further, I would like to thank
Dr. Dennis Vogt with whom I have cooperated in various industry projects, resulting
in many valuable memories and experiences. In addition to these individuals, I would
like to thank the entire team of the Center for Customer Insight for the pleasant and
supportive working environment that they have created during my years in St. Gallen.
Moreover, I would like to thank my family and my friends for their emotional as well
as intellectual support during the last years. I am also very thankful for their
understanding and courtesy with regard to my lack of time, particularly in the final
phase of my dissertation. I would like to thank Sebastian Bebiolka, Judith Benner,
Cem Erguel, Dr. Matthias Exner and Dr. Ralph Patocka, Tamara, Martin, and
Dr. Andreas Fey, Max Gärtner, Verena Görtler, Stefanie Greb and Arndt Neckermann,
Tim and Melissa Kaltenbach, Ute and Detlev Khatchikian, Dr. Christiana Merkl, Eva,
Heiko, and Hannah Schaefer, Christina, Tobias, Jonas, and Adreana Scharfenberger,
Prof. Dr. Christian Schmitz, Fred Schulz, Jens Schuster, Oskar Schwarz and Sophie
Gaussiran-Racine, Oliver and Nadja Sequenz, Dr. Janice Spiess, Moritz Szelzki,
Michael Wielan, Gözde Yalazi Özbek, as well as Anna, Judith, Samuel, and Daniel
Zschätzsch. In addition, I would like to thank my grandparents, Gerhard and Margot
Scharfenberger, as well as Mathilde and Dr. Walter Khatchikian.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my colleague and friend
Dr. des. Miriam van Tilburg, to my sister Carolina, and my parents, Brigitte and
Thomas Scharfenberger. They were always there for me at every stage of this journey
and gave me the necessary emotional backing and stability to concentrate on this
thesis. Furthermore, they managed to remind me that there are other important
dimensions to life besides scientific work. For their tremendous support, in every
sense, I thank them from the very bottom of my heart.
St. Gallen, in December of 2013
V
Abstract
Humans tend to own material objects that relate to certain self-defining meanings.
They wear clothes that suit their personalities. They own furniture that embodies their
lifestyles. They keep souvenirs of vacations they like to remember, and they attach to
pictures of moments and people that compose essential parts of their selves. A vast
amount of research has dealt with this self-extending nature of possessions. Little
theoretical knowledge, however, exists concerning the question of how the physical
graspability of possessions relates to their self-extension function.
The essential aim of this dissertation is to approach this question. Regarding this goal,
a review of previous research on the self-extending and symbolic meaning of objects is
complemented by findings from construal-level theory. The combination of these
perspectives allows for a precision of potential components and psychological
processes that underlie the self-extension phenomenon. Based on this theoretical
foundation, a framework is developed that relates subjects’ physical distance to an
object to their perceived distance and self-extension towards that object’s symbolized
meaning. Five experimental studies support the presumption that physical proximity to
a symbolic object reduces subjects’ perceived distance and increases their perceived
self-extension towards the object’s meaning. Furthermore, findings indicate that this
affiliation also positively transfers into subjects’ behavior towards the symbolized
meaning.
Overall, the results support the notion that the physical graspability of economic goods
exerts an essential self-defining use to consumers and a relevant impact on their
behavior. This notion is particularly emphasized against a prevailing tendency of
research and management to focus on immaterial components and utilities of
economic offerings. Regarding management, this dissertation hence promotes an
object-dominant logic that accentuates the relevance of the graspability of products
and services. Concerning consumer theory, this dissertation proposes a revised
understanding of the extended self concept that accounts for the graspability of
possessions. In doing so, the author aims at providing management with a
contracyclical and stimulating perspective on the management of products and
services. Furthermore, the author intends to contribute to a more precise theoretical
understanding of why humans possess and consequently why and how they consume.
VI
Zusammenfassung
Der Besitz und das Selbstempfinden von Menschen sind eng miteinander verbunden.
Menschen hüllen sich in Kleidung, die ihre Persönlichkeit widerspiegelt. Sie besitzen
Einrichtungsgegenstände, die ihren Lebensstil verkörpern. Sie behalten Andenken von
prägenden Reisen und umgeben sich mit Fotos von Momenten und Personen, die einen
wichtigen Bestandteil ihres Selbst ausmachen. Diese selbsterweiternde Funktion von
Besitz bildet einen grundlegenden Untersuchungsgegenstand der Konsum- und
Marketingforschung. Welche Relevanz im Speziellen der physischen Greifbarkeit für
diese Funktion von Besitzgegenständen zukommt, bleibt indes weitgehend unerklärt.
Dieser Fragestellung widmet sich die vorliegende Dissertation. Aufbauend auf ihr wird
eine Analyse bestehender Literatur zur selbsterweiternden und symbolischen
Bedeutung von Besitz- und Konsumgegenständen durchgeführt. Die Erkenntnisse aus
dieser Analyse werden mit Annahmen der Construal-Level Theorie verknüpft. Die
Verbindung dieser Theoriestränge erlaubt eine Präzisierung von potentiellen
Einflussfaktoren und psychologischen Prozessen, die der Selbsterweiterungsfunktion
von Besitzgegenständen zugrunde liegen. Fünf Experimente stützen die Annahme,
dass die physische Nähe zu einem greifbaren Objekt die empfundene Distanz zu
dessen Bedeutungsgehalt reduziert sowie die empfundene Selbstverbundenheit zu ihm
erhöht. Die Studien zeigen zudem, dass sich diese Selbsterweiterung positiv auf das
Verhalten gegenüber dem Bedeutungsgehalt auswirken kann.
Die Ergebnisse stützen die Annahme, dass die physische Greifbarkeit von
ökonomischen Leistungen eine verhaltensrelevante Nutzendimension für
Konsumenten darstellt. Besonders hervorgehoben wird dieser Standpunkt vor dem
Hintergrund einer scheinbar abnehmenden Berücksichtigung dieser Nutzendimension
in aktuellen Konsum- und Marketingkonzepten. Im Hinblick auf die
Unternehmenspraxis entwickelt diese Arbeit daher eine Object-Dominant Logic, die
die Relevanz der Greifbarkeit von Produkten und Dienstleistungen hervorhebt.
Hinsichtlich der Theorieentwicklung schlägt diese Arbeit ein überarbeitetes
Selbsterweiterungskonzept vor, das den spezifischen Einfluss der Greifbarkeit von
Besitz berücksichtigt. Damit beabsichtigt der Autor einerseits, einen ideengebenden
Perspektivwechsel im Management von Produkten und Dienstleistungen anzuregen.
Andererseits intendiert die vorliegende Dissertation eine Erweiterung des
theoretischen Verständnisses davon, warum Menschen besitzen und schliesslich
warum und wie sie konsumieren.
VII
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... V
Zusammenfassung......................................................................................................... VI
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... VII
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ X
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ XI
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................... XII
1
Introduction............................................................................................................. 1
2
Theoretical Foundation and Conceptual Framework ......................................... 6
2.1
Possessions and the Extended Self ..................................................................... 6
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2
Objects as Graspable Symbols of Ungraspable Meaning ................................ 16
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.3
The Notion of Possessions as Self-Extensions............................................. 6
The Role of Materiality in Extended Self Research..................................... 8
A General Tendency Towards Immateriality? ........................................... 13
A Definition and Elaboration of Objects and their Properties ................... 16
Objects as Symbols .................................................................................... 22
The Relationship between Symbolic Objects and Their Meaning ............. 24
Symbolic Objects and Perceived Reality and Self ..................................... 27
Construal-Level Theory as an Approach to Conceptualize the Influence
of Graspability on the Self-Extension Function of Symbolic Objects ............ 29
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
An Introduction to Construal-Level Theory .............................................. 29
The Influence of Object Proximity on Subjects’ Perceived
Distance to a Symbolized Meaning............................................................ 31
The Influence of Object Proximity on Subjects’ Perceived
Self-Extension towards a Symbolized Meaning ........................................ 33
The Influence of Object Proximity on Subjects’ Behavior
towards a Symbolized Meaning ................................................................. 33
The Moderating Influence of the Symbolic Connection
between Object and Meaning ..................................................................... 34
Overall Conceptual Model ......................................................................... 36
VIII
3
Experimental Analyses ......................................................................................... 37
3.1
3.2
Overview of Empirical Approach .................................................................... 37
The Wedding Ring Experiment (Study 1) ........................................................ 41
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
3.3
The Mug Experiment (Study 2)........................................................................ 45
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.4
Overview .................................................................................................... 52
Participants and Procedure ......................................................................... 53
Manipulation of Independent Variables ..................................................... 55
Pretesting of Stimuli ................................................................................... 58
Operationalization of Dependent Variables ............................................... 60
Control Variables ....................................................................................... 61
Results ........................................................................................................ 61
Discussion .................................................................................................. 71
The Club Card Experiment (Study 4)............................................................... 74
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.5.6
3.5.7
3.6
Overview .................................................................................................... 45
Manipulation of Independent Variable ...................................................... 47
Operationalization of Dependent Variable................................................. 48
Manipulation Checks and Control Variables ............................................. 49
Results ........................................................................................................ 49
Discussion .................................................................................................. 50
The Tennis Ball Experiment (Study 3)............................................................. 52
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
3.4.8
3.5
Overview .................................................................................................... 41
Control Variables ....................................................................................... 43
Results ........................................................................................................ 43
Discussion .................................................................................................. 44
Overview .................................................................................................... 74
Operationalization of Dependent Variables ............................................... 79
Results ........................................................................................................ 81
Discussion .................................................................................................. 87
The Product- versus Service-Brands Experiment (Study 5) ............................ 89
3.6.1
3.6.2
Overview .................................................................................................... 89
IX
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.6.5
3.6.6
3.6.7
4
General Discussion................................................................................................ 96
4.1
4.2
Overall Findings ............................................................................................... 96
Theoretical Contribution .................................................................................. 99
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.3
4.4
4.5
Contribution to Extended Self Research .................................................... 99
Contribution to Research on Symbolic Consumption.............................. 101
Contribution to Construal-Level Theory .................................................. 102
Managerial Contribution ................................................................................ 103
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
(R)Evolving towards an Object-Dominant Logic .................................... 103
Exploiting the Self-Defining Meaning of Objects ................................... 104
Managing the Meaning of Objects ........................................................... 105
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 106
Future Research .............................................................................................. 107
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
5
Results ........................................................................................................ 92
Discussion .................................................................................................. 93
Future Research on Objects...................................................................... 108
Future Research on Subjects .................................................................... 109
Future Research on Meanings .................................................................. 110
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 112
References ................................................................................................................... 113
X
List of Figures
Figure 1-1:
Figure 1-2:
Figure 2-1:
Figure 2-2:
Figure 2-3:
Figure 2-4:
Figure 2-5:
Figure 3-1:
Figure 3-2:
Figure 3-3:
Figure 3-4:
Figure 3-5:
Figure 3-6:
Figure 3-7:
Figure 3-8:
Figure 3-9:
Figure 3-10:
Figure 3-11:
Figure 3-12:
Figure 3-13:
Figure 3-14:
Figure 3-15:
Figure 3-16:
Figure 3-17:
Figure 3-18:
Figure 3-19:
Figure 3-20:
Figure 3-21:
Figure 3-22:
Figure 3-23:
Figure 3-24:
Figure 3-25:
Figure 3-26:
Illustration of Mind-Body Connection by Descartes (1662) .................... 1
Structure of Dissertation ........................................................................... 5
The Notion of Possessions as Self-Extensions ......................................... 7
Preliminary Study / Results / Sizes of Object Images ............................ 19
The Perceived Objectiveness of Objects as a Function of Object Size .. 20
The Reality- and Self-Construing Function of Symbolic Objects .......... 28
Conceptual Model of Dissertation .......................................................... 36
Study 1 / Design / Procedure of Experiment .......................................... 42
Study 1 / Results / Perceived Distance to Wedding................................ 43
Study 2 / Design / Picture of Utilized Mug............................................. 45
Study 2 / Results / Perceived Distance to Personal Experience ............. 50
Study 3 / Design / Depiction Wimbledon ............................................... 55
Study 3 / Design / Pictures of Utilized Tennis Balls .............................. 57
Study 3 / Pretest / Manipulation Check .................................................. 59
Study 3 / Results / Perceived Distance to Wimbledon ........................... 62
Study 3 / Results / Perceived Self-Extension to Wimbledon.................. 64
Study 3 / Results / Moderated Mediation Analysis ................................ 66
Study 3 / Results / Intention to Visit Wimbledon ................................... 68
Study 3 / Results / Serial Multiple Mediation Analyses ......................... 70
Study 4 / Design / Portrait Marketing Club ............................................ 77
Study 4 / Design / Picture of Utilized Membership Card ....................... 78
Study 4 / Design / Picture of Utilized Membership Voucher ................. 79
Study 4 / Design / Logo of Marketing Club St. Gallen .......................... 79
Study 4 / Results / Perceived Self-Extension to Marketing Club ........... 82
Study 4 / Results / Intention to Become a Club Member ....................... 83
Study 4 / Results / Mediation Analysis ................................................... 84
Study 4 / Results / Willingness to Pay for Membership ......................... 85
Study 4 / Results / Number of Specified Email Addresses..................... 86
Study 5 / Results / Perceived Self-Extension to Brands ......................... 93
XI
List of Tables
Table 2-1:
Table 3-1:
Table 3-2:
Table 3-3:
Literature Overview .................................................................................. 12
Overview of Conducted Experiments ....................................................... 40
Study 3 / Results / Indirect Effects – Moderated Mediation ..................... 67
Study 3 / Results / Indirect Effects – Serial Multiple Mediation .............. 71
XII
List of Abbreviations
ANOVA
Analysis of variance
ANCOVA
Analysis of covariance
BC
Before Christ
CI
Confidence interval
cm
Centimeter
e.g.
Exempli gratia (for example)
etc.
Et cetera (and the rest)
et al.
Et alii (and others)
f.
Folio (following page)
ff.
Folio (following pages)
H
Hypothesis
ibid
Ibidem (in the same place)
i.e.
Id est (that is)
LLCI
Lower limit of confidence interval
LSD
Least significant difference t-test
M
Mean
N
Total sample size
p
Probability value
p.
Page
pp.
Pages
r
Pearson correlation coefficient
SB
Spearman-Brown coefficient
SE
Standard error
UPCI
Upper limit of confidence interval
α
Cronbach’s alpha
ß
Unstandardized regression coefficient
1
1 Introduction
A unifying aim of the humanities lies in the basic goal to understand the essence of
human being and behavior (Dilthey 1883). Disciplines within the humanities such as
philosophy, sociology, psychology, economics, and finally consumer research can
accordingly be understood as different perspectives of this goal. While the humanities
hence focus on humans as beings with a consciousness that comprises a meta-physical
understanding of existence, natural sciences focus on a more material
conceptualization of humans and their surroundings. In contrast to the humanities, it is
hence the goal of natural sciences to understand and explain the rules of this physical
matter.1
A fundamental and lasting question that has arisen from this particular dualistic
structuring of sciences is the question of how the physical body and surroundings of
humans relate to their meta-physical understanding of being. This so-called mind-body
problem has most famously been addresses by René Descartes (1641; 1662; see
illustration below). It comprises the question of where within the human being
consciousness and a sense of self exist and how they connect to the human body and
its physical surrounding.
Figure 1-1: Illustration of Mind-Body Connection by Descartes (1662)
1
The author uses this traditional and contrasting perspective of the humanities and natural sciences according
to Wilhelm Dilthey’s (1883, p. 13 ff.; 1910, p. 5 ff.) conceptualization of the German term Geisteswissenschaften, knowing that there are possible other categorizations of the mentioned scientific disciplines.
This dualistic comparison is chosen as it is essential for the formulation of the here described mind-body
problem and reflects similar conceptualizations of various researchers who have approached this or related
problems: see Descartes’ (1641) description of the mind-body problem above, Jasper’s (1954) idea of the
“subject-object-split”, Cassam’s (1997) differentiation between object and subject, or Locke’s (1690)
structuring of sciences as reported in Chapter 2.2. For a further discussion of this conceptualization and its
relation to this dissertation, see Chapter 2.2.
2
A related question has concerned consumer research in the last four decades. It is the
question of how belongings that consumers surround themselves with relate to their
sense of self. How, for example, does a watch, a car, a house, a phone, a piece of art,
or an heirloom that somebody owns influence his or her sense and perception of self?
This question of which personal function possessions have for their owner’s identity
and which relationship consumers accordingly create to their possessions is especially
important for consumer research, as it sets a fundamental basis for understanding why
humans possess and consequently why and how they consume (Belk 1988).
According to this importance, a large number of researchers have examined the
relationship between possessions and the self (see section 2.1.1). The majority of this
research has approached this field from a sociological and anthropological perspective
implementing mainly conceptual and qualitative research methodologies. This
research, however, has disregarded the particular question of what importance the
graspability of possessions has for their self-defining function. Literature in many
cases suggests material characteristics of possessions by using expressions such as
“material” or “physical” objects. At the same time, researchers use examples of
possessions such as ideas, experiences, or relationships that undermine the actual
relevance of a possession’s materiality for its self-extending function (see
section 2.1.2). If possessions however actually have the function of manifesting a
sense of self to their owners, it can be argued that concrete and directly experienceable
possessions should serve this function better than possessions that themselves are just
as abstract as their owners’ personalities.
A glance into everyday life underlines and refines this notion: as mentioned above,
humans tend to declare a wide range of things as their belongings that per se are
intangible and abstract. They, for example, express ownership by describing
personally important experiences as my vacation, my wedding, or my last concert visit.
The same is true for other abstract possessions such as my religious belief, my job, my
ideas, as well as relationships to my favorite band or my favorite soccer team.
Interestingly, humans however are inclined to materialize these abstract belongings by
objectifying them through graspable, symbolic objects – thereby transferring them
from their immaterial, mental state into the “real” directly experienceable world.
Vacations, for example, are tangibilized by bringing home souvenirs or pictures;
relationships are sealed by wearing friendship bracelets during childhood and wedding
rings during adulthood; a concert visit is materialized by retaining the entrance card; a
religious belief by wearing a necklace with a cross; an abstract job through a simple
business card; relationships to a band by owning a 12” record of their first album;
3
and relationships to favorite sports teams by wearing merchandising products such as
jerseys and scarves. Further expanding this idea, even classic products such as
sneakers or watches can be understood as symbolic objectifications of their brands and
thus as vehicles to physically connect these brands to their owners.
This everyday evidence suggests that the physical graspability of the things that
someone uses to define his identity is crucial to the ability of these possessions to
serve this function. Building upon this argumentation, the following research question
is defined as a guideline for this dissertation thesis:
Research Question:
How does the graspability of symbolic objects relate to and influence human selfextension towards abstract meanings?
In addressing this question, the present dissertation aims at two main goals: (1) the
development of a revised conceptual understanding of the self-extension function of
possessions that accounts for their graspability; (2) the creation and analysis of
empirical data that is suitable to investigate the relevance of the graspability of
symbolic objects for their self-extension function.
Based on this focus, the present research is relevant for consumer research and
marketing management in various ways: the project first contributes to the theoretical
understanding of the relationship between possessions and consumer’s selves. It
therefore aims at further developing this fundamental theoretical field within consumer
research. Related to this, it thereby also refers to the broader theoretical question of the
connection between mind, body, and physical surrounding and intends to gain further
knowledge on their interdependence.
Moreover, as previously outlined, a wide range of research in the concerned context is
based on conceptual or qualitative research methods. The research at hand, in contrast,
applies an experimental approach towards the observed phenomenon. By doing so, it
not only fosters an alternative perspective of the matter of interest; it further aims at
contributing to a stronger methodical diversity in its investigation and hence to a more
thorough capturing of its nature (see section 3.1).
In addition to these scientific contributions, the project aims at creating helpful
knowledge and ideas for companies and their management of products and services.
Recent years have shown socio-economic as well as technological developments that
support a general dematerialization of products themselves as well as an emphasis of
4
immaterial product attributes by research and management (see section 2.1.3).
Technological developments lead to a digitalization of entertainment and information
media: records and movies as well as books or photo albums that previously were
physically present in bookshelves are now abstractly stored on hard drives and servers.
Simultaneously, socio-economic developments such as more flexible lifestyles support
a dematerialization of products and services: in a time in which consumers constantly
move from one job and one place to another, bulky possessions such as houses, cars,
or heavy record collections are perceived as increasingly limiting (ibid).
These current developments challenge companies to adequately react and exert
influence where possible: should companies, for example, support flexible
consumption habits such as renting or sharing? And if so, should they position
themselves as providers of graspable products or less material services? Which of
these two aspects should they emphasize in their communications? Should they
dematerialize their offerings where possible? Or should they stick to graspable
components in their portfolio; and if yes, which components? Economically as well as
ecologically, it seems perfectly rational to dematerialize products and services – not
only does this support a decrease of production costs; it also lives up to the necessity
for a more careful usage of resources. But how does this dematerialization influence
consumers’ incorporation of offerings into their self-concepts and thus their
attachment to them? Gaining knowledge concerning these aspects is crucial from a
managerial perspective. Not only does this dissertation aim at approaching these
questions, it further aims at fostering their conscious and thorough discussion in
research and management.
Regarding these aims, the dissertation at hand is divided into five main chapters. This
introductory chapter is followed by the theoretical approach to the outlined research
question. The theoretical discussion is initiated with an overview of previous research
on possessions and the extended self as well as related research fields. This literature
overview particularly concentrates on the role of the materiality of possessions and
economic goods in existing consumer and marketing research. The second section
develops an understanding of graspable objects and their symbolic connection to
meanings, which is essential for this dissertation project. Section three of the
theoretical chapter introduces construal-level theory. As will be outlined, this theory
provides a promising approach for the conceptualization of the influence of
graspability onto the self-extension function of objects. Building upon this theoretical
basis, concrete hypotheses are developed that are joined to the overall conceptual
model of this dissertation.
5
In Chapter 3, five experimental analyses are documented and interpreted that were
conducted to test the theoretically derived hypotheses. In Chapter 4, the results are
consolidated and discussed against the theoretical framework of the thesis. Based on
this interpretation of the results, practical and theoretical implications are formulated.
Further, the limitations of the conducted studies are discussed. Based on these and the
findings, future possible research directions are outlined. Chapter 5 finishes this
dissertation with a summarizing conclusion.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Problem orientation of dissertation and formulation of research question (pp. 1-5)
Chapter 2: Theoretical Foundation and Conceptual Framework
Review of related research, development of conceptual framework, formulation of hypotheses (pp. 6-36)
Chapter 3: Experimental Analyses
Documentation and discussion of five experimental studies (pp. 37-95)
Chapter 4: General Discussion
Detailed discussion of the overall findings, implications, limitations, and directions for future research (pp. 96-111)
Chapter 5: Conclusion
Closing overview of research project (p. 112)
Figure 1-2: Structure of Dissertation
6
2 Theoretical Foundation and Conceptual Framework
This second chapter forms the theoretical foundation of this dissertation. Building
upon a discussion of the relevant literature its aim is to create the conceptual
framework for this research project. As regards this aim, the following section will
discuss previous research on possessions and the extended self with a particular focus
on the materiality of possessions (section 2.1). Subsequent, a foundational
understanding of symbolic objects will be derived in section 2.2. Section 2.3 will
introduce construal-level theory as a connecting element between the extended self
concept and the developed understanding of symbolic objects. The sum of these
considerations will finally flow into the development of concrete research hypotheses
(see sections 2.3.2-2.3.6) that set the fundament for the empirical analyses that are
outlined in Chapter 3.
2.1 Possessions and the Extended Self
2.1.1 The Notion of Possessions as Self-Extensions
“Our fragile sense of self needs support, and this we get by having and possessing
things because, to a large degree, we are what we have and possess.”
Tuan 1980; citied by Belk 1988, p. 139
A large amount of research within consumer research and marketing has investigated
the relationship between consumers and their possessions. Especially Russell Belk has
influenced the idea of possessions as extensions of their owners’ selves in the last 40
years (see Belk 1978-2013). The relevance of this research field for consumer research
as well as the importance of his fundamental article “Possessions and the Extended
Self” (Belk 1988) is shown by the fact that this article is one of the most cited articles
in consumer research2. A possible reason for this popularity is given by Belk himself,
as he explains in the first sentence of this article: “We cannot hope to understand
consumer behavior without first gaining some understanding of the meaning that
consumers attach to possessions” (Belk 1988, p. 140).
2
The Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) that published this article from Russell Belk in 1988 is one of the
most renowned journals within the field of consumer research. Today (2013), and hence 25 years after its
publication, it still lists this article as the second most cited JCR articles of the last three years on its website.
7
To Belk possessions are a “major contributor to and a reflection of [their owners’]
identities” (Belk 1988, p. 139). The self therefore not only comprises “that which is
seen as ‘me’ but also that which is seen as ‘mine’” (ibid). Similar understandings of
self-extending possessions are shared by researchers such as Prelinger (1959),
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Holton (1981), Wallendorf and Arnould (1988),
Kleine, Kleine, and Allen (1995), Habermas (1999), Sirgy (1982), and many more.
Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) highlight not only the self-orientated usage of
possessions as extended self but also their social meaning: “We use objects to convey
and extend our self-concepts to others as well as to demonstrate the self-concept to
ourselves” (p. 531). Berger and Heath (2007) further emphasize this social (or as they
term it, identity signaling) function of possessions and product domains (see also
Richins 1994; Escalas and Bettman 2005; Derbaix, Decrop, and Cabossart 2002).
Common between all these understandings of possessions is the idea that possessions
symbolically condense a certain personal and social meaning that is of importance for
the self-perception of a person as well as his desired perception within his social
surrounding. Figure 2-1 visualizes this self-reflecting and manifesting function of
possessions.
Figure 2-1: The Notion of Possessions as Self-Extensions
8
Because of this self-extending function of possessions, individuals create an
attachment to the possessions that manifest their personality (Belk 1989; Schultz,
Kleine, and Kernan 1989). Attachment can thereby be understood as the “degree of
linkage perceived by an individual between him / her self and a particular object”
(Schultz et al. 1989, p. 360). This bond to a possession can become so strong that a
loss of a possession is perceived as a loss of self (Wallendorf and Arnould 1988).
2.1.2 The Role of Materiality in Extended Self Research
Despite an increasing interest in the relevance of possessions’ physical properties,
research on the extended self has so far not precisely distinguished between material
and immaterial possessions. This unclearness might be best displayed by two
prominent quotes from Belk himself. On the one hand, Belk (1990, p. 669) explains,
“The notion of the extended self suggests that we transcend the immediate confines of
our bodies by incorporating into our identities, objects from our physical
environment.” On the other hand, he states “We may summarize the major categories
of extended self as body, internal processes, ideas, and experiences, and those persons,
places, and things, to which one feels attached” (Belk 1988, p. 141; see also Belk
2013, p. 477 f.). According to Belk, the physical existence of possessions therefore
seems to be of some relevance for their self-extending function (as depicted in the first
quote). However, it seems to be of no deeper conceptual meaning, as possessions such
as internal processes, ideas, and experiences are generally not material / physically
graspable but attributed to the concept of self extension (in the second quote).
This ambiguity in the perception of possessions permeates most of the influential work
in this field of possessions and the self. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton
(1981) – although including mainly tangible possessions into their investigation of
“the meaning of things” – define these things as “any bit of information that has a
recognizable identity in consciousness, a pattern that has enough coherence, or internal
order, to evoke a consistent image or label” (p. 14). In line with this definition, they
point out that “In talking about objects, we shall not be concerned with their chemical
composition, their mass, or their weight” (p. 13). Berger and Heath (2007) also extend
their understanding of identity signaling products from very tangible product domains
such as cars and stereos to more intangible domains such as hobbies, music genres,
and sitcoms. A similar openness concerning the definition of possessions is found in
the work of Richins (1994) and Mehta and Belk (1991). In contrast, Wallendorf and
Arnould (1988) as well as Kleine et al. (1995) follow a very clear understanding of
material and hence physically graspable possessions. Moreover, Belk, Wallendorf, and
9
Sherry (1989, p. 11) actually discuss tangible and intangible things as domains of
sacred consumption. They further outline concepts such as objectification (p. 7),
symbolic transformation of objects (p. 14), and tangibilized contamination (p. 30).
However, just as the previously mentioned researchers, they neither address the
particular issue and specific psychological meaning of the materiality and graspability
of these things for self-extension processes nor have these considerations been
incorporated in later revisions of the extended self concept (Belk 2013).
A possible cause for this impreciseness seems to be that a major part of research on the
relationship between possessions and consumers is strongly influenced by sociological
and anthropological research streams. Therefore, the investigated research questions
and implemented, mainly qualitative, methodologies aim at conceptualizing a more
global understanding of the contemplated phenomenon – contrary to looking at
particular physio-psychological aspects such as the concrete materiality of possessions.
Another rather pragmatic reason seems to be that the distinction between material and
immaterial possessions and components of the self is difficult and has therefore been
avoided in past conceptualization. Concerning these difficulties and the prevailing
unclearness, Belk just recently stated “Given the difficulties in separating mind and
body in philosophies and psychologies of the self, objects in all of these categories
[see the above mentioned categories] will be treated as parts of the extended self”
(Belk 2013, p. 478).
Despite this vague conceptualization of possessions, literature does reflect efforts to
account for the spatial / physical references of self and the things that people account
to their selves. Already the term extended self associates to the idea that the self is
something that can be extended and thus has a physical reference. This closely
connects to the conceptualization of the self by William James (1890), which is
fundamental for a large proportion of extended self research (Belk 1988;
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Habermas 1999). James uses
expressions such as the outline or the expansion of self in his discussion of the
consciousness of self (James 1890, p. 312 f.; see also Habermas 1999, p. 60 f.). He
even tries to identify the spatial center of the self and describes it to be located
somewhere in the motions that he feels “in the head or between the head and the
throat” (James 1890, p. 301) – a finding that however has been widely questioned
(Habermas 1999, p. 60 f.). Prelinger (1959) further expands this search for the physical
localization of the self. He has subjects sort 160 items according to their perception of
the items as being part of the self. The items thereby reflect the following eight
10
categories of things3: body parts, psychological and physiological processes, personal
characteristics, possessions, abstract ideas, other people, close objects, as well as the
distant physical environment. Prelinger (1959) concludes that amongst other criteria
physical proximity influences the perception of a thing’s belongingness to the self (see
also Habermas 1999, p. 61; Belk 1988, p. 140).
In line with this argumentation, Belk (1988, 1990) highlights the particular meaning of
“contamination” for self-extension processes. Belk argues that bodily contact to an
object may not only lead to an increased feeling of control and ownership towards the
object (Belk 1988, p. 151). He further elaborates that objects that have been
contaminated by a person also incorporate parts of that person – such as that
secondhand clothing, for example, is associated with being connected to its previous
owner (Dehling and Vernette 2013). Therefore, contamination not only connects
objects to the touching person but also connects the person to the touched object.
Grayson and Shulman (2000) further emphasize this notion of contamination or, in
other words, the physical connection between an object and its meaning (see also
Newman, Diesenbruck, and Bloom 2011; Grayson and Martinec 2004). They build
upon Peirce’s semiotic theory to explain the process in which meaning is attached to
possessions. According to them, possessions become particularly important to their
owners when they are factually connected to a personally important experience and
accordingly serve as evidence for that part of the self (Grayson and Shulman 2000,
p. 19; see also section 2.2.3). This closely relates to Csikszentmihalyi and RochbergHalton’s (1981) as well as Belk’s notion of possessions’ functions “in constructing and
maintaining a sense of past” (Belk 1990, p. 669 emphasis added4; see also Belk 1988;
Love and Sheldon 1998). As mentioned, some of these approaches account for a
physical connection of possessions to their symbolic meaning. However, none of these
approaches knowingly addresses the particular relevance of a possession’s physical
graspability for the self-extension process.
Where the concrete materiality of possessions has been investigated it has been
contemplated in a more sensory context such as affective reactions to touch or the
quality-signaling relevance of haptic information (Peck and Childers 2003; Peck and
Wiggins 2006; Krishna and Morrin 2008; Sonneveld and Schifferstein 2008). Peck and
Shu (2009) have further been able to show that touching an object can increase
3
4
Relating to the results of Prelinger’s findings, the shown categories are sorted in decreasing order as being
perceived as part of the self.
The term constructing that Belk uses in this context relates to this dissertation’s reference to construal-level
theory to explain the psychological processes that underlie the self-extension phenomenon (see Chapter 2.3).
11
perceived ownership and therefore fosters a personal connection to an object. Their
findings hence support Belk’s notion of the contamination-effect and further refine
findings in the field of the endowment effect (see also Kahneman, Knetch, and Thaler
1990; Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003). Although accounting for the physical
properties of possessions, these studies do not investigate the particular relevance of
the materiality of possessions for their ability to self-extend.
The relevance of the materiality of possessions for self-extension processes has
however gained increasing attention in recent years apropos the growing amount of
digital possessions such as digital music, books, photos, videos, and written documents
(Belk 2013; Siddiqui and Turley 2006; Lehdonvirta 2010). These developments have
led to a more sensitive view on the material aspects of self-extension and consumption
in general. Siddiqui and Turley (2006) argue that a dematerialization of digital
possessions leads to increased feelings of uncertainty as well as less emotional and
more functional attachments to possessions. Magaudda (2011) denotes that
digitalization does not actually result in dematerialization. According to her, current
developments towards digital consumption just lead to a shift in relevant objects:
objects such as CDs or tapes are replaced by objects such as iPods. Other objects such
as vinyl records have “remained the central focus of interest of many music collectors”
(Magaudda 2011, p. 28). However, in line with the previously mentioned authors, also
these authors stay unclear in their particular understanding of material possessions.
Above that, their findings stay fragmentary as well as vague regarding their
contribution to consumer theory. The mentioned studies identify similarities and
differences between tangible and intangible possessions (Siddiqui and Turley 2006;
Belk 2013). A converging understanding of the relevance of the physical graspability
for possessions’ self-extending function is however missing. This missing conceptual
clarity is not least manifested in Belk’s recent revision of the “extended self in a digital
world” and his summarizing finding that the “attachment to […] virtual possessions,
[is] almost, but not quite the same” (Belk 2013, p. 478).
This recent revision of Belk’s extended self concept (ibid) can also be seen in line with
prevailing efforts in consumer and marketing research to refine current perspectives on
consumption. In addition to the outlined digitalization of consumption, present trends
such as product sharing as well as new and more flexible (consumption) lifestyles
motivate researchers to develop new concepts that meet these changing, “postmodern”
consumption patterns. Bardhi, Eckhardt, and Arnould (2012) recently introduced the
concept of “liquid relationships to possessions”. Partially related to this concept,
Vargo and Lusch introduced the “service-dominant logic” in 2004. These concepts are
12
of particular relevance for the here investigated research question because they share
and facilitate the notion of a consumption dematerialization. Due to this approach,
which to some extent opposes the here developed understanding of the relevance of
graspable possessions, these currently emerging concepts will be closer discussed in
the next section.
Summarizing this section, five major fields within the broader context of extended self
research can be differentiated that relate to the materiality of possessions and
consumption: (1) research in the main field of possessions and the extended self;
(2) research on symbolic consumption as regards the symbolic meaning of economic
goods; (3) research on touch and ownership; (4) research on digital consumption; as
well as (5) concepts on postmodern consumption. This last research field will be
brought into closer context of this dissertation in the following section. Table 2-1
summarizes the highlighted five research streams.
Research Field
Research Focus and Reference to Materiality
Methodology
Exemplary Literature
Possessions and Self
‐ Literature concentrates on broad conceptualizations of the
relationships between consumers and their possessions
Conceptual /
Qualitative
Belk (1985, 1988);
Belk et al. (1989);
Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton (1981);
Kleine et al. (1995);
Wallendorf and Arnould
(1988); Habermas (1999)
Experimental /
Conceptual
Grayson and Shulman
(2000); Newman et al.
(2011); Richins (1994);
Berger and Heath (2007);
Escalas and Bettmann
(2005); Belk (1988)
Experimental
Peck and Childers (2003);
Peck and Wiggins (2006);
Peck and Wiggins (2011);
Peck and Shu (2009);
Krishna and Morrin
(2008);
Conceptual /
Qualitative
Belk (2013);
Magaudda (2013);
Siddiqui and Turley
(2006); Styvén (2010);
Hongladarom (2011)
Conceptual /
Qualitative
Bardhi et al. (2012);
Bardhi and Eckhardt
(2012); Belk (2010); Vargo
and Lusch (2004); Tuli et
al. (2007)
‐ Implicitly this research builds upon a classic understanding
of material possessions that are owned by consumers
‐ Explicitly this research however stays vague in its
conceptualization of possessions and unspecific about the
relevance of materiality for self-extension processes
Symbolic Consumption
‐ Literature concentrates on the symbolic meaning and value
of possessions and economic goods
‐ Implicitly this research stream builds upon a classic
understanding of material goods
‐ Literature however stays inexplicit about the particular
relevance of materiality for consumption processes
Touch and Ownership
‐ Research investigates the effect of haptic properties of
objects on consumers’ attitudes and behavior
‐ Research also looks at the effect of touch onto perceived
ownership
‐ Research however does not investigate the particular
relevance of the graspability of possessions for their selfextension function
Digital Consumption
‐ Literature concentrates on consumption of digital products
‐ Although research particularly approaches the relevance of
the materiality of products it stays vague in its definition of
product materiality
‐ Results in this field stay fragmentary and disconnected
Postmodern Consumption
‐ Literature develops new understandings of the relationships
between consumers and economic goods
‐ This understanding is particularly influenced by new
consumption practices and lifestyles such as digital
consumption and sharing
‐ Research suggests a decrease of the importance of
physical possessions and ownership
Table 2-1: Literature Overview
13
2.1.3 A General Tendency Towards Immateriality?
“Things are disappearing right before our eyes” (Belk 2013, p. 478). This notion that
Belk formulates in his recent revision of the extended self concept can be understood
not only literally as a description of a continuing dematerialization of digitalized
possessions. Above that, it can also be understood symptomatically as a description of
how consumer and marketing research presently changes its perspective of economic
goods and services (Tuli, Kohli, and Bharadwaj 2007).
In contrast to the classic understanding of material possessions and goods, recent
consumer research tends to foster a more immaterial perspective on consumption
practices. Research even goes so far as to emphasize the particular irrelevance of
material possessions or even negative effects of material possessions for consumption
practices. Bardhi et al. (2012) argue that in a time in which consumers increasingly
engage in nomadic lifestyles “attachment to things becomes problematic because
possessions tether one to particular locales both physically and symbolically” (p. 511).
They accordingly show that well-situated individuals with flexible lifestyles tend to
detach from material possessions and form so-called liquid relationships with their
physical surroundings.
This liquid understanding of the relationship that consumers have with possessions
seems to be partially influenced by the continuing dematerialization of information
media such as books, CDs, movies, pictures, etc. (Belk 2013; Siddiqui and Turley
2006; Magaudda 2011; Styvén 2010; Lehdonvirta 2010). More importantly, however,
this notion seems to be related to an assumed detachment of consumers from their
material possessions. Recent research on consumer behavior continuously emphasizes
that consumers have an increasingly utilitarian perspective of goods that results in
alternative consumption practices such as sharing or less solid and more liquid
relationships to possessions. According to Bardhi and Eckhardt, “ownership is no
longer the ultimate expression of consumer desire (…). Instead of buying and owning
things, consumers want to access the goods and prefer to pay for the experience of
temporarily accessing them” (2000, p. 881; emphasis added; see also Bardhi et al.
2012).
This tendency to devalue the relevance of the physical and emotional bond between
consumers and their possessions is not new. It is following a related but outdated
discussion of marketing research apropos services. In her article “Breaking Free from
Product Marketing”, G. Lynn Shostack already emphasized in 1977 (p. 73) the
necessity of “making room for intangibility” in marketing management and research.
14
In a similar vein, Kotler notes that “the importance of physical products lies not so
much in owning them as in obtaining the services they render” (1977, p. 8). These
argumentations set the reference frame for the so-called service-dominant logic that
Vargo and Lusch introduce in 2004 and which sets the present peak of a
dematerialized view on economic offerings in marketing research. According to Vargo
and Lusch, this approach creates a “reoriented philosophy” (2004, p. 2) that views all
offerings, including material goods, as services that provide intangible uses to their
owners. However, even this dematerialized notion of economic goods can be related to
a much older and broader socio-economic discourse on dematerialization: relating to
Belk’s citation in the beginning of this section, Marx and Engels already critically
described capitalism in 1848 as a system in which “all that is solid melts into air”
(Marx and Engels 1848, p. 476). Since this time their thoughts on the dematerialization
of the economic system have set a fruitful breeding ground for a broad discussion of
the socio-economic consequences of a continuing abstraction of the relationship
between humans and the outcome of their labor (Bauman 2007; Weber 1920;
Habermas 1985).
A crucial and constitutional part of the above outlined discourse is the relationship
between immateriality and uncertainty or, in other words, the interrelation between
physical environment and psychological sentiment of people. Marx’s theory of
alienation describes the idea of how human self-awareness (being) is disturbed when
the output of human labor (doing) becomes increasingly abstract and detached from
the worker (Marx 1844, p. 53 ff.; 1872, p. 402 ff.). In a similar vein, Bauman (2007)
distinguishes current liquid times from the preceding solid modernity as an age of
increasing mobility and flexibility as well as an “age of uncertainty”. In his related
discussion of the culture of speed, Tomlinson states (2007, p. 91) that “immediacy […]
is better understood as an essentially ambiguous condition rather than a pellucid
narrative”. Likewise, a large proportion of research on services copes with the problem
of uncertainty: the prevailing notion is that the immateriality of service results in
increased feelings of risk and insecurity for service consumers (Murray and Schlacter
1990; Tarn 2005, p. 749). Similarly but from the opposite perspective, Rindfleisch,
Burroughs, and Wong (2009) argue that materialistic consumers cope with uncertainty
by attaching to material possessions (see also Belk 1985; Chang and Arkin 2002).
Some of the above outlined anxieties might simply derive from a popular and
exaggerated aversion against changes (Tomlinson 2007, p. 91 f.). Still, the lasting
impression is that literature draws a link between materiality, solidity, and feelings of
security as well as immateriality, unsteadiness, and feelings of insecurity. These
15
different perspectives of humans and their surroundings hence do not only emphasize
negative consequences of missing material reference points for consumers’ sentiments.
The discussion about the interconnection between materialism and insecurity further
highlights the impreciseness of (consumer) research with regard to the general
understanding of materiality / materialism: the term materialism in its original
meaning clearly refers to the material state of goods. In its ontological meaning, it still
refers to the centrality of physical matter for all worldly phenomena (Philosophie
1999; Oxford Dictionaries 2013). The economic understanding of materialism
however has mainly detached from this physical reference and today more generally
refers to an attitude and ideal in which consumption takes a central role in a person’s
life (Rindfleisch et al. 2009, p. 2; Chang and Arkin 2002, p. 389; Belk 1985, p. 265).
Therefore, similar to the unclear conceptualization of possessions (see section 2.1.2)
and in line with the above outlined dematerialization process, the concept of
materialism has also detached from its original reference to the physical world. It can
accordingly be argued that parallel to the current process of focusing on immaterial
aspects of consumption, research is also becoming less clear about the physical aspects
of it. According to this unclearness, consumer and marketing research is thus running
the risk of overlooking this possible driver of consumer behavior. The current trend in
consumer research to emphasize immaterial aspects of consumption might accordingly
derive either from an actual decline of the importance of physical aspects of
consumption or it might result from a distorted perspective of and consequently a
misled interpretation of current consumer behavior.
At the beginning of this chapter, the importance of research in the field of possessions
and the self was highlighted by stating that “we cannot hope to understand consumer
behavior without first gaining some understanding of the meanings that consumers
attach to possessions” (Belk 1988, p. 139). Referring to the discussion above, this
statement shall be revised by adding that we cannot hope to understand the meaning
that consumers attach to possessions without first understanding the relevance of their
physical existence.
In approach to this research gap and the underlying research question of this
dissertation, section 2.2 will address a definition of objects as well as a clearer
elaboration of their material properties.
16
2.2 Objects as Graspable Symbols of Ungraspable Meaning
2.2.1 A Definition and Elaboration of Objects and their Properties
The word “object” originates from the Latin word objectum, which describes the idea
of a “thing presented to the mind” (Oxford Dictionaries 2013). In its English meaning,
it is today defined as “a material thing that can be seen and touched” or as “a thing
external to the thinking mind or subject” (ibid). It hence creates a contrast to the word
subject, which is understood as “a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or
dealt with”; and in its philosophical understanding “as a thinking or feeling entity; the
conscious mind; the ego; especially as opposed to anything external to the mind”
(ibid).
This dualistic relationship between object and subject closely corresponds to the
previously outlined distinction between the humanities and natural sciences as well as
the described mind-body problem in the introductory chapter of this dissertation: the
subject describing a “thinking or feeling entity”, “a conscious mind”, which is mainly
investigated by the humanities; opposed to something objective, often material outside
of the mind, which is of particular interest to natural sciences. Obviously, the terms
object and subject also relate to the scientific concepts of objectivity and subjectivity –
the latter being understood as the personal- and perception-dependent notion of
something in contrast to objectivity in its meaning as a personal- and perceptionindependent understanding of something that as this is “external to the thinking mind
or subject”. Accordingly, the word object connects the notion of objectivity with its
everyday meaning of “a material thing that can be seen and touched”. Concerning this
connection, Csikszentmihalyi notes (cited from Belk 1988, p. 148, emphasis added)
that
“[…] the objects we possess and consume are […] wanted because […]
they tell us things about ourselves that we need to hear in order to keep
ourselves from falling apart. This information includes the social
recognition that follows upon the display of status symbols, but it includes
also the much more private feedback provided by special household objects
that objectify a person’s past, present, and future, as well as his or her
close relationships.”
This considered quality of objects to objectify something abstract is linguistically also
related to the meaning of the word “to grasp” – which, on the one hand, can be
understood as physically encompassing something, as well as mentally comprehending
17
something, on the other hand5 (Oxford Dictionaries 2013). The connection between
this physical and mental dimension of grasping is found and described in various
contexts regarding human consciousness. Bowlby (1969) and White (1959) describe
how the interaction with physical objects others than one’s own body facilitates an
infant’s ability to perceive himself as something different from his surrounding and
therefore leads to the creation of self-awareness. Reversely, as mentioned previously,
Marx argues that the worker’s separation from the physical outcome of his labor leads
to a social alienation and henceforth a loss of self-awareness (Marx 1844, p. 53 ff.;
1872, p. 402 ff.). Summarizing his philosophical discourse on the interrelation
between bodily and mental self-awareness, Cassam (1997, p. 198) states: “The […]
self-consciousness, and so the unity of consciousness, is intimately bound up with
awareness of the subject ‘as an object’ – not as an ‘immaterial’ substance but a
physical object in a world of physical objects.” Accordingly, there is some evidence
for the relevance of objective, physical reference points for human’s development of a
sense of self or, in other words, for human’s ability to grasp their selves.
In line with this argumentation and contrary to the majority of existing research in the
field of consumer research, the focus of the definition of an object (and of possessions)
shall here lie on the perceived ability to physically grasp the object6. The perceived
ability to grasp the object is thereby distinguished from the mere physical existence of
an object or the ability to touch an object (Kaufman, Mareschal, and Johnson 2003,
p. 517 f.). The following examples highlight the crucial difference: a molecule (e.g. an
O2 molecule) has a physical existence and might be touched; however, due to its size it
is not consciously graspable for humans. Hence, from a human perspective, it only
restrictively fulfills the notion of an object. The same is true for the opposite –
meaning very large entities. Belk gives examples of possessions such as a mountain
that somebody climbs or a subway system that somebody knows well and therefore
perceives as a part of his self (Belk 1988, p. 150). Both the mountain and the subway
system have a physical existence and can be physically touched, but due to their size,
it is hardly possible to encompass or, in other words, grasp them. This crucial
differentiation between the notion of touching and grasping is similarly true for mental
constructs: mentally touching a thought implies a contemplation of this thought;
however, it also implies that the thought is not understood in its whole meaning.
5
6
The same is true for the German word Begreifen.
The view on objects and their connection to the self is also controversially discussed in philosophy. As
previously mentioned, this discourse closely relates to the mind-body problem and therefore to the question
where the self exists and what importance the physical body and surrounding of a person play for its
constitution. This interesting discussion that would overstrain and go beyond the scope of this dissertation is
well documented in Cassam (1997).
18
Hence, just as the idea of grasping with regard to a mental object includes the notion
of actually understanding its essence, the idea of grasping in a physical sense includes
the idea of actually encompassing the object. As for the molecule example, as well as
for the mountain or the subway system, the perception of something as an object, the
perception of its “objectiveness”, accordingly seems to depend on the ability to grasp
fully this entity (Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson 1990, p. 29). An O2 molecule can be
touched but the inability to grasp it both physically and mentally restricts its
perception as an object or, in other words, reduces its objectiveness. Only in the
moment in which the air molecule is mentally imagined as a model in a graspable size
does it becomes imagined as objective. Similarly, the earth can be touched. However,
from a human perspective it only becomes graspable and therefore objective if it is
mentally reduced to a graspable model (e.g. a globe). In a similar vein, Aristotle
defines the limits of art appreciation in the size of objects and the relationship of that
size to the body and perceptual abilities of humans:
“Besides, a beautiful object, whether an animal or anything else with a
structure of parts, should have not only its parts ordered but also an
appropriate magnitude: beauty consists in magnitude and order, which is
why there could not be a beautiful animal which was either minuscule (as
contemplation of it, occurring is an almost imperceptible moment, has no
distinctness) or gigantic (as contemplation of it has no cohesion, but those
who contemplate it lose a sense of unity and wholeness) […].”
(Aristotle 384-322 BC, p. 55)
The objects that consumers specify when asked to name their most cherished
possessions underline this importance of graspability (see Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton 1981; Ahuvia 2005; Habermas 1999, p. 19). Often mentioned
objects such as visual art, sculptures, musical instruments, TVs, stereos, radios, books,
photos, plates, silverware, clocks, tools, sports equipment, trophies, cameras, toys,
clothes, and jewelry can not only be grasped but many of them are actually created
with the intention of being grasped.
Further support for the notion of graspability as a crucial object property derives from
the results of a preliminary study that was conducted in this context. The goal of this
study was to estimate subjects’ perceived sizes of mental images of different objects.
The hypothesis was that – detached from the original size of an object – its mental
image would have a size that is easily physically and hence also mentally graspable.
96 participants (52% female; mean age: 34 years) in an online study estimated the size
19
of their mental image for one out of three different sized objects: an atom, a soccer
ball, and earth.7 Figure 2-2 shows the mean values for estimated sizes of mental object
images in each condition.
Figure 2-2: Preliminary Study / Results / Sizes of Object Images
Results revealed that the mean sizes of mental images varied between 7.27 cm for an
atom, 19.31 cm for a soccer ball, and 25.08 cm for earth. 82% of the mentioned sizes
were between 1 and 30 cm. Further, object type (atom, soccer ball, earth) was a
significant predictor of indicated image sizes (F(2, 77) = 10.70, p < .01). Pairwise
comparisons (LSD) revealed a significant difference between image sizes of an atom
and a soccer ball (t(77) = 3.20, p < .01) as well as between an atom and the earth
(t(77) = 4.43, p < .01). No significant difference was identified between image sizes
for the soccer ball and the earth (t(77) = 1.41, p = .16).
Results indicate that mental images can differ depending on the actual size of the
imagined object. However, results further indicate that preferred image sizes mainly
7
Participants were asked to imagine the object and consider what it looks like (could look like in the atom
condition). They were then asked to close their eyes and estimate the size of the object that appeared to them.
Subjects then specified the estimated size in their own words. No scale or other reference point was given to
subjects to limit the risk of biasing answers. A total of 16 participants was excluded from the analysis: seven
participants were excluded because their description of object size was not interpretable; seven participants
were excluded because their description of object size clearly referred to the actual size of the objects and not
the size of their mental images; two participants were excluded because their answers strongly diverged from
the answers of other participants. Subjects were retrieved from an online consumer panel and received $0.75
for participation in the study.
20
vary between 1 and 30 centimeters and hence in a range that is not only mentally but
also physically easily graspable. The results accordingly support the notion that mental
images of objects correspond to the perceptual abilities and therefore physical
properties of humans.
Tying the definition of objects to the subjectively perceived ability to physically grasp
an object thus results in a prototypical size of an object, which is related to the bodily
properties and perceptual abilities of humans – namely the size of the human body or,
in other words, the size of an object that a person is able to physically and mentally
grasp. Building upon the findings of the above reported study, this size is here defined
to be in a range of approximately 1 to 30 centimeters. Further, as argued above, the
perceived objectiveness of an entity should decrease with a change of this prototypical
size towards an infinitely small or large size. Figure 2-3 depicts this relationship
between an object’s physical size and its subjectively perceived objectiveness.
Figure 2-3: The Perceived Objectiveness of Objects as a Function of Object Size
21
Summarizing the argumentation above, an object shall here be defined as an entity
that is perceived to be physically graspable.8 This notion thereby highlights a further
property of objects that is relevant for their conceptualization in this dissertation. The
above stated definitions of objects all refer to an object as a thing. This implies that
objects have “enough coherence, or internal order, to evoke a consistent image or
label” (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981, p. 14). This again implies that
objects can be differentiated from other objects, that they have a borderline that
defines them as a stable unit (Cassam 1997, pp. 2-3; Kaufman et al. 2003, p. 518;
Locke 1690, pp. 66-69). This further relates to the argumentation above in that the size
of a unit and its graspability have an influence on the perceived objectiveness of an
object. Very small entities such as the mentioned molecule fall below a human’s
perceptual abilities and hence it is impossible to separate these entities from other
things. Similarly, hiking on a large mountain reduces the perception of that mountain
as an object because it becomes part of the surrounding environment and the lack of
perceived borders makes it difficult to differentiate the mountain from other
environmental fragments. Looking at the mountain from a more distant perspective,
however, enables its perceiver to recognize its defining borders. This distant point of
view accordingly enhances the subject’s perception of the mountain as an object.
Therefore, the notion of the graspability of an object also highlights the idea of an
object to have a clear, defining borderline that separates it from other objects or
entities.
In this understanding, the definition of an object shows some parallels to the semiotic
understanding of symbols. These conceptual connections shall be discussed in the next
section.
8
This here derived understanding of objects does not attempt to question the existence and relevance of
material entities that are inexperienceable / ungraspable for humans. As regards the underlying research
question of this dissertation and as argued above, it is however claimed that the here defined group of objects
relates to entities that are perceived as particularly object-like / objective from human perspective.
22
2.2.2 Objects as Symbols
“ALL that can fall within the compass of Humane Understanding, being either, First,
The Nature of Things, as they are in themselves, their Relations, and their manner of
Operation: Or, Secondly, That which Man himself ought to do, as a rational and
voluntary Agent, for the Attainment of any End, especially Happiness: or, Thirdly, The
ways and means, whereby the Knowledge of both the one and the other of these, are
attained and communicated; I think, Science may be divided properly into these Three
sorts.”
Locke (1690, p. 462)
Relating to the dichotomic description of the humanities and natural sciences in the
introductory chapter of this dissertation, the above depicted citation expresses John
Locke’s notion that semiotics can be understood as a third academic field that extends
beyond both of the other fields and connects them. This idea has similarly been
emphasized by researchers in the field of consumer behavior that have investigated the
meaning of things (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Belk et al. 1989;
Habermas 1999; Grayson and Shulman 2000).
A relationship between the concepts object and symbol9 is not least found in the origin
and developed meaning of both words. The word “symbol” derives from the Greek
word sumbolon / symbolon, which can be translated as “mark” or “token” (Oxford
Dictionaries 2013). It is derived from the Greek words sym (with) and ballein
(to throw), which in this combination can be translated as “to throw together” or
“to join” (ibid). According to Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981, p. 40),
this Greek meaning refers to the idea of a coin or another object that two friends break
into two pieces when separating from each other. The joining of the two pieces when
meeting again symbolizes the friendship between the two individuals. “Thus symbol
originally meant that which brings people together” (ibid). Not only does the origin of
the word symbol accordingly directly refer to a physical objectification of an
9
The term symbol is here consciously preferred over the term sign. This is done apropos the ambivalent and
unclear differentiation of both terms in semiotics as well as due to the more common usage of the term
symbol in consumer research and other non-semiotic disciplines (Nöth 2000, p. 178; Hjelmslev 1943,
p. 113). Furthermore, as shown hereafter, the term symbol stronger emphasizes the here underlying idea of
symbols as material objects. Finally, the term symbol (in its Peircian understanding; not in its Saussurian
understanding) also better refers to the conceptual understanding of the mental connection between objects
and their meaning as it is developed in this chapter.
23
intangible meaning per se, it further relates to the meaning of an object in such a way
that an objectification leads to a more objective status of the signified (here the
friendship) or, in other words, an interpersonal similar (objective) perception of the
signified. It therefore, also in this sense “brings people together” (ibid).
The English word “symbol” is defined as “a mark or character used as a conventional
representation of an object, function, or process” or more generally as “a thing that
represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing
something abstract” (Oxford Dictionaries 2013). Later definition actually highlights
the material constitution of symbols. Both definitions however share the idea of a
symbol as a sign of something signified (Nöth 2000, p. 178). Relating to the previous
conceptualization of objects, the symbol therefore also makes something graspable
that is difficult to grasp or handle per se (ibid, p. 180; Saussure 1916, p. 78; Peirce
1903, pp. 64-66). The symbolic word “dog”, for example, eases the communication
about a dog, not only because it would be difficult to alternatively refer to a dog in this
moment; but also because it represents a concept of a dog that is detached from one
particular dog. Relating to this argument, Locke states:
“MAN, though he have great variety of Thoughts, and such, from which
others as well as himself might receive Profit and Delight; yet they are all
within his own Breast, invisible and hidden from others, nor can of
themselves be made to appear. […] The use then of Words, is to be sensible
Marks of Ideas; and the Ideas they stand for, are their proper and
immediate Signification.”
(Locke 1690, p. 256)
The symbol accordingly makes something directly accessible that is not accessible
per se – perhaps because it is too far away, too small, too large, already past, still to
come, or an abstract concept that is otherwise “invisible and hidden” in one’s mind
(ibid). This quality of making something inaccessible directly accessible is perceived
as essential for the understanding of symbols in this dissertation.
A symbol however does not only have this representative quality. It also has a
structuring impact (Eco 2002, p. 86; Hjelmslev 1943, p. 52 f.; Whorf 1956, p. 7 ff.):
the meaning of the word “dog”, for example, is not only created by our experience of
what a dog is, it also defines what we perceive as a dog and how we distinguish it from
other animals and things. Transferred onto possessions, one can similarly argue that
the meaning of a wedding ring is created, on the one hand, by the particular
relationship between two married people and all the associated meanings and feelings
24
that connect to this relationship. On the other hand, the wedding ring thereby also
becomes a constitutional part of the particular relationship type “marriage” and
consequently is a defining part of its signified meaning. As such, symbols are a
constituting and structuring element of our perception of reality (ibid; see also section
2.2.4).
Finally, some semioticians (including Charles S. Peirce) go so far as to interpret all
worldly phenomena as signs (Nöth 2000, p. 62; pp. 131-135): the ocean might be
associated with freedom, rain with sadness, and the color red with danger or love. Not
only does this broad perspective of semiotics further highlight the notion that the
division of reality by signs into “graspable” units fundamentally influences society’s
perception of reality (Eco 2002, p. 86; Hjelmslev 1943, p. 52 f.; Whorf 1956, p. 7 ff.),
it moreover underlines the general human tendency to ascribe meanings to their
physical surroundings. Based on this notion, it can be argued that by using physical
phenomena and objects as symbols for meanings, humans manage to create an
environment that satisfies their need for a meaningful reality, which nature itself does
not provide (see also Belk et al. 1989).10
Building upon this understanding of symbols, symbolic objects shall henceforth be
defined as graspable entities with an associated meaning. Symbolic objects hence
comprise a meaning layer that is mentally added to their physical existence. The
following section will further discuss the constitution of relationships between
symbolic objects and their meanings.
2.2.3 The Relationship between Symbolic Objects and Their Meaning
Two of the most influential semiotic models that have previously been introduced and
utilized within consumer research to conceptualize the relationships between
possessions and their meaning originate from Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles S.
Peirce (Grayson and Shulman 2000; Grayson and Martinec 2004). As outlined by
Grayson and Shulman (2000, p. 17 f.), these models provide a fruitful fundament for
the analysis of the meaning of things. Building upon their argumentation, the next
section will revise this transfer and subsequently develop its own understanding of the
10
This notion also connects to the differentiation between natural sciences, the humanities, and semiotics by
Locke at the beginning of this section: natural sciences as the field that investigates the nature of things; the
humanities as the field that investigates the human being and the attainment of any end, especially happiness;
as well as semiotics as an instrument of communication that connects these two fields of human
understanding.
25
relationship between symbolic objects and their meaning that is based on these two
semiotic models.
Saussure emphasizes that the connection between sign (signal) and its signified
meaning (signification) is created entirely mentally11 (Saussure 1916, p. 76; Nöth
2000, p. 72 f.). According to him, there is no particular, predetermined relationship
between the signal and the signification. Therefore, there is no reason to prefer one
signal above another. For example, a dog might be called dog but it can also be called
chien, perro, or hund and none of these signals is more suitable to signify the meant
animal than the others do (Saussure 1916, p. 79). Similarly, a wedding ring is a
wedding ring; however, societies could have also agreed on materializing marriages by
a necklace or a tattoo. Consequently, to Saussure the meaning of signals is mainly
arbitrary12. However, as Saussure also argues, once a sign has been conventionalized it
cannot arbitrarily be alternated (Nöth 2000, p. 72).
Contrary to Saussure, Pierce proposes a more differentiated concept of how signs and
signified meanings relate to each other. Pierce determines three different qualities of
these relationships. He distinguishes “iconic”, “symbolic”, and “indexical”
relationships (Peirce 1903, p. 64 ff.; Nöth 2000, p. 62 ff.)
Iconic signs relate to their signified meaning through a perceived sensual affinity. A
small replica of the statue of liberty therefore signifies the original statue of liberty not
only through a learned convention but also particularly through its figural similarity.
Hence, the sensation that results from perceiving the signified is similar to the
sensation one perceives from the sign (Peirce 1903, p. 64 f.; Nöth 2000, p. 65 f.;
Grayson and Shulman 2000, p. 18).
Peirce’s understanding of symbolic signs closely relates to Saussure’s understanding
of signals. To Peirce symbolic signs do not provide a particular connection to their
signified meaning. They are learned through personal experiences, rules and
conventions (Peirce 1903, p. 65 f.; Nöth 2000, p. 65 f.; Grayson and Shulman 2000,
p. 18). The above mentioned and explained example of the word “dog” reflects this
type of sign. As illustrated, it is learned by language conventions. It has no particular
11
12
A problem that semioticians struggle with is the very inconsistent notation of concepts (see in this context
Peirce’s argumentation about the ethics of terminology (Peirce 1903, p. 45)). Saussure understands signs as a
superordinate concept and defines them as the combination of signal (here symbol) and its signification (here
its meaning); see Saussure 1916, p.78 f. In this dissertation, however, the terms symbol, sign, and signal are
used interchangeably.
Saussure does concede that some signals have a particular predisposition to serve as signals for their
signification. However, he argues that this aspect is inconsiderable (Saussure 1916, p. 80).
26
connection to its signified meaning, which is reflected by the fact that it varies
between different language areas.
Finally yet importantly, Peirce defines indexical signs as a third group of semiotic
signs. Contrary to the previous described categories, the relationship between indices
and their signified meaning is constituted by a factual connection between sign and
signified (Peirce 1903, p. 65; Nöth 2000, p. 65 f.; Grayson and Shulman 2000, p. 18).
According to Grayson and Shulman, the above-mentioned wedding ring is an example
for such a sign. In line with their argumentation, the wedding ring is physically
connected to the wedding that it represents. To its owner it signifies a factual evidence
of the reality of this event. As such proof, it accordingly becomes irreplaceable to its
owner – meaning that it cannot be replaced by another (even same looking) ring.
Grayson and Shulman emphasize that the irreplaceability of these objects is due to
“the factual, spatial connection with the special events and people they represent”
(Grayson and Shulman 2000, p.19).
Different to this implied assumption of Grayson and Shulman that indexical signs
create a factual connection to their meaning, it is here argued that for indexical as well
as for iconic and symbolic signs (and therefore for all signs) the relationship between
the sign and the signified is wholly mental. This closely connects to Saussure’s
understanding of signals (Saussure 1916, p. 76 f.). It further matches Peirce’s triadic
idea of the relationship between signs, their signified meaning, and the “cognition
produced in the mind” (Nöth 2000, p. 62; see also Peirce 1903, p. 64 ff.). Finally, it is
also reflected in Grayson and Martinec’s later argumentation that “despite our belief
that we perceive iconic or indexical signs ‘out there’ in the ‘real world,’ our perception
of these signs are highly influenced by our personal predilections and perceptual
imperfections” (Grayson and Martinec 2004, p. 299). Accordingly, the irreplaceability
of a wedding ring is not a consequence of its factual, physical relationship to what it
represents but a consequence of the fact that the owner projects this relationship onto
the object. Hence, the owner would not care if the wedding ring were exchanged for an
exact copy as long as he did not know. Therefore, similar to the Macintosh computer
that symbolizes values such as creativity and differentness the wedding ring mentally
symbolizes the relationship to a beloved person and all the events and feelings that are
connected with this relationship. Further, it can be argued that the irreplaceability of
the ring (or an object in general) is not a consequence of this perceived factual
connection to its meaning per se. It can much more be ascribed to the uniqueness of
this learned relationship between this particular physical symbol and this particular set
of signified meanings (Newman and Bloom 2012, p. 560; Newman et al. 2011,
27
p. 216). Accordingly, should a couple exchange and wear four (instead of two)
wedding rings for its wedding, not only would the personal importance of each
wedding ring decrease; these rings would also be exchangeable between each other as
they would symbolize the same set of meaning. Summarizing, it can be argued that the
irreplaceability of an object is not a consequence of its particular physical connection
to its signified meaning but a consequence of the uniqueness of the set of meanings
that it symbolizes.
Accordingly, in line with Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) as well as
Habermas (1999), symbolic objects and possessions shall here be understood as
symbols – that means, as objects that are mentally connected to their signified
meaning. In line with Peirce, the differentiated semiotic relationships (iconic,
symbolic, indexical)13 shall thereby be understood as different qualities of these
mentally created relationships between object and meaning – however, neither of them
shall be highlighted as particularly suitable to load symbolic objects with meaning.
Further, as Peirce (1903, p. 64) and also Grayson and Shulman (2000, p. 18) highlight,
these types of semiotic relationships are not conceptualized as mutually exclusive. It
can even be argued that each of Peirce’s semiotic relations requires a predefined and
therefore symbolic perception-system (Peirce 1903, p. 64; Eco 2002, p. 86; Hjelmslev
1943, p. 52 f.; Whorf 1956, p. 7 ff.).
2.2.4 Symbolic Objects and Perceived Reality and Self
Independent of the controversial philosophical discussion of whether the symbolic
objectification of an immaterial meaning is a part of reality14, it can be argued that
from a subjective perspective this objectification clearly influences and hence is a part
of reality.
The popular placebo effect comprehensibly illustrates this notion: it is well known that
simulated, medically ineffectual treatments can have psychological and social effects
that again influence physiological processes (Hahn and Kleinman 1983). Burke
interprets these bodily reactions as “a clear instance of the ways whereby the realm of
symbolicity may affect the sheerly biologic motions of animality” (Burke 1966, p. 7).
It can accordingly be argued that it is the mind that projects a certain immaterial
meaning onto a material object and again it is the mind that conveys this immaterial
13
14
To differentiate between the overall understanding of symbols in this dissertation and the Peircian
subcategory of symbols, the Peircian understanding will be denoted as “symbolic signs” from here on.
See in this context, for example, Kant’s notion of the “thing-in-itself” or Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”.
28
meaning into physical reactions and thus into the physical world (see also Saussure
1916, p. 14). Not only is the symbolic meaning of things hence a constitutional part of
subjectively perceived reality. As such, it further becomes a potential antecedent of
behavior and hence physical reality.
Recapitulating section 2.2 and connecting it to the argumentation above, the following
understanding of symbolic objects and their relation to subjective reality shall be
retained: Humans tend to mentally attach meanings to the physical environment /
objects that surround them. By doing so, they construct an environment of meaning.
Symbolic objects are understood as entities that are perceived to be physically and
hence mentally easy graspable and that are mentally associated with certain meanings.
As such, symbolic objects do not only objectify certain meanings and make them
directly accessible, they further become a structuring element of subjects’ mentally
created reality. Refining figure 2-1 from section 2.1.1, figure 2-4 depicts this
understanding of symbolic objects.
Figure 2-4: The Reality- and Self-Construing Function of Symbolic Objects
29
Referring to the argumentation above, it can be further argued that by bodily relating
to symbolic objects, subjects mentally relate their selves to the meaning that they
project onto these objects. The relevance of the physical existence of symbolic objects
is hence here not seen in their particular connections to a signified meaning (!) but in
the perceived proximity that they create between their adherent, mentally created
meaning and the body and mind of a subject (!).
This proposition that the physical proximity (distance) of symbolic objects has an
influence on subjects’ perceived distance and self-extension to the meaning of these
objects constitutes the main hypothesis of this dissertation. By relating the
argumentation of sections 2.1 and 2.2 to construal-level theory (and consequently to a
psychologically based concept), this hypothesis shall further be substantiated in the
following sections.
2.3 Construal-Level Theory as an Approach to Conceptualize the
Influence of Graspability on the Self-Extension Function of
Symbolic Objects
2.3.1 An Introduction to Construal-Level Theory
The previous chapter outlined how symbolic objects objectify their abstract meanings.
This next section will analyze the influence of this objectification process onto the
subjective perception of intrinsically abstract meanings. The dissertation will therefore
refer to construal-level theory. Construal-level theory not only shows a number of
interesting parallels to the previous outlined concept of symbolic objects, it further
offers a new perspective on objects and their meaning that, to the author’s knowledge,
has not been investigated in the context of possessions and the extended self. Most
importantly, construal-level theory provides a promising fundament for a more
detailed psychological understanding of the meaning that graspability has for the selfextension function of possessions.
The core idea of construal-level theory is to create a conceptual connection between
the experienceability of entities, their mental construal, as well as the distance that
subjects perceive to them. According to Liberman, Trope, and Stephan (2007), “people
believe that they experience themselves and their immediate surrounding at the
present moment” (Liberman et al. 2007, p. 353, emphasis added). Objects and events
that are not present in the direct experience of reality are considered psychologically
distant (ibid). As they cannot be experienced directly, they have to be mentally
30
construed and are hence thought of more abstractly (Trope, Liberman, and Wakslak
2007; Ross and Wilson 2002). Accordingly, things that are directly experienceable are
mentally construed on a lower level than things that are not experienceable and
therefore have to be imagined or, in other words, construed (Trope and Liberman
2010).
Different to objective measures of distance, construal-level theory mainly refers to
psychological / perceived distances. Perceived distance can be described as the
subjective experience of the distance to an entity (Liberman et al. 2007, p. 353; Van
Boven, Kane, McGraw, and Dale 2010, p. 872). Liberman et al. (2007, p. 353)
differentiate between various forms of perceived distances: something might be
perceived as distant because it is (or is believed to be) located in the past or the future
(temporal distance), or at a remote location (spatial distance), because it refers to a
foreign cultural surrounding (social distance), or because of its hypothetical or purely
mental nature (hypotheticality). A large amount of research has shown influences of
these types of perceived distances on mental construal. It has been shown, for
example, that people think about events in the long-term future or long-term past more
abstractly than if these events are scheduled in the close future or if these events have
occurred in the close past (Semin and Smith 1999, Trope et al. 2007). Similarly, it has
been illustrated that people think about other people in a more abstract manner if these
people are believed to be remotely located than if they are believed to be at a close
location (Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, and Liberman 2006).
Especially interesting for the current context is that studies referring to construal-level
theory have shown that the influence of perceived distance on construal-level can be
reversed: therefore, the level of construal of an entity also affects the perceived
distance to that entity. Liberman, Trope, McCrea, and Sherman (2007), for example,
show that low versus high level construals of a future event affect subjects’ perceived
distance to that event: low level and consequently concrete descriptions of the event
lead to perceptions of less distant enactment times of the event than high level
construals. Accordingly, these studies generally indicate a relationship between the
concreteness of the mental construction of an entity and its perceived distance.
The concepts of construal-level and perceived distance hence closely relate to the
previously outlined understanding of symbolic objects. In section 2.2 symbolic objects
were defined as graspable entities that transfer their abstract, immaterial meaning into
the concrete, physical reality. It was further accentuated that they therefore make this
per se inaccessible meaning directly accessible (and hence experienceable). The
combination of this previous developed understanding of symbolic objects and the
31
here outlined construal-level theory consequently support the development of various
hypotheses that provide possible explanations for the particular influence of the
graspability of objects for their self-extending function. These hypotheses shall be
formulated in the following three sections.
2.3.2 The Influence of Object Proximity on Subjects’ Perceived Distance to a
Symbolized Meaning
As discussed in section 2.2, it is argued that symbolic objects transfer their immaterial,
abstract meaning into the direct experienceable, physical world. Referring to construallevel theory, it can further be argued that this objectification of a per se
inexperienceable entity corresponds to a change in its mental construal and thus
influences the perceived distance to the symbolized meaning. According to Liberman
et al. (2007), a more concrete representation of an entity should hence reduce the
perceived distance to that entity. Accordingly, the following hypothesis can be
proposed:
H1a: The perceived presence of a symbolic object reduces subjects’ perceived
distance to the object’s symbolized abstract meaning (compared to a state in
which no object is present).
In section 2.2, it was further emphasized that symbolic objects are located physically
in relation to the physical world and consequently create a physical relation between
their adherent meaning and the body and mind of a subject. Building upon this
argumentation, it can further be proposed that the perceived physical distance to a
symbolic object influences the perceived distance to the object’s symbolized meaning.
More specifically, a reduction of the physical distance between a subject and a
symbolic object should also lead to a decrease of the subjects’ perceived distance to
the object’s symbolized meaning. This proposition also defines a boundary condition
of hypothesis 1a: symbolic objects therefore only reduce a subjects’ perceived distance
to a symbolized meaning if they are located in physical proximity to the subject. If
they are located distant to the subject, they lose their experienceability and become just
as abstract and inexperienceable as their symbolized meaning. This argumentation also
corresponds to given findings on subjects’ perception of loss of possessions. Findings
indicate that the loss of possessions is in many cases also perceived as a loss of the
symbolized meaning of that possession and “may bring about a diminishing sense of
self” (Belk 1988, p. 142). Interestingly, losing a material possession, however, does
not usually imply a disappearance of that object; it usually means that the object has
32
been displaced and cannot be found and / or reached anymore. It can accordingly be
argued that the physical existence of the object has not changed – what has changed is
the subject’s perceived distance to the object. Hence, the above-cited diminishing
sense of self should not correspond to an analog dissolving of a physical possession,
but to an increase of the perceived distance to the possession. In line with this
argumentation, the following hypothesis can accordingly be formulated:
H1b: Perceived physical proximity to a symbolic object reduces subjects’ perceived
distance to the object’s symbolized abstract meaning (compared to a state in
which the object is distant).
Hypothesis 1b therefore not only redefines the effect of object presence onto the
perceived distance to its meanings (H1a). By doing so, it also addresses a possible
alternative explanation for this effect: referring to hypothesis 1a, it can alternatively be
argued that perceived object presence might only evoke more vivid representations of
its symbolic meaning independent of the physical existence of the object. A wedding
ring, for example, might remind its owner of the exact moment in which he received
the ring; a running shoe might evoke very concrete pictures of running; and a souvenir
mug could remind the owner of the moment in which he was sitting in a café drinking
coffee at a certain location during his vacation. Accordingly, the perceived reduction
of distance to these associated meanings could also be caused by a more concrete
representation of these meanings. Hypothesis 1b addresses this alternative explanation
for hypothesis 1a as it relates the perceived distance of an abstract meaning to the
physical distance to the object that symbolizes this meaning; for the outlined,
alternative explanation the physical closeness to the object should be irrelevant. A
confirmation of hypothesis 1b thus supports the notion that symbolic objects reduce
the perceived distance to their meaning by physically transferring this meaning into the
direct experienceable world; whereas a refusal of hypothesis 1b indicates an effect of
symbolic objects solely through their property to evoke more vivid representations of
their signified meaning.
Hypotheses 1a and 1b are the main hypotheses of this dissertation. They propose
influences of the physical presence / proximity of symbolic objects onto subjects’
perceived distance to the object’s symbolized meaning. This distance reducing
influence of symbolic objects is perceived as foundational for the overall selfextending function of symbolic objects. The next section will more specifically relate
the distance reducing function of objects to their self-extension function.
33
2.3.3 The Influence of Object Proximity on Subjects’ Perceived Self-Extension
towards a Symbolized Meaning
Section 2.1.1 outlined how people use their possessions as extension of their selves or,
in other words, how people incorporate their possessions into their sense of selves. As
mentioned above, construal-level theory relates to this idea in that it suggests, “people
believe that they experience themselves and their immediate surrounding at the
present moment” (Liberman et al. 2007, p. 353, emphasis added). Hence, if people
experience themselves in the present moment, then the things one surrounds himself
with might be described as present reflections of the self or, in other words, as
reference points for self-construal. It can accordingly be argued that symbolic objects
do not only transfer abstract meanings into the direct experienceable world; it can
further be proposed that through their physical proximity to a subject they bridge the
subject’s perceived distance between the subject’s self and the meaning that is attached
to the object. Building upon hypothesis 1b, it can accordingly be proposed that the
reduction of perceived physical distance to a symbolic object leads to a decrease of a
subject’s perceived distance to the symbolized meaning, which again leads to a
stronger perceived self-extension (self-connection) of the subject towards the
symbolized meaning. In other words, in can be postulated that the effect of an object’s
physical proximity onto a subject’s perceived self-extension towards the object’s
symbolic meaning is mediated by the perceived distance to the symbolized meaning
(analog to H1b). Accordingly, hypotheses 2a and 2b are formulated:
H2a: Perceived physical proximity to a symbolic object increases subjects’ perceived
self-extension towards the object’s symbolized meaning (compared to a state in
which the object is distant).
H2b: The effect outlined in hypothesis 2a is mediated by the influence of perceived
object proximity on subjects’ perceived distance to the symbolized meaning.
2.3.4 The Influence of Object Proximity on Subjects’ Behavior towards a
Symbolized Meaning
As mentioned in section 2.1.2, Peck and Shu (2009) have been able to show an effect
of touching an object on subjects’ perceived ownership towards that object. They have
further shown that this increase of perceived ownership can translate into higher
valuations of the object. Their findings integrate into the broader theoretical concept of
the endowment effect (Kahneman et al. 1990). Findings in the field of the endowment
effect essentially show that legal as well as perceived ownership of an object leads to
34
stronger attachment to that object as well as higher loss aversions and higher
valuations of that object (Peck and Shu 2009; Ariely, Huber, and Wertenbroch 2005).
Peck and Wiggins (2006) have moreover shown that touching an object can influence
behavioral intentions (such as the willingness to donate time or money) towards an
institution that is symbolically connected to the object. However, they ascribe these
effects to subjects’ affective reactions towards the object (ibid; see also Tom 2004).
Referring to this literature stream, it is here argued that physical proximity to a
symbolic object should enhance subjects’ behavior towards the object’s symbolized
meaning. Different to Peck and Wiggins (2006), this effect is however accounted to
the object’s ability to connect an abstract meaning to a subject’s self. More concrete, it
is proposed that a decrease in physical distance to a symbolic object leads to a
decrease in perceived distance to the symbolized meaning, which again strengthens
subjects’ self-extension to that meaning, consequently enhancing behavior to that
meaning. In other words, in can be postulated that the effect of an object’s physical
proximity onto a subject’s behavior towards the object’s symbolic meaning is
mediated by the perceived distance as well as self-extension towards the symbolized
meaning (analog to H1b and H2b):
H3a: Perceived physical proximity to a symbolic object increases subjects’ behavior
(behavioral intentions) towards the object’s symbolized meaning (compared to
a state in which the object is distant).
H3b: The effect outlined in hypothesis 3a is mediated by the influence of perceived
object proximity on subjects’ perceived distance and self-extension towards the
symbolized meaning.
2.3.5 The Moderating Influence of the Symbolic Connection between Object
and Meaning
In the previous sections, it was argued that symbolic objects reduce the perceived
distance to their symbolized meaning by transferring this abstract, inexperienceable
meaning into the direct experienceable world. It was further argued that, by doing so,
symbolic objects strengthen subjects’ perceived self-extension and therefore their
behavior towards this symbolized meaning. According to section 2.2.4, this
argumentation was developed from the premise that through its objectification the
symbolic meaning becomes part of the subjective experienced reality and self. It can
accordingly be argued that the above outlined effects of symbolic objects (H1-H3)
should depend on the symbolic connection between an object and meaning. More
35
precisely, the reduction of the perceived distance to an abstract meaning through a
symbolic object (H1a and H1b) should be stronger the stronger the object is
symbolically associated to this meaning. In other words, the stronger an object is
mentally associated with an abstract meaning the stronger it should transfer this
meaning into the direct experienceable world, and hence the stronger should be its
influence on the perceived distance to that meaning. Further, the symbolic connection
between an object and a meaning should also influence the effect of the object on a
subject’s perceived self-extension towards the meaning (H2a and H2b). Therefore, the
postulated influence of object presence / proximity onto subjects’ perceived selfextension towards the object’s meaning should be stronger the stronger the object is
mentally associated to that abstract meaning. Finally, this moderating effect should
also account for the object’s effect on subjects’ behavior (behavioral intentions)
towards the object’s meaning (H3a and H3b). Hence, the postulated influence of object
presence / proximity on subjects’ behavior (behavioral intentions) towards the object’s
meaning should be stronger the stronger the object is mentally associated with that
abstract meaning. Refining the main hypotheses 1-3, the following hypotheses 4a, 4b,
and 4c are formulated:
H4a: An object’s influence on subjects’ perceived distance to an abstract meaning
(H1a and H1b) is stronger the stronger the object’s symbolic connection is to
the meaning.
H4b: An object’s influence on subjects’ perceived self-extension towards an abstract
meaning (H2a and H2b) is stronger the stronger the object’s symbolic
connection is to the meaning.
H4c: An object’s influence on subjects’ behavior (behavioral intentions) towards an
abstract meaning (H3a and H3b) is stronger the stronger the object’s symbolic
connection is to the meaning.
Hypotheses 4a-4c are not only relevant for a more precise conceptualization of the
previously outlined main effects. Moreover, they are crucial to rule out a further
alternative explanation for these effects. Independent of the here outlined
argumentation, a support for the main effects could also derive from a simple affective
reaction of subjects to a close object per se (Peck and Wiggins 2006). Consequently,
subjects may just feel closer to something they think of because of a close focal point
that a proximal object provides them. Similarly, subjects’ perceived self-extension and
behavior towards a certain meaning could be caused by such an affective reaction.
Hypotheses 4a-4c are formulated to test and to control for these alternative
36
explanations of hypotheses 1-3. If the postulated effects of symbolic objects actually
derive from their ability to transfer abstract meanings into the direct experienceable
world then the symbolic connection between object and meaning should have an effect
on this ability. The inclusion of the specified moderators therefore particularly serves a
more precise testing of the here proposed conceptual framework.
The previous sections defined the hypotheses that are essential for this thesis’
treatment of the defined research question. The next section will summarize the stated
hypotheses and connect them to an overall conceptual model of this thesis.
2.3.6 Overall Conceptual Model
In Chapter 1, the following research question was formulated as basis for this
dissertation: How does the graspability of symbolic objects relate to and influence
human self-extension towards abstract meanings? Building upon this question,
Chapter 2 outlined the theoretical foundation and conceptual framework of this
dissertation. Based on this fundament, a number of hypotheses were derived that
provide possible conceptualizations of the investigated phenomenon. Figure 2-5
summarizes and visualizes these hypotheses (1-4) thereby depicting their overall
interrelation. The following section of the dissertation will concentrate on the
empirical investigation of this conceptual model.
Figure 2-5: Conceptual Model of Dissertation
37
3 Experimental Analyses
This chapter will outline the experimental analyses that were conducted to test the
conceptual model of this dissertation. Five studies were conducted that will be drafted
subsequently. The following section will give an introductory overview of the
empirical approach and the studies.
3.1 Overview of Empirical Approach
Based on the developed hypotheses, a sequence of five experiments was conducted.
These experiments aimed to gather empirical evidence for the validity of the
conceptual model of this dissertation. Experiments were chosen as the methodical
approach of this dissertation for multiple purposes: first, experiments allow for testing
of causality of postulated relationships (Field 2009, pp. 7-14). Secondly, the defined
hypotheses are formulated specifically enough to be transformed into experimental
research designs and thus allow for experimental testing. Thirdly, and most
importantly, the psychological perspective of the investigated phenomenon supports an
experimental testing of the hypotheses, as experiments are particularly popular in this
discipline. This argument is reinforced through an aspect that was outlined in section
2.1.2: previous research on the meaning of possessions for self-extending processes
has mostly been conducted from a sociological as well as anthropological perspective.
Accordingly, this research has been strongly influenced by methodical approaches that
are popular in these disciplines. Most of the research in this area has hence been
qualitative and conceptual and has followed rather broad research questions and
approaches of the investigated phenomenon (see table 2-1). Accordingly, and as
highlighted in sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, the particular relevance of the graspability of
possessions for self-extending processes has not been investigated as precisely as it is
approached here. As experiments are particularly suitable to isolate and exhibit very
specific effects that might be difficult or impossible to consciously articulate for
individuals, they therefore constitute an appropriate methodical complement to these
previous studies. The applied experimental approach hence not only relates to the
underlying research question and theoretical fundament of this dissertation but also to
the outlined research gap in the investigated research field.
As mentioned above, the unifying aim of the conducted five experiments was to test
the influence of the graspability of objects onto subjects’ perceived distance (H1a and
H1b), self-extension (H2a and H2b), and behavior (H3a and H3b) towards the objects’
symbolized meanings. The studies were further designed to test the postulated
38
moderating effect of the symbolic connection between object and meaning (H4a, H4b,
and H4c).
Experiment 1 tested whether objects reduce the perceived distance to their symbolized,
abstract meaning (H1a). It was the primary goal of study 1 to test this essential
hypothesis under simple and realistic circumstances. Experiment 2 investigated this
effect more elaborately by testing whether the physical distance to an object influences
the perceived distance to its symbolized meaning in a controlled laboratory setting
(H1b). Its main contribution was therefore its rigorous testing of this basic assumption.
Experiment 3 tested whether the influence of object distance on the perceived distance
to its symbolized meaning (H1b) is moderated by the strength of the symbolic
connection between object and meaning (H4a). This study accordingly retested the
effect of experiment 2, while including a further crucial factor into the study design,
thus becoming more specific in its testing of the conceptual model. Further,
experiment 3 also tested the proposed effects of symbolic objects onto subjects’
perceived self-extension (H2a) and behavioral intentions (H3a) towards the object’s
symbolized meanings. It also enabled a testing of the postulated mediation and
moderation effects concerning these dependent variables (H2b, H3b, H4b, and H4c).
Hence, experiment 3 is the most comprehensive and complex experiment of this
project as well as the most powerful in testing the overall model. Experiment 4 built
upon the results of experiment 3 while returning to a simpler study design. The study
tested whether objects with differently strong symbolic connections to a certain
meaning differ in their influence on subjects’ self-extension (H2a and H4b) as well as
behavioral intentions and actual behavior (H3a and H4c) towards the symbolized
meaning. Experiment 4 thus shifted its aim from testing the precise psychological
influences of symbolic objects towards a more realistic testing of their behavioral
consequences and hence economic relevance. The main goal of experiment 5 was to
generalize the findings of studies 1-4 in two ways: first, it examined whether the
previous findings of the influence of symbolic objects on perceived self-extension
towards an abstract meaning (H2a) could more generally be transferred onto graspable
products and immaterial services and their associated brands. Secondly, by referring to
a wide range of different products and service it transferred the analyses into a broader
economic context. Table 3-1 summarizes the conducted experiments.
To conduct the above outlined studies, it was necessary to find and choose objects and
symbolized meanings that were suitable for experimental testing. It was decided to
utilize different combinations of objects and symbolized meanings throughout the five
studies to ensure that the measured effects were generalizable i.e. independent from
39
the used stimuli and study designs. The selection of objects was based on four criteria:
first, the used objects had to match the conceptualizations of objects in section 2.2.1 –
accordingly they had to be easily physically graspable with approximate sizes between
1 and 30 centimeters in diameter. Secondly, objects were chosen that were most likely
well known to participating subjects – this was decided to prevent that physical
proximity to the object would provide any not previously known information to
subjects (see Peck and Shu 2009, p. 437). Thirdly, used objects had to be integrated
easily and economically into experimental study designs. Fourthly, objects had to be
suitable to being connected to a particular abstract meaning, which itself had to be
suitable for being implemented in the studies. Vice versa, the selection of meanings
was mainly based on the premise that people could refer to these meanings and that
they could easily be connected to accessible objects. Table 3-1 shows the chosen pairs
of used objects and symbolized meanings.
The experiments used a mixture of laboratory, online, and survey designs. Laboratory
experiments were particularly conducted to test the effects of object presence /
proximity under as controlled circumstances as possible. Online and survey designs
were applied complementary to test the assumed hypothesis under less artificial
circumstances and therefore to generalize the investigated effects. Similar reasons
determined sample characteristics of the conducted studies. Studies 2, 3, and 4 used
student samples. As these studies mainly aimed at determining the psychological
reactions and processes caused by symbolic objects they utilized homogenous samples
in order to be more comparable regarding experimental manipulations (Calder,
Phillips, and Tybout 1981, p. 200). Accordingly, and apropos their aim to generalize
the tested effects, studies 1 and 5 utilized more heterogeneous consumer samples.
Table 3-1 summarizes the designs of each of the five conducted experiments. The
following sections will document the design and results of each of the studies in detail.
40
Overview of Conducted Experiments
Study 1: The Wedding Ring Experiment
Object-Meaning Pair
Wedding Ring - Wedding
Design
2 (Object Presence: Present / Not Present)
Hypotheses Tested
Hypothesis 1a
Sample
Sample of Married Individuals
Pages
41-44
Study 2: The Mug Experiment
Object-Meaning Pair
Mug – Personal Experience
Design
3 (Object Distance: Close and Touch / Close and No Touch / Distant and No Touch)
Hypotheses Tested
Hypothesis 1b
Sample
Student Sample
Pages
45-52
Study 3: The Tennis Ball Experiment
Object-Meaning Pair
Design
Tennis Ball – Tennis Tournament (Wimbledon)
2 (Object Distance: Close / Distant) x 3 (Symbolic Connection: No / Moderate / Strong)
+ 1 Control Condition (No Object)
Hypotheses Tested
Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c
Sample
Student Sample
Pages
52-73
Study 4: The Club Card Experiment
Object-Meaning Pair
Membership Card – University Club
Design
3 (Symbolic Connection: No Object / Weak / Strong)
Hypotheses Tested
Hypotheses 2a, 3a, 3b, 4b, 4c
Sample
Student Sample
Pages
74-89
Study 5: The Product- versus Service-Brands Experiment
Object-Meaning Pair
Product / Services – Brands
Design
2 (Object Presence: Present / Not Present)
Hypotheses Tested
Hypothesis 2a
Sample
Consumer Sample
Pages
89-95
Table 3-1: Overview of Conducted Experiments
41
3.2 The Wedding Ring Experiment (Study 1)
3.2.1 Overview
The purpose of study 1 was to test hypothesis 1a using a simple and realistic study
design. The essential target was to create a study that referred to an object that subjects
actually owned and which symbolized a meaning that subjects could relate to.
Building upon this guideline, weddings were chosen as a self-defining but past event
(i.e. one’s wedding is not directly experienceable anymore) and wedding rings as an
object that is symbolically connected to that event. Specifically, it was assumed that
participants would be able to refer to their own wedding and would be likely to carry
their wedding ring with them, when participating in the study. Moreover, wedding
rings fitted the understanding of graspable objects defined in this dissertation (see
section 2.2.1).
The study used a one-factorial design in which the extent to which the object (i.e. the
ring) was consciously present was manipulated between subjects. It was predicted that
participants would feel that their wedding was less distant when they were asked to
look at their ring while thinking about their wedding compared to when they were just
asked to think about their wedding.
The experiment was conducted online for two reasons: first, online data collection
eased reaching a wide variety of married individuals; secondly, the online setting
enabled subjects to participate in anonymous and familiar surroundings. A conducted
prestudy in which subjects were randomly approached in a shopping district of
St. Gallen showed that many people felt uncomfortable to talk about their wedding and
wedding ring with an unknown interviewer on the street. Accordingly, the online
setting was preferred.
3.2.2 Participants and Procedure
107 married individuals (53% females; mean age: 51 years; mean marriage duration:
21 years) participated in the study. Subjects belonged to a German and Swiss
consumer sample. Participation in the study was voluntary and participants did not
receive any incentives. The mean participation time was less than 10 minutes.
Participants were contacted via email and asked to participate in a study concerning
consumer behavior. The email included a link that directed them to the study. After
entering the online-survey, they were asked if they were married. If they were not
married, they were advanced to a different study. If they were married, they were
42
randomly assigned to one of the two object conditions. After undergoing the
manipulation of wedding ring presence, subjects were forwarded to the measurement
of perceived distance to the wedding. Subsequently, subjects made further
specifications about various control variables. Finally, subjects were thanked for
participation. Figure 3-1 summarizes the overall procedure of experiment one.
1. Introduction to Online-Study
Welcoming of participants and selection of married individuals
2. Manipulation of Object Presence
Subjects are prompted / not prompted to pay attention to their wedding ring (see section 3.2.3)
3. Measurement of Dependent Variable
Measurement of perceived distance to wedding (see section 3.2.4)
4. Measurement of Control Variables
Check whether subjects wear wedding ring, year of marriage, age, gender (see section 3.2.5)
Figure 3-1: Study 1 / Design / Procedure of Experiment
3.2.3 Manipulation of Independent Variable
To manipulate the extent to which the object (wedding ring) symbolizing the event
(wedding) was consciously present, participants in the no object condition were asked
to take about 10 seconds and recall your wedding. In the object condition participants
were asked to take about 10 seconds, look at your wedding ring, and recall your
wedding.
3.2.4 Operationalization of Dependent Variable
Perceived distance to the wedding was measured by asking participants to report how
distant their wedding felt on two 7-point scales (feels very close (1), feels very
distant (7); feels as if it was yesterday (1), feels as if it was long time ago (7)). This is a
common measure of perceived distance (van Boven et al. 2010; Ross and Wilson
2002). Both scales were averaged to a single measure of perceived distance (r = .94;
SB = .97)15 with low values indicating short perceived distances and high values
indicating large perceived distances.
15
According to Eisinga, te Grotenhuis, and Pelzer (2012), Spearman-Brown coefficient (SB) is additionally
used as reliability estimate for two-item constructs in this dissertation.
43
3.2.5 Control Variables
Participants that were drawn into the object condition were asked whether they were
wearing a wedding ring before proceeding to the manipulation section in which they
were asked to look at their wedding ring and recall their wedding. If they indicated to
not wear a ring, they were excluded from the study. Participants in the no object
condition were asked at the end of the study whether they wore a wedding ring.
Further, all subjects were asked to indicate the year of their wedding as well as their
age and gender.
3.2.6 Results
A one-factorial ANCOVA showed that participants felt that their wedding was less
distant when they looked at their wedding ring (M = 2.89) relative to those participants
that were not asked to look at their ring when thinking about their wedding (M = 4.00;
F(1, 104) = 9.84, p < .01). The actual distance to the wedding (in years) was included
as covariate in the analysis and showed a marginally significant influence on perceived
distance to the wedding (F(1, 104) = 3.41, p = .07). The effect of object presence
stayed significant when the variable actual distance to the wedding was excluded from
the analysis (F(1, 105) = 11.10, p < .01). Figure 3-2 depicts the means and confidence
intervals (95%) for subjects’ perceived distance to the wedding in both conditions.
Figure 3-2: Study 1 / Results / Perceived Distance to Wedding
44
As participants in the object condition had to wear a wedding ring to participate in the
study, whereas participants in the no object condition did not necessarily have to wear
a ring, it was further controlled for a general effect of wearing a ring. A one-factorial
ANOVA revealed no significant difference in perceived distance to the wedding for
participants (in the no object condition) that did wear and those that did not wear a ring
during the study (F(1, 48) = .19, p = .67). This finding indicates that this possible
difference in sample characteristics between both conditions did not affect the
dependent measure.
3.2.7 Discussion
The main goal of experiment 1 was to test hypothesis 1a in a realistic study design.
The results of experiment 1 support hypothesis 1a. Participants indicated a
significantly smaller perceived distance to their wedding when paying attention to
their physically close wedding ring than when just thinking about their wedding.
Results further indicate that the presence of the ring explained a larger amount of
variance in perceived distance to the wedding than the actual temporal distance to the
wedding itself.
Results of experiment 1 thus support the notion that possessions can decrease the
distance to their self-defining, symbolized meanings. Experiment 1 supports this effect
in a realistic field setting. However, this realistic study design comprises the
disadvantage of a limited control as regards the experimental execution. Above that,
the study design does not account for alternative explanations for the revealed effects.
As previously outlined, it is possible that the decrease of perceived distance to the
wedding is caused solely by more vivid memories of the wedding that are aroused by
the presence of the wedding ring and not by the physical proximity of the ring (see
section 2.3.2). Further, it is also possible that the decrease in perceived distance is
caused by an affective reaction to the closeness of the ring, independent of its
symbolic meaning (see section 2.3.5). The study design also made it difficult to control
for other external influences and to check whether participants correctly followed the
experimental instructions. These shortcomings of experiment 1 are approached in
experiment 2 as well as the subsequent studies.
45
3.3 The Mug Experiment (Study 2)
3.3.1 Overview
The purpose of study 2 was to test the proposition that physical proximity to an object
decreases subjects’ perceived distance to the object’s symbolized meaning (H1b). In
testing this hypothesis, the study aimed at finding more rigorous evidence for the
revealed influence of symbolic objects in study 1. According to this aim and as regards
the tested hypothesis, study 2 was designed as a laboratory experiment. A laboratory
setting allowed for a stronger control of the correct execution of experimental tasks. It
also allowed for a precise manipulation of the distance between a particular object and
participant. In line with this controlled study setting, a standardized object was utilized
in study 2. For various reasons, it was decided to use a standard white mug with the
neutral imprint “remember” (see figure 3-3).
Figure 3-3: Study 2 / Design / Picture of Utilized Mug
Mugs were chosen as objects for study 2 as they have generally been identified as
suitable objects for experiments since the majority of people knows and can relate to
them (Peck and Shu 2009, p. 437; Kahneman et al. 1990). Like the previously used
wedding rings, mugs were additionally utilized as they match the here underlying
definition of objects since they have an easily graspable size. Above that, mugs were
selected because they are often used as souvenirs and have accordingly been known to
relate to certain personal meanings or experiences. Participants were asked to connect
the mug to a personally relevant experience within a writing task. To facilitate this
46
connection, the above mentioned and depicted imprint “remember” was placed on the
mug. The prediction was that the individually chosen past experience would be
perceived as closer in situations in which the mug was close to the participant
compared to situations in which it was distant. To test this premise, the study used a
one-factorial design with three levels of spatial distance between the mug and the
participant. In the short distance condition, the mug was placed directly in front of the
participant (40-centimeter distance) and participants were allowed to touch the mug. In
the distant condition, the mug was positioned at 4-meter distance to participants,
clearly out of reach. In a third control condition the mug was positioned directly in
front of the participant (40-centimeter distance) – here participants however were
instructed not to touch the mug. This condition was included in the experimental
design to control for a confounding effect of touch between the short and long distance
conditions: it is possible that an observed difference between the short and long
distance condition is not caused by the distance of the mug to the participant but by the
ability of participants to touch the mug in the short distance condition. The close / no
touch condition was included in the study design to control for this alternative
explanation.
126 students (51% females; mean age: 22 years) from the University of St. Gallen
participated in the study. Four participants (3.17% of total participants) were excluded
from analyses because they specified inappropriate experiences (see section 3.3.6).
Participation in the study was voluntary and participants received a chocolate bar as
incentive. The mean participation time was less than 10 minutes.
Subjects were approached on university campus and asked to participate in a study
concerning personal experiences. If agreeing to participate, subjects were led to the
laboratory building where they were randomly assigned to one of the prepared rooms.
Each room contained a large conference table. Before participants entered the room,
the mug was placed at a short / long distance to a predefined seat depending on the
tested condition. Participants received an introduction to the study by the student who
had approached them on campus. In the course of this introduction, they received a
paper and pen questionnaire. They were then left alone in the room.
In the first part of the study participants were asked to think of a past, personally
important experience. As a manipulation check, participants specified the experience
in a few words and indicated its valence. After this first part of the experiment,
47
subjects’ attention was drawn to the mug, which was either located at a close or distant
location on the table in front of them. They were asked to fulfill a writing task in
which they mentally connected the mug to the previously named experience (see
section 3.3.3). Subsequent to the writing task, participants rated their perceived
distance to the experience and completed a series of control variables. Finally, subjects
were thanked for participation and debriefed. Figure 3-4 summarizes the overall
procedure of experiment 2.
1. Introduction to Study
Participants receive information that the study is about personal experiences
2. Recall of Personal Experience
Participants recall and specify a personal experience and indicate the valence of the experience (see section 3.3.3)
3. Manipulation of Object Proximity
Participants are exposed to a mug that is positioned in short / long distance to participants (see section 3.3.3)
4. Writing Task to Connect Object to Specified Experience
Participants symbolically connect the mug to the specified experience in a writing task (see section 3.3.3)
Participants indicate their perceived distance to the experience (see section 3.3.4)
6. Measurement of Manipulation Checks and Control Variables
Participants indicate date of experience, difficulty to recall experience, difficulty to connect mug
to experience, gender, age (see section 3.3.5)
As outlined in the previous section, participants began the experiment by thinking of a
personally important experience. Specifically they were instructed to take some time
and think of a personal experience of the previous year (2011) that you still like to
remember and that is still personally relevant to you. The study was conducted in
April 2012. It was specified to think of an experience in the year 2011 to ensure that
the experience had been past for some time. At the same time, this reference frame
was chosen to ensure that the actual temporal distance to the experience was possibly
homogeneous between subjects while still offering participants a large enough
timeframe to think freely of an experience. Participants specified the experience in a
few words and answered a manipulation check concerning the valence of this
experience (see section 3.3.5).
48
Participants’ attention was then drawn to the mug that was placed on the table in front
of them. In the short distance conditions (with and without touch), the mug was placed
at 40-centimeter distance and was therefore easy to reach. In the long distance
condition, the mug was placed at 4-meter distance on the other side of the table,
clearly out of reach. Depending on the condition, participants read the following
instructions:
Please look at the mug in front of you / on the other side of the table without touching
it. There is an imprint on the mug saying “remember”. The mug shall remind you of
the experience that you previously recalled. Please imagine that the mug symbolically
reflects this experience. Try to mentally connect the mug to the experience.
In all three conditions, participants were instructed not to touch the mug at this point of
the study with the intention to focus their attention on the task of connecting the mug
to the experience and to keep this process as similar as possible in all conditions.
Participants were then asked to describe exactly what you think of, when mentally
connecting the mug to the experience in a short writing task. The writing task was
implemented to support participants in connecting the mug to the chosen experience.
After stating their thoughts about the connection between the experience and the mug,
participants read the following instructions: in the long and short distance condition in
which the mug was not touched, participants were instructed to please take another
look at the mug. In the short distance condition in which the mug was touched,
participants were instructed to please take the mug into your hand and take another
look at the mug. After undergoing this manipulation of mug distance, subjects
continued to answer the questions regarding the dependent measure perceived distance
to experience.
Measurement of perceived distance was initiated with the following instruction: When
looking at the mug and thinking about its symbolic connection to the experience: how
close (distant) does the experience feel in this moment? Perceived distance to the
experience was then measured using the same two 7-point scales as in study 1 (feels
very close (1), feels very distant (7); feels as if it was yesterday (1), feels as if it was
long time ago (7); see van Boven et al. 2010; Ross and Wilson 2002). Both scales
were averaged to a single measure of perceived distance (r = .65; SB = .79) with low
values indicating short and high values indicating large perceived distances.
49
3.3.5 Manipulation Checks and Control Variables
In the beginning of the study, participants were asked to think of a personal experience
from the year 2011. As outlined, the chosen experience served as a basis for the further
experimental procedure. To control for the kind of experiences that people thought of,
they were asked to describe the experience in a few words. Subsequently, participants
indicated the perceived valence of the experience on a single scale reaching from
positive (1) to negative (7). The scale was reversed so that high values indicated
positive and low values negative valence.
After indicating the perceived distance to the experience (dependent measure),
participants further indicated how difficult it was for them to initially think of an
experience (recall difficulty) and how difficult it felt for them to connect the
experience to the mug (connection difficulty). Both variables were individually
measured on single 7-point scales reaching from very easy (1) to very difficult (7).
Recall difficulty was conducted to control for the possibility that process fluency
influenced perceived distance to the experience. Connection difficulty was conducted
to control for the possibility that mug proximity eased connecting the mug to the
experience. The study further controlled for the actual date of the experience and
ended with two questions on gender and age.
3.3.6 Results
Manipulation and Confound Checks
As previously documented, four participants were excluded from the analyses: Three
participants specified very negative experiences. One participant specified a regularly
repeating event that he had revisited just the previous day.
No differences were found regarding the valence of the chosen experiences between
the three conditions (F(2, 119) = 1.04, p = .36). At the same time, the overall mean for
valence (M = 6.64) was significantly higher than the scale-mid-value (4.00), indicating
that on average participants chose positive experiences (t(121) = 52.32, p < .01). A
comparison of the specified experiences showed similar patterns for all three
conditions: most participants considered experiences such as trips or vacations as well
as particular successes in high school or college. No differences between conditions
were found for recall difficulty (F(2, 119) = .65, p = .53) and connection difficulty
(F(2, 119) = .28, p = .76). On average, the specified experiences had taken place eight
months ago. This temporal distance did neither differ between conditions (F(2, 119) =
.47, p = .63) nor influence perceived distance to the experience (β = .01, p = .78).
50
Testing of Hypothesis 1b
Hypothesis 1b predicts that a reduction of spatial distance to an object leads to a
reduction of the perceived distance to the symbolic meaning of the object. An
ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of mug distance on perceived distance to
the experience (F(2, 119) = 3.30, p = .04). In line with hypothesis 1b, planned
contrasts (LSD16) indicated a significant mean difference between the long distance
condition (M = 4.02) and the short distance conditions without touch (M = 3.38;
t(119) = 2.02, p = .045) and with touch (M = 3.34; t(119) = 2.35, p = .02). No
significant difference was found between the two short distance conditions
(t(119) = .13, p = .89). Figure 3-5 depicts the means and confidence intervals (95%)
for subjects’ perceived distance to the personal experience in each condition.
Figure 3-5: Study 2 / Results / Perceived Distance to Personal Experience
3.3.7 Discussion
The results of experiment 2 support hypothesis 1b. Hence, in conditions in which the
mug was placed directly in front of participants the symbolized meaning of the mug
was perceived as closer as in situations in which the mug was placed at a remote
location. The results replicate the findings from experiment 1 while further refining
16
Least significant difference t-tests (LSD) were utilized for pairwise comparisons throughout this dissertation.
Hence, it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This was decided as the comparisons were theoretically
motivated and because the amount of comparisons per analysis did not exceed 3 (max. 6 in study 3).
51
them: the results support the assumption that the physical proximity to a symbolic
object positively influences a subject’s perceived proximity to the object’s symbolized
meaning. Findings further contradict a possible alternative explanation that was
discussed apropos the findings of experiment 1 – that is, a symbolic object might
solely intensify mental images of the symbolized meaning and therefore reduce its
perceived distance. In experiment 2, participants in each condition connected the same
mug to a certain self-selected experience. Consequently, it was controlled for a
possible effect of the object on the vividness of mental images of the experience. The
results therefore support the here proposed notion that symbolic objects transfer their
adherent, abstract meaning into the direct experienceable world and therefore reduce
the perceived distance to their meaning.
Experiment 2 further controlled for the particular effect of touch. Touch did not
significantly influence the perceived distance of the object’s symbolic meaning.
Hence, perceived distances in conditions in which the mug was placed directly in front
of subjects did not differ, irrespective of whether the mug was touched or not. This
partially contradicts findings from Peck and Shu (2009, p. 437). Their findings
indicate that subjects perceive stronger ownership towards a physically close object if
the object is touched compared to when the object is not touched. A possible reason
for this diverging result could be that the effect of touching an object onto the
perception of owning it might not equally account for the here observed perceived
distance to the object’s meaning. Whereas ownership is a relatively dichotomous status
(to own or not own), distance is a clearly continuous variable (from infinite distant to
infinite close). From this perspective, touching might be seen as one point in a
continuous setting of distances reaching from “out of reach”, over “in reaching
distance”, over “close to touch”, “slightly touching”, “touching”, to “intensively
touching”. It can accordingly be argued that the experimental variation between a very
close mug that is touched and a very close mug that is not touched might not be large
enough to influence the here observed dependent variable. Most importantly, however,
results indicate that the revealed effect is actually caused by the object’s spatial
distance and not by a confounding effect of touch. At the same time, the result that
both close mug conditions show significantly lower means for perceived distance to
the experience than the distant mug condition further fortifies the influence of spatial
distance. As the focus of this research lies in investigating this specific effect of spatial
distance, the following experiments will not investigate closer the particular difference
between distance and touch.
52
As outlined above, results of experiment 2 contradict the possible alternative
explanation that objects lead to a more vivid mental construal of their symbolized
meaning and therefore lead to a decrease in perceived distance to that meaning.
A second alternative explanation that was outlined in the context of experiment 1,
however, also partially accounts for the shown effects in experiment 2: as previously
argued, it is possible that the shown effects of spatial distance to an object are due to
an affective reaction to that object’s distance and are independent of the object’s
symbolic connection to its meaning. Accordingly, it is possible that the revealed
positive influence of mug proximity on perceived proximity to its meaning is solely
caused by such an affective reaction to a close object. By further enhancing the
utilized designs of studies 1 and 2, experiment 3 will account for this alternative
explanation.
3.4 The Tennis Ball Experiment (Study 3)
3.4.1 Overview
The purpose of study 3 was to test the overall conceptual model of this dissertation.
Studies 1 and 2 focused on investigating the main effect of graspable, symbolic objects
on the perceived distance of subjects to these objects’ meanings. Experiment 3 will
retest these main effects (H1a and H1b) while including further dimensions in its study
design. Experiment 3 is particularly designed to test the moderating effect of the
symbolic connection between an object and a meaning on the previously tested main
effect: it is argued that the influence of an object’s distance on the perceived distance
to its symbolized meaning is stronger the stronger the object is symbolically connected
to this meaning (H4a). Moreover, it is predicted that object proximity additionally
leads to a stronger self-extension towards the object’s meaning and that this effect is
mediated by perceived distance to the meaning (H2a and H2b). It is further predicted
that this mediation is moderated by the symbolic connection between object and
meaning (H4b). Above that, it is predicted that object proximity also results in stronger
behavioral intentions towards the symbolized meaning and that this effect is mediated
by perceived distance and self-extension towards the meaning (H3a and H3b).
Moreover, this effect is predicted to be moderated by the symbolic connection between
object and meaning (H4c).
To test this hypothetical model, experiment 3 was conducted using a 2 (object
proximity: close / distant) x 3 (symbolic connection: no / moderate / strong) design.
53
Additionally, one condition without an object was included in the study design to
control for the general effect of object presence. As the study aimed at further and
more precisely testing the conceptual model of this dissertation, it was designed as a
laboratory experiment. Similar as for study 2, this setting was used to allow for a
strong control of the correct execution of the experimental tasks. Further, this setting
allowed for a precise manipulation of the spatial distance between objects and
participants.
A critical element of the development of study 3 was the determination of a suitable
object and symbolized meaning to operationalize the outlined study design. To control
the strength of the symbolic connection between an object and a meaning, it was
decided to use objects and a meaning that stood in a predefined symbolic connection to
each other. Hence, different to study 2, where the connection between the object and
the personal experience was created by each subject individually, it was the goal of
study 3 to use a generally known object and a generally known meaning that could
easily be manipulated as regards their symbolic connection. Further, as in the previous
studies, the chosen object was supposed to meet the requirements of the here defined
properties of graspable objects (see section 2.2.1).
Building upon these guidelines, tennis balls were chosen as objects and one of the
most well-known tennis tournaments in the world, namely the ATP Wimbledon Tennis
Championship, as a symbolically connected meaning. An informal prestudy conducted
with 20 students from the University of St. Gallen showed that all participants,
including subjects that did not play tennis, had previously touched a tennis ball and
knew Wimbledon. The study was conducted in December 2012 and referred to the
previously held Wimbledon Tournament of June to July 2012. Therefore, at the time
of the experiment it was five months since the tournament had finished. Accordingly,
it was distant enough to allow for the proposed distance reducing effect of a
symbolically connected object.
463 students (72% males; mean age: 22 years) from the University of St. Gallen
participated in the study. The high proportion of male participants reflects the gender
distribution at this particular university. 11 participants (2.38% of total participants)
were excluded from the analyses because their answering patterns strongly diverged
from the majority of participants. Answers of excluded participants differed more than
two standard deviations from group means for at least one of the observed dependent
54
variables. Participation in the study was voluntary. Participants received a chocolate
bar as incentive. The mean participation time was less than 10 minutes.
The overall procedure of experiment 3 was similar to experiment 2. Subjects were
approached on university campus and asked to participate in a study concerning sports.
If agreeing to participate, subjects were led to the laboratory building where they were
randomly assigned to one of the prepared rooms. Each room contained a large
conference table. Before participants entered the room, one of three types of tennis
balls (varying in their symbolic connections to Wimbledon) was placed in a short /
long distance to a predefined seat depending on the tested condition. Participants
received a short introduction to the study from the student who had approached them
on campus. In the course of this introduction, subjects received a paper and pen
questionnaire. They were then left alone in the room.
In the first part of the study, participants were informed that the study concerned the
Wimbledon tennis tournament. They subsequently received some basic information
about the tournament. After that, their attention was drawn to the tennis ball on the
table in front of them (this part was omitted for people in the no object condition).
Subsequent to the tennis ball manipulation, participants rated their perceived distance
to Wimbledon. Furthermore, they rated their perceived self-extension to Wimbledon as
well as their intentions to visit the tournament in the future (behavioral intentions). The
questionnaire ended with a series of control measures. Finally, subjects were thanked
for participation and debriefed. Figure 3-6 depicts the procedure of experiment 3.
Participants receive information that the study is about the Wimbledon tennis tournament
2. Exposure to Information about Event
Participants read some basic information on Wimbledon (see section 3.4.3)
3. Manipulation of Object Proximity and Symbolic Connection of Object to Event
Participants are exposed to a non- / moderate- / strong-symbolic tennis ball that is in a close / distant position.
In the “no object” control condition, participants are not exposed to a tennis ball (see section 3.4.3).
4. Measurement of Dependent Variables
Participants indicate their perceived distance, self-extension, behavioral intentions about Wimbledon
(see section 3.4.5)
5. Measurement of Control Variables
Participants indicate their knowledge about Wimbledon, interest in Wimbledon, gender, age
(see section 3.4.6)
55
3.4.3 Manipulation of Independent Variables
After being welcomed to the study, participants were informed that the study was
about the Wimbledon tennis tournament. Subsequently, they received a short
introduction to the tournament that included the following information:
Wimbledon is one of the most traditional and distinguished tennis tournaments in the
world. It is named after the Wimbledon district, an area in the city of London in
England, where it is held. The tournament is the only one of the four major tennis
tournaments (Grand-Slam-Tournaments) that is played on grass courts. It was first
held in 1877.
Wimbledon takes place each year for two weeks, beginning at the end of June. It was
last conducted in the period from 25th June until 8th July 2012.
Below you can see some impressions of the tournament:
Figure 3-7: Study 3 / Design / Depiction Wimbledon
56
After receiving this information, participants’ attention was drawn to the tennis ball on
the table in front of them. This part was omitted for participants in the no ball control
condition.
Spatial distance to the ball was manipulated analog to experiment 2. The ball was
placed on the table before participants entered the room. In the short distance
conditions, the ball was placed at 40-centimeter distance to the participant and was
therefore in reaching distance. In the long distance condition, the ball was placed at
4-meter distance on the table, clearly out of reach. In the short distance conditions,
participants were asked to please take the ball into your hands and look at it. In the
long distance conditions, participants were asked to please look at the ball.
To manipulate the symbolic connection between the ball and the tournament three
different kinds of tennis ball were utilized. They were chosen based on Peirce’s
differentiation between iconic, symbolic, and indexical signs (see section 2.2.3).
However, these different kinds of relationships were not treated as factual relationships
between the sign (the ball) and the signified (Wimbledon). In line with the theoretical
argumentation in section 2.2.3, they were interpreted as different qualities of learned
and thus purely symbolic relationships between the sign and its meaning. To
manipulate the strength of the connection between the ball and the tournament, each
higher factor level of symbolic connection comprised an additional semiotic meaning
layer.
In the non-symbolic ball condition, a simple leisure tennis ball was used as object. The
ball was a plain tennis ball with no imprint (see figure 3-8). Therefore, this ball
primarily had an iconic relationship to Wimbledon because it looked similar to the
tennis balls that are used for the tournament. However, it had no direct symbolic
connection to Wimbledon, as it did not particularly link to the tournament. Its only
symbolic connection to Wimbledon was of indirect nature via the association “tennis”.
To ensure that participants exposed to this ball had a homogenous understanding of its
connection to the tournament they received the following information: This is a
standard tennis ball that is used for leisure tennis matches. Tennis balls of this kind
are not used at Wimbledon Championships.
In the moderate-symbolic ball condition, the official competition ball of the
Wimbledon tournament was used as object. This ball carried the imprint “Slazenger,
WIMBLEDON ULTRA VIS” (see figure 3-8). Being the official tournament ball of
Wimbledon, it hence symbolized a direct connection to the tournament. Whereas the
non-symbolic ball only iconically related to Wimbledon, this ball related iconically
57
and symbolically to the tournament. To ensure that participants exposed to this ball
had a homogenous understanding of its connection to the tournament they received the
following information: This tennis ball is an official championship ball of the
Wimbledon tennis tournament. Tennis balls such as this one are used for the matches
at Wimbledon Championships. This ball has not been played.
In the strong-symbolic ball condition, a played exemplar of the Wimbledon
tournament ball was used.17 This ball also carried the imprint “Slazenger,
WIMBLEDON ULTRA VIS” (see figure 3-8). Different to the moderate-symbolic
ball, it had been used. Participants were told that the ball had been played at the
previous Wimbledon Championship. Consequently, compared to the previously
outlined condition a further layer was added to the connection between the ball and the
tournament. Referring to Grayson and Shulman’s argumentation, participants learned
that this ball had “a factual, spatial connection” to the tournament (Grayson and
Shulman 2000, p. 19). Accordingly, in this condition the ball was iconically,
symbolically, and indexically connected to Wimbledon. To ensure that participants
exposed to this ball had a homogenous understanding of its connection to the
tournament they received the following information: This tennis ball is an official
championship ball of the Wimbledon tennis tournament. This ball was actually used at
the last Wimbledon Championship. It was played in one of the matches during the
tournament. Figure 3-8 depicts the three utilized tennis balls.
Figure 3-8: Study 3 / Design / Pictures of Utilized Tennis Balls
17
The Wimbledon Championship was additionally chosen in this study opposed to the French Open, as it is
played on grass courts. This was important for the experimental design, to keep differences in the outer
appearance of the played and unused tennis balls as little as possible. A ball that had been played on a clay
court would have stronger altered its outer appearance and hence enlarged the risk of confounding effects
between this and the other two conditions.
58
Before the main study, these described and depicted tennis balls were tested as regards
their symbolic connection to the Wimbledon tennis tournament. The next section
outlines the procedure and results of this pretest.
3.4.4 Pretesting of Stimuli
To ensure that the symbolic connection between the tennis balls and Wimbledon was
manipulated correctly a prestudy was conducted in which the perceived symbolic and
indexical connection between the three different tennis balls and Wimbledon were
pretested. For efficiency reasons, the prestudy was conducted online. 90 subjects (62%
male; mean age: 30 years) participated in the study. Participants were recruited from
an online consumer panel. Subjects were invited to participate in a short study about
tennis balls and the Wimbledon tennis tournament. They received $0.30 for
participation. The mean participation time was less than five minutes.
The study used a one-factorial between subjects design. Each subject was randomly
assigned to one of three tennis ball conditions. After entering the study, participants
read the following text: Below you see a tennis ball. Please look closely at the ball and
read the information concerning the ball below. Participants then saw a standardized
picture of one of three above depicted tennis balls (see figure 3-8). Furthermore, they
read one of the above outlined descriptions referring to the shown ball (see section
3.4.3). After being exposed to the stimuli, subjects rated the ball on two dimensions:
first, the general symbolic connection of the ball to the tournament; secondly, the
indexical connection of the ball to the tournament.
The symbolic connection between the ball and the tournament was measured using the
following three items: How strongly does the tennis ball relate to the Wimbledon
tournament? / How strong is the connection between the tennis ball and the
Wimbledon tournament? / How strongly do you feel that the ball connects to the
Wimbledon tournament? Scale endpoints were labeled very weak (1) and very strong
(7). The three items were averaged to a single measure of symbolic connection
(α = .98) with low values indicating a weak symbolic connection and high values
indicating a strong symbolic connection.
Indexical connection was measured using four items adapted from Grayson and
Martinec (2004): There is a physical connection between the ball and the Wimbledon
tournament / Being physically close to the ball would be like being physically close to
the Wimbledon tournament / Looking at the ball makes me feel physically close to the
Wimbledon tournament / Touching the ball would be like touching a part of the
59
Wimbledon tournament. Scale endpoints were labeled totally disagree (1) and totally
agree (7). The four items were averaged to a single measure of indexical connection
(α = .91) with low values indicating a weak indexical connection and high values
indicating a strong indexical connection.
A one-factorial ANOVA supported the appropriateness of the manipulation.
Specifically, results revealed significantly different levels of symbolic connection
between the three conditions (F(2, 87) = 56.00, p < .01). Ratings for the plain tennis
ball with no symbolic connection (M = 2.81) were below ratings for the unplayed
official Championship Ball (M = 5.60; t(87) = 7.57, p < .01). Ratings for the
supposedly played official Championship Ball (M = 6.49) were above the ratings for
the not played Championship Ball (t(87) = 2.48, p = .02).
Similar results were found for the indexical connections of the balls to the tournament
(F(2, 87) = 26.46, p < .01). Indexical connection for the plain tennis ball (M = 2.05)
was perceived as lower than for the unplayed Championship Ball (M = 3.71; t(87) =
4.31, p < .01), which again was rated lower than the supposedly played Championship
Ball (M = 4.77; t(87) = 2.83, p = .01). Figure 3-9 depicts the mean values and
confidence intervals (95%) for subjects’ ratings of the symbolic and indexical
connection for each of the three types of tennis balls.
Figure 3-9: Study 3 / Pretest / Manipulation Check
The results do not only support the intended manipulation; the indicated differences in
ratings are moreover informative regarding the conceptual basis of this dissertation.
The findings will further be discussed in section 3.4.8.
60
3.4.5 Operationalization of Dependent Variables
After being exposed to and receiving the outlined information regarding one of the
three types of tennis balls, measurement of perceived distance to Wimbledon was
initiated with the following instruction:
In the following section, we would like to ask you a few questions regarding the
Wimbledon tournament: As previously mentioned, the Wimbledon tournament was last
held in the period from 25th June until 8th July 2012.
When looking at the ball and thinking about the Wimbledon tournament, how close
(distant) does the tournament feel to you in this moment?18
Perceived distance to Wimbledon was then measured using the same two 7-point
scales as in the previous studies (feels very close (1), feels very distant (7); feels as if it
was yesterday (1), feels as if it was long time ago (7); see van Boven et al. 2010; Ross
and Wilson 2002). Both scales were averaged to a single measure of perceived
distance (r = .66; SB = .80) with low values indicating short and high values indicating
large perceived distances.
After rating the perceived distance to Wimbledon, subjects stated their agreement with
several items used to operationalize their perceived self-extension to Wimbledon. The
utilized scale was adapted from Escalas and Bettman’s self-brand connection scale
(Escalas and Bettman 2003; 2005). It has previously been applied in similar contexts
referring to self-construals of consumers (ibid). The scale consisted of the following
seven, slightly adapted items (anchored by strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7)):
The Wimbledon tournament reflects who I am / I can identify with the Wimbledon
tournament / I feel a personal connection to the Wimbledon tournament / My interest
in Wimbledon matches the image that I want to communicate to others / The
Wimbledon tournament is a part of me / The Wimbledon tournament says something
about who I am / The Wimbledon tournament suits me well. The items were averaged
to a single measure of self-extension (α = .94) and values of this measure were
reversed. Accordingly, low values indicated weak self-extension and high values
indicated strong self-extension of subjects to Wimbledon.
After measuring self-extension to Wimbledon, subjects’ behavioral intentions
regarding visiting the tournament were inquired. The following two items were used to
operationalize this construct (anchored by strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7)):
18
As previously outlined, participants in the “no ball” control condition were not exposed to the tennis ball and
were just asked to think about the Wimbledon tennis tournament.
61
I would very much to like to visit the Wimbledon tournament at one point in the future
/ I can easily imagine visiting the Wimbledon tournament in the future. The items were
averaged to a single measure of behavioral intentions (r = .82; SB = .90) and values of
this measure were reversed. Accordingly, low values indicated weak intentions and
high values indicated strong intentions to visit Wimbledon in the future.
3.4.6 Control Variables
To control for possible confounding effects, further measures were included in the end
section of the questionnaire. These contained two questions concerning subjects’
knowledge about Wimbledon prior to the study: How well did you know the
Wimbledon tennis tournament before this survey? (very well (1), not at all (7)); How
strongly were you interested in Wimbledon before this survey? (very strongly (1), not
at all (7)). Furthermore, participants were asked to indicate: How intensively did you
follow the last held Wimbledon Championship? (very intensively (1), not at all (7)).
However, these control variables were excluded from the main analysis because they
showed to be influenced by the conducted manipulations. Participants further indicated
their gender and age.
3.4.7 Results
The purpose of study 3 was to test jointly the overall conceptual model of this
dissertation. Results of the analyses will be reported subsequently concerning the
tested hypotheses.
Testing of Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 4a
One purpose of study 3 was to retest the effect of object presence / proximity on
perceived distance to the object’s meaning (H1a and H1b) while further testing the
moderating influence of the symbolic connection strength between object and meaning
(H4a). It was predicted that the presence of a tennis ball would only then reduce the
perceived distance to Wimbledon if the ball was physically close and symbolically
related to the tournament. Further, it was predicted that when the ball was close it
would stronger reduce perceived distance to Wimbledon, the stronger it was
symbolically connected to Wimbledon.
A two-factorial ANOVA including two levels of ball distance (close / distant) and
three levels of symbolic connection between the ball and Wimbledon (no / moderate /
strong) was conducted. Additionally, paired comparisons between the control
condition without ball and each of the conditions with tennis ball were conducted.
62
Figure 3-10 depicts the mean values and confidence intervals (95%) for perceived
distance to Wimbledon for each condition.
Figure 3-10: Study 3 / Results / Perceived Distance to Wimbledon
The conducted ANOVA19 revealed a significant interaction between ball proximity
and symbolic connection (F(2, 352) = 3.47, p = .03). Specific contrasts (LSD)
supported hypotheses 4a: physical proximity to the tennis ball only reduced the
perceived distance to Wimbledon (compared to states in which the ball was distant) for
tennis balls with a moderate connection to Wimbledon (M’s of 4.11 and 4.82; t(352) =
3.18, p < .01) and with a strong connection to Wimbledon (M’s of 3.78 and 4.61;
t(352) = 3.34, p < .01). No difference was found for the non-symbolic ball (M’s of
4.78 and 4.80; t(352) = .06, p = .95). Further univariate tests revealed that there was no
significant difference for perceived distance to Wimbledon between the different types
of tennis balls in the distant ball condition (F(2, 352) = .36, p = .70). Perceived
distance to Wimbledon did however differ between groups with different tennis balls
within the close ball condition (F(2, 352) = 12.23, p < .01). Pairwise comparisons
19
Due to an initial focus of the study on the close / no ball conditions, participants are not equally distributed to
the experimental cells. N for the cells are as follow: non-symbolic ball = 69 (close) / 47 (distant); moderatesymbolic ball = 82 (close) / 48 (distant); strong-symbolic ball = 75 (close) / 37 (distant); no ball = 94.
Additional analyses were conducted with randomly drawn subsamples of the close ball conditions to match
cell sizes. Results corresponded to the here reported analyses. The control condition without ball was
excluded from the ANOVA because it did not match the factorial design. Pairwise comparisons were
conducted to compare this baseline condition against the experimental conditions (see below).
63
(LSD) within the close ball condition revealed that compared to the non-symbolic ball
group perceived distance to Wimbledon was significantly lower for the moderatesymbolic ball group (M’s of 4.11 and 4.78; t(352) = 3.33, p < .01) and for the strongsymbolic ball group (M’s of 3.78 and 4.78, t(352) = 4.87, p < .01). Perceived distance
to Wimbledon was marginally lower for the strong-symbolic ball group compared to
the moderate symbolic-ball group (M’s of 3.78 and 4.11; t(352) = 1.68, p = .096).
Pairwise comparisons (LSD) between the no ball baseline condition (M = 4.84) and the
ball conditions additionally supported the predicted outcome that only the close
moderate-symbolic ball (M = 4.11; t(445) = 3.76, p < .01) and the close strongsymbolic ball (M = 3.78; t(445) = 5.32, p < .01) led to significantly lower perceived
distances to Wimbledon. All other comparisons between the no ball condition and the
ball conditions were insignificant, with p-values above .36. The outlined comparisons
further support the predicted result that only physically close tennis balls with a direct
symbolic connection to Wimbledon decrease participants’ perceived distance to
Wimbledon.
Testing of Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 4b
A further purpose of study 3 was to test hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 4b. It was predicted
that physical proximity to a tennis ball would positively influence perceived selfextension to Wimbledon (H2a) via a reduction of perceived distance to Wimbledon
(H2b) and that this mediation would be moderated by the symbolic connection
between the tennis ball and Wimbledon (H4a).
Before testing the proposed mediation, two analyses tested the direct effect of the
utilized tennis balls on subjects’ perceived self-extension to Wimbledon. Analog to the
above outlined procedure, first an ANOVA was conducted to test for the presumed
interaction of object proximity and symbolic connection. Secondly, planned contrasts
between the baseline condition without ball and the six ball conditions were
conducted. Figure 3-11 depicts the means values and confidence intervals (95%) for
perceived self-extension to Wimbledon in each condition.
64
Figure 3-11: Study 3 / Results / Perceived Self-Extension to Wimbledon
The ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between tennis ball proximity and
symbolic connection (F(2, 352) = 3.54, p = .03). Specific contrasts (LSD) revealed the
predicted interaction pattern: physical proximity to the ball only strengthened
perceived self-extension to Wimbledon (compared to states in which the ball was
distant) for moderate-symbolic balls (M’s of 3.10 and 2.23; t(352) = 3.73, p < .01) and
strong-symbolic balls (M’s of 3.06 and 2.40; t(352) = 2.60, p = .01). No difference was
found for the ball without a direct symbolic connection to Wimbledon (M’s of 2.39
and 2.38; t(352) = .02, p = .98). Further univariate tests revealed that there was no
significant difference for perceived self-extension to Wimbledon between the different
types of balls in the distant ball condition (F(2, 352) = .23, p = .80). Perceived selfextension to Wimbledon did however differ between ball-types within the close ball
condition (F(2, 352) = 7.11, p < .01). Pairwise comparisons (LSD) within the close
ball condition revealed that, compared to the non-symbolic ball group, perceived selfextension to Wimbledon was significantly higher for the moderate-symbolic ball group
(M’s of 3.10 and 2.39; t(352) = 3.43, p < .01) and for the strong-symbolic ball group
(M’s of 3.06 and 2.39, t(352) = 3.16, p < .01). However, no difference in perceived
self-extension was found between the groups that were exposed to close moderate- and
close strong-symbolic balls (M’s of 3.10 and 3.06; t(352) = 0.20, p = .85).
Pairwise comparisons (LSD) between the no ball baseline condition (M = 2.22) and the
six ball conditions additionally supported the predicted outcome that only the close
65
moderate-symbolic ball (M = 3.10; t(445) = 4.55, p < .01) and the close strongsymbolic ball (M = 3.06; t(445) = 4.24, p < .01) led to significantly higher perceived
self-extension to Wimbledon. All other comparisons between the no ball condition and
the ball conditions were insignificant with p-values above .42. The outlined
comparisons hence further support the predicted result that only physically close tennis
balls with a direct symbolic connection to Wimbledon increase participants’ perceived
self-extension to Wimbledon (H2a, H4b).
Building upon these results, further analyses where conducted to test for the predicted
moderated mediation. Specifically it was tested whether physical proximity to a tennis
ball leads to perceived self-extension to Wimbledon and whether this effect is
mediated by perceived distance to Wimbledon and moderated by the ball’s symbolic
connection to Wimbledon. It was predicted that the mediation would only occur for the
moderate and strong symbolic ball, not for the plain tennis ball without a direct
connection to Wimbledon. As the previous analyses only revealed weak / no
differences in the effects of the close moderate- and close strong-symbolic ball for the
observed dependent variables, the comparison of these two conditions was excluded
from the mediation analysis. Therefore, the non-symbolic ball condition served as a
baseline condition. The moderate- and strong-symbolic ball conditions were contrasted
against this condition.
To test the predicted moderated mediation the independent variable “object proximity”
was coded with the value “1” for short object distance and with the value “0” for large
object distance. Further, dummy variables were created to differentiate the three levels
of the moderator symbolic connection. The non-symbolic ball condition was
determined as baseline condition. Two dummy variables were created to differentiate
the moderate- and strong- symbolic ball conditions from the no ball condition and
between each other. A stepwise mediation analysis was conducted following the
procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). To estimate the indirect effects for
each of the three tennis ball conditions the non-parametric bootstrap analysis provided
by the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 10) was applied (Hayes 2012; 2013). Figure
3-12 depicts the results of the moderated mediation analysis.
66
Figure 3-12: Study 3 / Results / Moderated Mediation Analysis
As previously outlined, physical proximity to the tennis ball did not directly influence
perceived self-extension to Wimbledon for the non-symbolic ball (βnon = .01, p = .98).
In contrast to this ball, physical proximity to the moderate-symbolic ball had a
significantly stronger influence on self-extension to Wimbledon (βmod = .86, p = .01).
Similarly, compared to the non-symbolic ball the strong-symbolic ball led to a
marginally stronger increase of perceived self-extension to Wimbledon (βstrong = .66,
p = .06).
A similar pattern was found for the influence of ball proximity on perceived distance
to Wimbledon: no effect of physical proximity to the ball was found for the baseline
condition with the non-symbolic ball (βnon = -.02, p = .95). In contrast to the plain
tennis ball, physical proximity to the moderate-symbolic ball led to a significantly
stronger decrease of perceived distance to Wimbledon (βmod = -.70, p = .03). Similarly,
compared to the non-symbolic ball the strong-symbolic ball led to significantly
stronger decrease of perceived distance to Wimbledon (βstrong = -.81, p = .02). As
predicted, perceived distance to Wimbledon was moreover a significant predictor of
perceived self-extension to Wimbledon (β = -.45, p < .01). Lastly, when both variables
– object proximity and perceived distance to the symbolized meaning – were included
in the overall regression model, perceived distance stayed a significant predictor of
67
perceived self-extension (β = -.41, p < .01), while the moderated impact of the
independent variable was reduced for the moderate-symbolic object (βmod = .58,
p = .06) and eliminated for the strong-symbolic object (βstrong = .33, p = .32).
Based on these analyses, conditional indirect effects were estimated for each of the
three tennis ball types. Using the 95% bootstrap confidence intervals provided by the
deployed PROCESS macro, it was further checked whether these indirect effects
differed significantly from zero (Hayes 2013). Table 3-2 shows the estimation results.
Conditional Indirect Effects of Object Proximity on Self-Extension at Levels of the Moderator
Level Moderator
Effect
Boot SE
Boot LLCI
Boot UPCI
Non-Symbolic Ball
.01
.09
-.17
.18
Moderate-Symbolic Ball
.29
.11
.11
.52
Strong-Symbolic Ball
.34
.11
.32
1.04
Table 3-2: Study 3 / Results / Indirect Effects – Moderated Mediation
As predicted, the estimated confidence interval for the indirect effect of the nonsymbolic ball was not significantly different from the value zero (.01 with a CI of -.17
to .18). However, results revealed indirect effects for the moderate-symbolic ball (.29
with a CI of .11 to .52) and for the strong-symbolic ball (.34 with a CI of .32 to 1.04)
that significantly differed from the value zero. The results of the moderated mediation
analysis hence support hypothesis 2b and 4b.
Testing of Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 4c
A further purpose of study 3 was to test hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 4c. It was predicted
that physical proximity to a tennis ball would positively influence subjects’ behavioral
intentions towards Wimbledon (H3a). It was further predicted that the direct effect of
object proximity on these intentions would be mediated by subjects’ perceived
distance and self-extension to Wimbledon (H3b). Moreover, it was predicted that this
effect would be moderated by the symbolic connection between the tennis ball and
Wimbledon (H4c). As reported in section 3.4.5, behavioral intentions were
operationalized by asking subjects about their intentions to visit the tournament at
some point in the future.
Before testing the proposed mediation, two analyses tested the direct effect of object
proximity for the three types of tennis balls on subjects’ intentions to visit Wimbledon.
Analog to the previously outlined procedures, first an ANOVA was conducted to test
for the predicted interaction of object proximity and symbolic connection between ball
68
and Wimbledon. Secondly, planned contrasts between the baseline condition without
ball and the six ball conditions were conducted. Figure 3-13 depicts the mean values
and confidence intervals (95%) for subjects’ intention to visit Wimbledon in each
condition.
Figure 3-13: Study 3 / Results / Intention to Visit Wimbledon
The ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between ball proximity and symbolic
connection (F(2, 352) = 3.03, p = .05). Specific contrasts (LSD) revealed the predicted
interaction pattern: physical proximity to the tennis ball only strengthened behavioral
intentions (compared to states in which the ball was distant) for the moderate-symbolic
ball (M’s of 6.03 and 5.17; t(352) = 3.05, p < .01) and for the strong-symbolic ball
(M’s of 5.81 and 5.16; t(352) = 2.08, p = .04). No difference was found for the nonsymbolic ball (M’s of 5.29 and 5.39; t(352) = .35, p = .73). Further univariate tests
revealed that there was no significant difference in behavioral intentions between the
different types of balls in the distant ball condition (F(2, 352) = .33, p = .72).
However, behavioral intentions did differ between groups with different balls within
the close ball condition (F(2, 352) = 4.39, p = .01). Pairwise comparisons (LSD)
within the close ball conditions revealed that compared to the non-symbolic ball group
intentions to visit Wimbledon were significantly higher in the moderate-symbolic ball
group (M’s of 6.03 and 5.29; t(352) = 2.91, p < .01) and in the strong-symbolic ball
group (M’s of 5.81 and 5.29, t(352) = 2.01, p = .05). However, no difference in
69
behavioral intentions was found between the groups that were exposed to close
moderate- and close strong-symbolic balls (M’s of 6.03 and 5.81; t(352) = 0.87,
p = .38).
Further, pairwise comparisons (LSD) between the no ball baseline condition (M =
4.93) and the six ball conditions additionally supported the predicted outcome that
particularly the close moderate-symbolic ball (M = 6.03; t(445) = 4.41, p < .01) and
the close strong-symbolic ball (M = 5.81; t(445) = 3.45, p < .01) led to significantly
stronger behavioral intentions. All other comparisons between the no ball condition
and the experimental conditions were insignificant, with p-values above .12. The
outlined comparisons further support the predicted result that only spatially close
tennis balls with a direct symbolic connection to Wimbledon increase subjects’
behavioral intentions towards Wimbledon (H3a, H4c).
Building upon these results, a mediation analysis was conducted. As outlined above, a
serial multiple mediation of (1) object proximity on (2) perceived distance to the
object’s meaning on (3) perceived self-extension to the object’s meaning on
(4) behavioral intentions towards the object’s meaning was predicted. The conducted
mediation analysis primarily aimed at testing the presumed serial constitution of the
described mediation process. Due to this goal, it was decided to exclude the
moderating influence of the symbolic connection between the object and its meaning
from this analysis. The previous mediation analysis revealed that the mediation of
object proximity on perceived self-extension to Wimbledon via perceived distance to
Wimbledon only occurred for objects that were symbolically connected to
Wimbledon. Accordingly, to test the predicted serial multiple mediation, one of the
two symbolic ball conditions was chosen. As the estimated indirect effect of object
proximity on perceived self-extension to Wimbledon had been strongest for the strongsymbolic ball conditions (.34), this subsample was chosen for the conducted serial
multiple mediation. Figure 3-14 summarizes the results of the mediation analyses.
70
Figure 3-14: Study 3 / Results / Serial Multiple Mediation Analyses
A regression analysis revealed that object proximity within the strong-symbolic ball
condition was a significant predictor of behavioral intentions (βstrong = .65, p = .03). In
line with the previous analyses, object proximity was further found to be a significant
predictor of perceived distance to Wimbledon (βstrong = -.83, p < .01) and perceived
self-extension to Wimbledon (βstrong = .66, p = .013). Further, perceived distance to
Wimbledon was a significant predictor of self-extension to Wimbledon (βstrong = -.53,
p < .01). Moreover, perceived distance (βstrong = -.44, p < .01) as well as self-extension
to Wimbledon (βstrong = .68, p < .01) had a significant impact on subjects’ intentions to
visit Wimbledon. When perceived self-extension to Wimbledon was regressed on
object proximity as well as perceived distance to Wimbledon, the impact of perceived
distance stayed significant (βstrong = -.50, p < .01) while the impact of object proximity
was eliminated (βstrong = .25, p = .32). Finally, object proximity, perceived distance, as
well as perceived self-extension to Wimbledon were included into the overall
regression model predicting behavioral intentions. Only the impact of perceived selfextension stayed significant (βstrong = .63, p < .01) while the impact of object proximity
(βstrong = .17, p = .53) and the impact of perceived distance to Wimbledon
(βstrong = -.08, p = .46) were eliminated.
71
Based on these analyses, indirect effects for each of the possible mediation paths were
estimated. Using the 95% bootstrap confidence intervals provided by the deployed
PROCESS macro (Model = 6), it was further checked whether these indirect effects
differed significantly from zero (Hayes 2013). Table 3-3 shows the estimation results.
Indirect Effects of Object Proximity on Behavioral Intentions through Possible Mediation Paths
Mediation Path
Effect
Boot SE
Boot LLCI
Boot UPCI
Object Proximity
-> Perceived Distance
-> Behavioral Intentions
.07
.10
-.14
.27
Object Proximity
-> Self-Extension
.16
.15
-.15
.49
Object Proximity
-> Perceived Distance
-> Self-Extension
.26
.10
.11
.52
Table 3-3: Study 3 / Results / Indirect Effects – Serial Multiple Mediation
As table 3-3 indicates, the conducted analysis revealed that only the indirect effect of
the full mediation path from object proximity over perceived distance over perceived
self-extension to behavioral intentions towards Wimbledon was significantly different
from the value zero (.26 with a CI of .11 to .52). Indirect effects for the two other
possible mediation paths were estimated to be not significantly different from zero.
Further, as previously mentioned, the direct influence of object proximity was
eliminated in the overall regression model. Results therefore support the postulated
serial multiple mediation of object proximity on behavioral intentions for the strongsymbolic ball subsample (H3b).
3.4.8 Discussion
The results of experiment 3 support hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, and partially
support hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c. The results replicate the finding that physically
close, symbolic objects (compared to distant objects) decrease the perceived distance
to their abstract meaning (H1b). Above that, the results indicate that physical
proximity to symbolic objects increases a subject’s perceived self-extension (H2a) and
behavioral intentions (H3a) towards their meaning. Most importantly, results further
support the hypotheses that these influences of objects only account for such objects
that are symbolically connected to the concerned meaning (H4a, H4b, and H4c).
72
Further support for the interaction of physical proximity and symbolic connection
derives from the conducted comparisons between the baseline condition without object
and the experimental conditions with objects. Results revealed that the utilized tennis
balls only affected the observed dependent variables when they were (1) symbolically
connected to Wimbledon and (2) physically close to subjects. If one of these two
properties was not given, the tennis balls were not found to exhibit an influence on the
observed dependent variables that exceeded the baseline measurements without any
object at all. The findings accordingly support the here underlying argumentation that
symbolic objects actually transfer their immaterial meaning into the direct
experienceable world and therefore reduce the distance to that meaning. At the same
time, the findings oppose the previously discussed alternative explanation that the
observed effects of object presence / proximity result from a solely affective reaction
towards a physically close reference point.
The results of experiment 3 further support the notion that an object’s influence on a
subject’s self-extension towards its meaning is mediated by the subject’s perceived
distance to that meaning (H2b). Findings further reveal that this mediation is
moderated by the object’s symbolic connection to the meaning (H4b). Moreover, the
results indicate that the object’s influence on behavioral intentions is mediated by a
subject’s perceived distance and self-extension to that meaning (H3b). The findings do
hence not only support a direct impact of an object on these self- and behavior-related
constructs; they further support the predicted process-related, indirect causes that
underlie this impact. Specifically the results support the notion that symbolic objects
do not only reduce the perceived distance to a certain meaning. By doing so, they
enhance a subject’s self-extension towards that meaning. This self-extension again
influences a subject’s behavior / behavioral intentions towards that meaning.
However, results did not completely support hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c. Physical
proximity to the tennis ball with a strong symbolic connection to Wimbledon only led
to marginally lower perceived distance to Wimbledon compared to the moderatesymbolic ball. Further, no significant differences between these two tennis balls were
found concerning their effects on self-extension and behavioral intentions towards
Wimbledon. One possible reason for this could be that the effect of objects on
perceived distance and self-extension towards their meaning is limited. It is possible
that an increase in connection strength between an object and meaning only influences
the observed measures until a certain maximum level. In this case, the connection
between the moderate-symbolic ball and Wimbledon might already have been too
strong to observe an even larger influence of the strong-symbolic ball. A further
73
possibility is that this finding is a result of this particular manipulation of the symbolic
connection between object and meaning. Although there is no evidence, it is possible
that participants did not believe that the ball had actually been played at Wimbledon.
Further, it is possible that the manipulation within the main experiment was not strong
enough to have people actually realize that the ball had been played at Wimbledon and
therefore was physically connected to Wimbledon.
At the same time, the similar results for the moderate- and strong-symbolic ball also
support a theoretically relevant argument of this dissertation (see section 2.2.3). As
just outlined, the ball that was said to have been played at Wimbledon only led to
marginally lower perceived distances towards Wimbledon (in the close ball condition)
than the ball that was told to be an unplayed official Wimbledon ball. Simultaneously,
the results of the pretest indicate that this unplayed official Wimbledon ball was
perceived to have an indexical connection to the tournament. Hence, although
participants knew that the ball was unplayed they drew a physical connection between
the ball and Wimbledon: the purely symbolic connection between ball and Wimbledon
was accordingly transferred into the perception that the ball was factually connected to
its meaning. Regarding the conceptual foundation of this dissertation, this finding is
relevant for the following reason: it supports the notion that the crucial quality of
symbolic objects in serving a self-extending function is not their actual physical
connection to the symbolized meaning but the mental projection of that connection
onto the object.
Building upon these findings, experiment 4 aims at further investigating the effect of
the symbolic connection strength between an object and its meaning on subjects’
perceived self-extension and behavior towards that meaning. At the same time, study 4
is designed as a field experiment in a realistic survey setting. This is particularly done
to test the generalizability of the previous findings to real-life circumstances.
74
3.5 The Club Card Experiment (Study 4)
3.5.1 Overview
The purpose of study 4 was to retest the main findings of studies 1-3 in a more realistic
field setting and to gain more reliable data on the behavioral and thus economic
consequences of the previously identified effects. The study was particularly designed
to test in which way a symbolic object affects subjects’ perceived self-extension (H2a)
as well as behavior (H3a) towards an institution that is symbolically connected to that
object. The study further retested in which way these effects depend on the symbolic
connection between the object and that specific meaning (H4b and H4c).
The underlying and previously supported effect of objects on perceived distances
towards abstract meanings was disregarded in this study for multiple reasons: chiefly,
this was decided as the main interest of this study advanced from understanding the
psychological and process-related effects of symbolic objects to assessing their impact
on self- and behavior-related outcomes. Further, it was excluded because the measure
of perceived distance was difficult to apply to the particular study design of
experiment 4 and might have irritated participants. Last, it was excluded because
study 3 had supported the hypothesis that the effect of object proximity on the here
investigated dependent measures was mediated by perceived distance to the object’s
symbolic meaning. Hence, in favor of a more outcome orientated study design, it was
decided to disregard this mediation effect in experiment 4.
According to these goals, a crucial element of the development of experiment 4 was to
find an appropriate, realistic study setting that allowed for the necessary experimental
manipulations. The study was conducted in agreement with the Marketing Club of the
University of St. Gallen that was planning a relaunch after it had been inactive for
several years. The experiment was masked to be a survey among students that
measured the general interest of students in such a club. The study used a one-factorial
between-subjects design with three different object manipulations. In one third of the
inquiry participants were exposed to a plastic membership card that was attached to
the questionnaire (strong connection to club); in one third of the inquiry participants
were exposed to an attached plastic membership voucher (weak connection to club);
and in one third of the inquiry participants were solely exposed to a logo of the club
that looked similar to the tested cards (no object baseline condition; see section 3.5.3
for a detailed discussion of the manipulation of the independent variable).
75
Plastic cards were used as objects because they are prevalent in everyday life and
accordingly well known. They were further used as they closely match the here
underlying definition of objects and because they could easily be integrated into the
study design.
According to hypotheses 4b and 4c and in line with the findings of study 3, it was
assumed that compared to the baseline condition particularly the strong-symbolic card
would exert a positive influence on the observed self- and behavior-related measures.
The utilized membership card was not only easily graspable; it further objectified a
club membership and therefore strongly related to the club.
302 students (69% males; mean age: 22 years) from the University of St. Gallen
participated in the study. The high proportion of male participants reflects the gender
distribution at this particular university. Six participants (1.99% of total participants)
were excluded from the analyses because their answering patterns strongly diverged
from the majority of participants. Answers of excluded participants differed more than
two standard deviations from group means for at least one of the observed dependent
variables. Participation in the study was voluntary and participants did not receive any
incentives. The mean participation time was less than 10 minutes.
Bachelor students of a mandatory course were approached during group assignments
for which they separated to various working rooms. Each working group randomly
received paper and pen questionnaires of the same experimental condition. This
procedure was chosen to ensure that participants did not notice that questionnaires
differed as regards the object manipulation.20
Students were informed that the study was conducted to assess their interest in a
planned marketing club. In the first part of the study, subjects received a short portrait
of the club. After this description, they were exposed to one of the three stimuli.
Thereafter, they rated their perceived self-extension to the club as well as their interest
in becoming a member of the club. Additionally, they rated their willingness to pay for
a membership and they had the opportunity to indicate their email address if they
wished to be updated on the club. Information on whether subjects specified their
email address was treated as a dependent measure. Subsequently, participants
20
Multilevel analysis that controlled for random intercepts of each working group showed no significant effects
for any of the observed dependent variables. Estimated effect sizes for the random intercepts for each
variable lay below .08 (p > .38). Therefore, the group information was excluded from the main analyses.
76
completed a series of manipulation checks as well as questions regarding their gender
and age. Finally, subjects were thanked for participation. Figure 3-15 depicts the
overall procedure of experiment 4.
Participants receive information that the study is about the Marketing Club St. Gallen
2. Exposure to Portrait of the Club
Participants read some basic information about the club (see section 3.5.3)
3. Object Manipulation
Subsequent to the club portrait, participants are exposed to a membership card (strong-symbolic) /
a membership voucher (weak-symbolic) / the club logo (no object baseline condition)
(see section 3.5.3)
4. Measurement of Dependent Variables
Participants indicate their perceived self-extension and behavioral intentions regarding the club
(see section 3.5.4)
Participants indicate their perception of the symbolic connection between the card and
the club membership. They further indicate their gender and age (see section 3.5.5)
The introduction of the study informed students that its purpose was to assess their
interest in a planned marketing club of the University of St. Gallen. Subjects
subsequently read a short portrait of the planned club (see figure 3-16, p. 77).
Following this portrait, subjects were exposed either to one of two symbolic objects or
to a no object manipulation. The latter served as a baseline condition. As previously
mentioned, plastic cards were chosen for the object manipulations. The main goal that
underlay the design of the card manipulations was to vary the strength of the symbolic
connection that was perceived between the card and the marketing club while at the
same time keeping the visual and haptic information as similar as possible. Similarly,
the baseline condition was designed to be possibly similar to the two card conditions
while not including a graspable object.
77
Figure 3-16: Study 4 / Design / Portrait Marketing Club
78
Accordingly, in the strong-symbolic object condition the plastic card was framed as a
membership card21 (see figure 3-17). It hence symbolized a membership within the
club and was directly linked to being a part of the club. The plastic card was attached
to the questionnaire. To emphasize the symbolic connection between the card and the
club, the following text informed subjects about the card:
Members of the club will receive the following membership card. The card will only be
given to members and identifies them as part of the community. Owners of this card
are part of the marketing club:
Figure 3-17: Study 4 / Design / Picture of Utilized Membership Card
In the weak-symbolic object condition, participants were exposed to the same plastic
card, but in this condition it was described as a membership voucher22 (see figure
3-18). As a membership voucher, the card was also symbolically connected to the
club. In contrast to the membership card that symbolized being a member of the club,
the voucher, however, oppositely symbolized not yet being a member of the club. The
plastic card was attached to the questionnaire. To emphasize this weak-symbolic
connection between the card and the club, the following text informed subjects about
the card:
21
22
As the study was conducted in German the card carried the imprint “Mitgliedskarte” (Membership Card)
As the study was conducted in German the card carried the imprint “Gutschein” (Voucher)
79
The following membership voucher will be given to students at the beginning of their
studies at the University of St. Gallen. Students can use this voucher to become a
member of the marketing club:
Figure 3-18: Study 4 / Design / Picture of Utilized Membership Voucher
In the baseline condition participants were exposed to the brand logo of the club (see
figure 3-19). The logo was depicted similarly to the alternatively attached plastic
cards. It was printed in the same size and shown in the same position as the plastic
cards. The logo was neutrally introduced with the following text:
The following brand logo has been created for the Marketing Club St. Gallen:
Figure 3-19: Study 4 / Design / Logo of Marketing Club St. Gallen
3.5.4 Operationalization of Dependent Variables
Subsequent to the above outlined object manipulation, participants completed the
dependent measures. The section containing the dependent measures was introduced
by the following information:
80
In the following section, we would like to ask you a few questions regarding your
opinion of the Marketing Club St. Gallen. Building upon your answers, we want to
assess the general interest of students in such a club.
In the first measurement section, subjects rated their perceived self-extension to the
club. Perceived self-extension was measured with the same seven items used in
study 3 (see Escalas and Bettman 2003; 2005). Items were slightly adapted to the
study context: The Marketing Club St. Gallen reflects who I am / I can identify with
the Marketing Club St. Gallen / I feel a personal connection to the Marketing Club
St. Gallen / A membership in the Marketing Club St. Gallen would match the image
that I want to communicate to others / A membership in the Marketing Club St. Gallen
would help me become the person I want to be / The Marketing Club St. Gallen is
similar to me / The Marketing Club St. Gallen suits me well. Responses were given on
7-point scales reaching from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The items
were averaged to a single measure of perceived self-extension (α = .94) with low
values indicating weak self-extension and high values indicating strong self-extension
to the Marketing Club.
After measuring perceived self-extension to the Marketing Club, subjects’ interest and
intention in becoming a member of the club was measured on four items (anchored
with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7)): I can easily imagine becoming a
member of the Marketing Club St. Gallen / I would like to participate in the activities
offered by the Marketing Club St. Gallen / I would like to become a member of the
Marketing Club St. Gallen / I am very confident that I will become a member of the
Marketing Club St. Gallen. The four items were averaged to a single measure of the
intention to become a member (α = .95) with low values indicating weak intentions
and high values indicating strong intentions.
Additionally, subjects were asked to indicate how much they would be willing to pay
for a one-year club-membership. As for the other measures, seven answer options were
given that ranged from zero Swiss France (1) to more than 60 Swiss Francs (7) in
incremental steps of 10 Swiss Francs. At the end of the study participants had the
opportunity to indicate their email address if they wished to be informed about the club
in the future. As previously mentioned, the information of whether subjects provided
their email address or not was further utilized as a dependent measure in this study.
81
To test the intended manipulation of the symbolic connection between the card and the
club, subjects were asked to indicate their agreement to the following statement at the
end of the study (anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7)): The
membership card / membership voucher symbolizes the membership of its owner in the
Marketing Club St. Gallen. To control for characteristics of the utilized sample,
subjects were further asked to indicate their gender and age.
3.5.6 Results
Manipulation Check
A univariate ANOVA indicated that the strong-symbolic membership card (M = 5.62)
was perceived to be connected significantly stronger to a membership in the marketing
club than the weak-symbolic membership voucher (M = 3.35; F(1, 195) = 86.07,
p < .01). Further analyses revealed that the mean value for the strong-symbolic card
was significantly above the mid-value (4) of the scale (t(95) = 10.57, p < .01),
indicating that participants in general agreed to the statement that the membership card
reflected being a member of the club. At the same time, the mean value for the weaksymbolic card was significantly below the mid-value (4) of the scale (t(100) = -3.46,
p < .01), indicating that subjects in general disagreed to the statement that the
membership voucher reflected being a member of the club. Therefore, not only did the
two stimuli significantly differ in their associated connection to a membership in the
club. The opposite orientation of both mean values to the two scale ends also indicates
that participants recognized that the membership card symbolized a membership while
the voucher actually symbolized the opposite, not being a member.
Testing of Hypotheses 2a and 4b
One purpose of study 4 was to test the influence of object presence on subjects’
perceived self-extension towards the object’s symbolized meaning (H2a). The study
particularly aimed at testing the relevance of the strength of the symbolic connection
between an object and meaning as regards the objects’ ability to foster feelings of selfextension towards its meaning (H4b). It was predicted that perceived self-extension to
the marketing club would be higher in the strong-symbolic card condition than in the
weak-symbolic card and no card condition. Further, it was predicted that there would
be no or only weak difference between the observed measures for the weak-symbolic
card and the no card condition.
82
An ANOVA supported the predicted outcome regarding perceived self-extension. The
analysis revealed a significant main effect of the object manipulation (F(2, 293) =
7.46, p < .01). Pairwise comparisons (LSD) further revealed a significant difference
between the strong-symbolic card (M = 4.23) and the no card condition (M = 3.53;
t(293) = 3.86, p < .01) as well as between the strong-symbolic card (M = 4.23) and the
weak-symbolic card condition (M = 3.87; t(293) = 2.00, p = .046). Further
comparisons revealed a marginally significant difference between the weak-symbolic
card (M = 3.87) and the no card condition (M = 3.53; t(293) = 1.89, p = .059).
Figure 3-20 depicts the mean values and confidence intervals (95%) for perceived selfextension to the marketing club for each condition.
Figure 3-20: Study 4 / Results / Perceived Self-Extension to Marketing Club
Testing of Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 4c (Intention to Become Club Member)
A further ANOVA supported the predicted outcome concerning subjects’ intention to
become a member of the marketing club. The analysis revealed a significant main
effect of the object manipulation (F(2, 293) = 8.81, p < .01). Pairwise comparisons
(LSD) more specifically revealed a significant difference between the strong-symbolic
card (M = 4.94) and the no card condition (M = 4.00; t(293) = 4.16, p < .01) as well as
between the strong-symbolic card (M = 4.94) and the weak-symbolic card condition
(M = 4.34; t(293) = 2.66, p < .01). No significant difference was found between the
weak-symbolic card condition (M = 4.34) and the no card condition (M = 4.00;
83
t(293) = 1.53, p = .13). Figure 3-21 depicts the mean values and confidence intervals
(95%) for subjects’ intention to become a club member in each condition.
Figure 3-21: Study 4 / Results / Intention to Become a Club Member
Further, regression analyses were conducted to test whether the effect of the object
manipulation on intention to become a member was mediated by perceived selfextension to the club. The no object condition served as a baseline measure. Two
dummy variables were created for the weak-symbolic and for the strong-symbolic card
conditions to separately contrast the effect of their presence against the baseline
condition (card not present = 0 / card present = 1; see Hayes and Preacher 2013).
In line with the previously reported analysis, presence of the strong-symbolic card was
found to be a significant predictor of the intention to become a member (βstrong = .94,
p < .01) while presence of the weak-symbolic card had no significant impact on the
intention to become a member (βweak = .34, p = .13). The analysis further revealed a
significant effect for the strong-symbolic card (βstrong = .70, p < .01) and a marginally
significant effect for the weak-symbolic card (βweak = .34, p = .06) on the perceived
self-extension to the club. Perceived self-extension to the club was further found to be
a significant predictor of the intention to become a club member (β = 1.04, p < .01).
Lastly, when both independent dummy variables as well as perceived self-extension to
the club were included in the regression model, the mediator remained a significant
predictor of the intention to become a member (β = 1.02, p < .01), while the impact of
84
the strong-symbolic object was considerably reduced to being marginally significant
(βstrong = .22, p = .10) and the impact of the weak-symbolic card stayed insignificant
while being further lowered (-.01; p = .96).
Based on these analyses, effect sizes were estimated that contrasted the indirect effects
of the two object conditions against the no object baseline condition. Estimates were
tested for reliability using the 95% bootstrap confidence intervals provided by the
deployed SPSS PROCESS macro (Model 4; Hayes 2013; 2012; Hayes and Preacher
2013). Results revealed that the indirect effect of the strong symbolic card (.72 with a
CI of .38 to 1.09) was significantly larger than the indirect effect in the baseline
condition. In contrast, the determined indirect effect for the weak-symbolic card
condition was found to be not reliable as the estimated confidence interval included
the value zero (.35 with a CI of -.05 to .70). Figure 3-22 depicts the results of the
mediation analysis.
Figure 3-22: Study 4 / Results / Mediation Analysis
Testing of Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 4c (Willingness to Pay)
Study 4 also tested whether the two utilized objects would predict subjects’
willingness to pay for a one-year club-membership. An ANOVA indicated a
marginally insignificant overall effect of object presence (F(2, 293) = 2.27, p = .11).
However, pairwise comparisons (LSD) indicated the predicted result patterns. The
lowest willingness to pay was measured for the no object condition with a mean of
85
23.23 Swiss Francs. Subjects in the weak-symbolic card condition were willing to pay
24.65 Swiss Francs on average and subjects in the strong-symbolic card condition
28.23 Swiss Francs. A comparison between the strong-symbolic card and no card
condition indicated a significant difference between the specified values (t(293) =
2.07, p = .04). All other comparisons were insignificant with p-values above .14.
Figure 3-23 depicts the mean values and confidence intervals (95%) for subjects’
willingness to pay in each condition.
Figure 3-23: Study 4 / Results / Willingness to Pay for Membership
Analog to the above reported mediation analysis for intention to become a club
member a further mediation analysis was conducted for willingness to pay. The results
of both analyses revealed similar patterns. Again, the no card condition was chosen as
the baseline condition. The weak-symbolic card condition showed no direct effect on
willingness to pay (βweak = 1.42, p = .55). The strong-symbolic card however had a
significant impact on willingness to pay (βstrong = 5.00, p = .04). Estimated effects of
both card conditions on perceived self-extension to the club had the previously
reported sizes and p-values (βstrong = .70, p < .01; βweak = .34, p = .06). Perceived selfextension to the club was further found to be a significant predictor of subjects’
willingness to pay (β = 6.34, p < .01). Lastly, when both dummy variables as well as
perceived self-extension to the club were included in the regression model the
mediator remained a significant predictor of willingness to pay (β = 6.30, p < .01),
86
while the impact of the strong-symbolic object was eliminated (βstrong = .58, p = .79)
and the effect of the weak symbolic card remained insignificant (βweak = -.72, p = .73).
The indirect effect for the strong-symbolic card condition was estimated to be
significantly above zero (4.42 with a CI of 2.17 to 7.17). Results further revealed an
insignificant indirect effect for the weak symbolic card condition (2.14 with a CI
of -.15 to 4.45).
Testing of Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 4c (Email Address Specification)
Study 4 utilized the information of whether participants specified their email address at
the end of the study as a measure of actual behavior towards the club. Figure 3-24
compares the number of cases in which subjects specified and did not specify their
email address for each group. In the no object baseline condition 26% (26/99) of
subjects specified their email address; in the weak-symbolic card condition 40%
(40/101) specified their address; and in the strong-symbolic card condition, 51%
(49/96) of subjects specified their address.
Figure 3-24: Study 4 / Results / Number of Specified Email Addresses
Due to the dichotomous state of the measure email address specification
(no email = 0 / email = 1), a logistic regression was applied to estimate the impact of
the two card conditions on address specification. As in the previous analyses, the no
object condition was used as baseline measure.
87
The omnibus test of the logistic regression model indicated that object presence was a
significant predictor of the amount of specified email addresses (χ2(2) = 12.84, p < .01;
Cox and Snell R2 = .04, Nagelkerke R2 = .06). Results further indicated that compared
to the no object baseline condition, the weak-symbolic card (βweak = .61, Wald χ2(1,
N = 296) = 3.98, p = .05) as well as the strong-symbolic card (βstrong = 1.07,
Wald χ2(1, N = 296) = 12.29, p < .01) had a significantly positive impact on email
address specification. A marginally insignificant difference was found between the
weak- and strong-symbolic card conditions (β = .46, Wald χ2(1, N = 296) = 2.59,
p = .11). Additionally estimated odds ratios indicated that the probability of email
address specification was 1.84 times higher in the weak-symbolic card condition than
in the no object condition. At the same time, the probability of email address
specification was 2.93 times higher in the strong-symbolic card condition compared to
the no object condition.
Analog to the above reported mediation analyses it was further tested whether the
influence of object presence on email address specification was mediated by subjects’
perceived self-extension to the club. Again, the no card condition served as baseline
measure. The above reported logistic regressions supported a direct effect of both
utilized cards on email address specification. A further analysis supported a significant
influence of perceived self-extension to the club on email address specification (β =
1.19, Wald χ2(1, N = 296) = 63.80, p < .01). When both dummy variables as well as
perceived self-extension were included into the regression model the mediator
remained a significant predictor of email address specification (β = 1.15, Wald χ2(1, N
= 296) = 60.02, p < .01), while the impact of the strong-symbolic object was reduced
(βstrong = .69, Wald χ2(1, N = 296) = 3.71, p = .05) and the effect of the weak-symbolic
card was eliminated (βweak = .43, Wald χ2(1, N = 296) = 1.43, p = .23). The indirect
effects for the strong-symbolic card (.81 with CI of .34 to 1.34) as well as for the
weak-symbolic card (.39 with CI of .02 to .87) were estimated to be significantly
above zero.
3.5.7 Discussion
The purpose of study 4 was to retest the main findings of studies 1-3 in a realistic field
setting and to gain more reliable data on the behavioral and hence economic
consequences of the previously identified effects. The study was particularly designed
to test in which way a symbolic object affected subjects’ perceived self-extension
(H2a) as well as behavior (H3a) towards an institution that was symbolically
connected to that object. The study further tested in which way these effects depended
88
on the symbolic connection between the object and that specific meaning (H4b, H4c).
Further, the study tested whether the object’s influence on behavior (behavioral
intentions) was mediated by subjects’ perceived self-extension to the object’s meaning
(H3b).
The results of experiment 4 mainly support the tested hypotheses. Results indicate a
significant impact of the strong-symbolic membership card on subjects’ perceived selfextension to the presented marketing club as well as on subjects’ behavioral intentions
and actual behavior towards the club: subjects felt a stronger self-extension to the club
when exposed to the membership card compared to when being exposed to no object.
Subjects further showed higher intentions to become a member of the club and were
willing to pay more for a club membership when the strong-symbolic card was
presented to them compared to when no object was presented to them. Further,
participants in the strong-symbolic card condition were more likely to specify their
email address at the end of the study than participants in the no object condition were.
Results further support stronger self- and behavior-related influences of the strongsymbolic card compared to the weak-symbolic card: subjects’ perceived self-extension
to the club and their intention to become a club member was significantly higher when
they were exposed to the strong-symbolic card compared to when they were exposed
to the weak-symbolic card. Although not significant, comparisons between these
groups showed similar trends for subjects’ willingness to pay and their likelihood to
specify their email address.
As predicted, less pronounced results were found for the weak-symbolic membership
voucher. Results indicated a marginally positive impact of the weak-symbolic card on
subjects’ perceived self-extension to the club (in contrast to the no object baseline
condition). No significant impact of this card was found for subjects’ intention to
become a club member and for their willingness to pay for a club membership. The
weak-symbolic card manipulation did however result in a significantly higher
likelihood of subjects to indicate their email addresses.
Summarizing these findings, experiment 4 replicated the previously identified effects
of symbolic objects on subjects’ perceived self-extension and behavior towards an
abstract meaning in a realistic field setting. Moreover, results of experiment 4 support
the notion that the impact of symbolic objects on these dependent measures increases
with an upsurge in the strength of the symbolic connection between object and
meaning.
89
Building upon these empirical findings, study 5 aimed at further generalizing the
revealed effect of object presence on subjects’ self-extension to a symbolized meaning.
This aim was approached by conducting an experiment that referred to a variety of
products and services that participants actually consumed.
3.6 The Product- versus Service-Brands Experiment (Study 5)
3.6.1 Overview
The main purpose of study 5 was to further generalize the findings of studies 1-4 in
two ways. First, it was aimed at testing the previously supported effect of graspable
objects on subjects’ perceived self-extension to a certain symbolized meaning using a
range of various actual personal possessions. Secondly, by doing so, it was aimed at
transferring the study design into a broader economic context.
Regarding these goals, an online study was conducted that utilized two basic economic
concepts that relate to the here investigated research question. First, the study built on
the concept of brands as intangible meanings that are mentally connected by consumer
to economic offerings (see e.g. Escalas and Bettman 2005 as well as Chapter 1).
Secondly, the study built upon the concepts of products and services as a prominent
differentiation between tangible and intangible economic goods (Zeithaml,
Parasuraman, and Berry 1985, p. 33). Connecting these two concepts to the conceptual
model of this dissertation, it was predicted that, on average, consumers would perceive
stronger self-extensions to brands that were symbolically connected to graspable
products that they owned compared to brands that were symbolically connected to
ungraspable services that they regularly consumed (H2a). Study 5 aimed at testing this
prediction.
The study was conducted online for three reasons: first, the online setting enabled
subjects to participate in anonymous and familiar surroundings; secondly, a computer
aided survey system was better suited to realize the developed study design than a
paper and pen setup; thirdly, online data collection eased reaching a wide variety of
consumers.
90
154 subjects (53% males; mean age: 40 years23) participated in the study. Subjects
belonged to a German and Swiss consumer sample. 15 subjects (9.74% of total
participants) were excluded from the analyses due to invalid responses (see section
3.6.6 for further information). Participation in the study was voluntary and participants
did not receive any incentives. The mean participation time was less than 10 minutes.
Subjects were contacted via email and asked to participate in a study concerning
consumer behavior. The email included a link that directed them to the study. Having
arrived at the survey site, participants were randomly assigned to a product or service
condition. They were then asked to think of a product that they owned or a service that
they regularly used. Subsequently, they were asked to specify the brand that was
associated with that product (service). After indicating the brand name of the product
(service), subjects were forwarded to the measurement of perceived self-extension
towards that brand. Thereafter, subjects made further specifications about various
manipulation checks and control variables. Finally, subjects were thanked for
participation. Figure 3-25 depicts the overall procedure of study 5.
Participants receive information that the study is about products / services
2. Manipulation of Object Presence
Participants choose a product that they own / a service that they regularly use and specify the brand
that relates to this product / service (see section 3.6.3)
Measurement of perceived self-extension to the product- / service-brand (see section 3.6.4)
Participants indicate the perceived graspability of the product / service, the amount of usage of the
product / service, and whether they have a special relationship to the brand of the product / service.
They further indicate their gender and age (see section 3.6.5)
Participants were randomly assigned to the product or service condition when arriving
at the survey site. Depending on which condition they were drawn to, they were either
informed that the study was about products that they owned or services that they
23
Age was not surveyed in this study; it was estimated based on information from studies that had previously
been conducted with similar consumer samples.
91
regularly used. Participants in the product condition read the following instruction: We
would like you to think of a product that you own and regularly use. Once you have
thought of a product, please specify the name of the company that produces this
product in the following text box. Alternatively, participants in the service condition
read the following instruction: We would like you to think of a service that you
regularly access from the same company. Once you have thought of a service, please
specify the name of the company that provides this service in the following text box.
Participants were explicitly asked to specify the name of the company and not the
brand as a pretest had revealed that subjects were insecure when asked to name the
brand or corporate brand of the product (service). A check of the specified company
names however indicated that they corresponded to the names of the affiliated brands.
Participants subsequently advanced to the measurement of self-extension to the brand.
The measurement of self-extension to the brand was introduced by the following
instruction (the company name that subjects had specified previously was inserted into
this instruction as well as into the measurement items below):
Please take another moment to think about the product (service) of ___ as well as the
brand ___. To what extent would you agree or disagree with the following statements
about the brand ___?
Subjects then rated their perceived self-extension to the brand of the product (service).
Perceived self-extension was measured with the same seven items used in studies 3
and 4 (see Escalas and Bettman 2003; 2005). Items were slightly adapted to the study
context: Brand ___ reflects who I am / I can identify with brand ___ / I feel a personal
connection to brand ___ / Brand ___ matches the image that I want to communicate to
others / Brand ___ is an important part of me / Brand ___ is similar to me / Brand ___
suits me well. Responses were given on 7-point scales reaching from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (7). The items were averaged to a single measure of perceived
self-extension (α = .92) with low values indicating weak and high values indicating
strong self-extension to the brand.
To control whether the named products and services actually differed regarding their
graspability, subjects were asked to respond to the following item at the end of the
study: How graspable / tangible do you perceive the product (service) to be? (not
92
graspable at all (1), very graspable (7)). Further, participants were asked to indicate
how often they used the product (service) on a 7-point scale ranging from rarely (1) to
very often (7). To further control for how often subjects were physically close to the
product (service), they were also asked to indicate how often they touched the
product / used the service on average. Answers were given on a 7-point scale using the
following intervals: less than once a month (1) / once a month (2) / every second week
(3) / once a week (4) / twice a week (5) / every second day (6) / every day (7).
Furthermore, subjects were asked whether they had a special relationship to the
company / brand they had named that exceeded the usual relationship of a consumer.
If yes, subjects were asked to describe briefly the relationship. Finally, subjects
indicated their gender and age.
3.6.6 Results
Manipulation and Confound Checks
When asked to specify the company name associated with the thought of products
(services), subjects particularly named product companies such as electronics-, car-,
watch-, jewelry-, and apparel-manufacturers. Named service companies referred to
transportation (especially airlines)-, telecommunication-, media-, finance-, logistics-,
retail-, hair and cosmetics-, as well as sports (a dancing school)-, and internet-services.
Four subjects were excluded from the analysis due to invalid company specifications.
An additional 11 subjects were excluded as they indicated to have relationships to the
named companies that exceeded usual consumption relationships.24
A univariate ANOVA indicated that the considered products were perceived as
significantly more graspable (M = 6.73) than the considered services (M = 5.21;
F(1, 137) = 36.58, p < .01). Further, participants indicated to use the specified
products (M = 6.51) more often than the specified services (M = 5.50; F(1, 137) =
26.06, p < .01). On average, respondents indicated to touch the named products about
every day to every second day. The thought of services were indicated to be used once
to twice a week on average. Accordingly, participants not only perceived the products
to be more graspable than the services; they also perceived to use and be close to them
more often. Results hence indicate that the thought of products were (at least consciously) stronger connected to subjects’ everyday lives than the thought of services.
24
Specified relationships were: I have friends who work at the company (4x) / I have worked for the company
(2x) / My spouse works for the company (2x) / I have worked for the company and still have friends who
work there / I know the family well who owns the company / Friends of mine play soccer for the team that is
run by the company.
93
Testing of Hypothesis 2a
The purpose of study 5 was to test how strongly subjects connected to brands
(intangible meanings) that were symbolically connected to either graspable economic
goods (products) or less graspable economic goods (services) that they consumed on a
regular basis. According to hypothesis 2a, it was assumed that perceived self-extension
to an associated brand would be stronger for products than for services.
Results support the predicted outcome. A conducted ANOVA revealed a significantly
higher perceived self-extension to the specified product brands (M = 3.02) compared
to the specified service brands (M = 2.47; F(1, 137) = 4.57, p = .03). Figure 3-26
depicts the mean values and confidence intervals (95%) for subjects’ perceived selfextension to the named product- versus service-brands.
Figure 3-26: Study 5 / Results / Perceived Self-Extension to Brands
3.6.7 Discussion
The main purpose of experiment 5 was to further generalize the findings of the
previous experiments by transferring its study design to a broader economic context.
Particularly, the study aimed at testing whether the previously observed influence of
objects on consumers’ perceived self-extension to an abstract meaning (H2a) could be
replicated using a wide range of graspable and less graspable economic goods that
consumers related to. Specifically, it tested whether subjects perceived a stronger self-
94
extension to brands of products that they owned than to brand of services they
regularly used.
The results support the predicted outcome. Subjects indicated to perceive stronger selfextension towards brands of the specified products than to brands of the specified
services. An interesting aspect of this finding is that a substantial proportion of the
named services are services that usually accompany a personal interaction or even
personal relationship to the involved service provider. This accounts for relatively
anonymous services such as the named transportation (especially airline) services or
the specified financial (banking) services. However, it particularly accounts for
somewhat personal services such as hair stylists, massage or cosmetic studios as well
as for the dancing school that one subject specified. Although service literature argues
that personal contact between employees and consumers is suitable for supporting
consumers’ relationships to companies and their brands, the results of this study
indicate a stronger connection for consumers to the brands of impersonal products they
are surrounded with.
An important constraint of study 5 is the vague operationalization of the graspability
of economic goods by an approximate comparison of products and services. Overall
differences between products and services offer many confounding causes for the here
observed findings. Already the conducted control measures show that it was not only
the graspability that subjects perceived to be different between products and services.
Results further indicate that products were also perceived to be used more often and to
be closer to everyday life than the specified services. However, as the study aimed at
generalizing the results of the previous experimental findings, this shortcoming is
accepted because of this particular study aim. These possible confounding effects have
to be kept in mind though when interpreting the results of this particular study.
At the same time, the just mentioned control measures offer further informative
insights into possible differences between products and services and hence into
potential differences between graspable and less graspable goods. As mentioned,
products were not only perceived to be more graspable than services; they were also
perceived to be used more often and to be closer to subjects’ everyday lives. This
particular result emphasizes the notion that the graspability of a possession might not
solely affect self-extension to a certain meaning because it objectifies this meaning.
The results further indicate that through this objectification and its ownership the
possession and as such its meaning become a more prominent component of everyday
life and therefore physically and psychologically move closer to the owner. More
concrete, a shoe of a certain brand might not only increase the perceived self-extension
95
of its owner to that brand because the shoe objectifies this relationship. It might further
increase this self-extension because by being objective and being worn it becomes a
more prominent material part of this person’s everyday surrounding. This notion
closely relates to the here investigated hypotheses 1a and 1b. While hypothesis 1a
conceptualizes the basic effect of an object’s presence, namely the existence of that
object, hypothesis 1b conceptualizes the particular relevance of the physical distance
of that object. Conceptually, these two aspects have been contemplated separately in
the previous studies: as such, the previous studies manipulated object presence and
further refined object presence through object proximity / distance. The findings of
study 5, however, indicate that both aspects closely correspond. Hence, owning an
object seems not only to influence the objective constitution of that object’s
symbolized meaning (H1a); by owning the object it further becomes a more prominent
(and therefore closer) part of everyday life (H1b).
96
4 General Discussion
The following research question was defined in the introductory chapter of this
dissertation and served as its guideline:
How does the graspability of symbolic objects relate to and influence human selfextension towards abstract meanings?
In addressing this question, this dissertation aimed particularly at two goals: (1) the
development of a revised conceptual understanding of the self-extension function of
possessions that accounts for their graspability; (2) the creation and analysis of
empirical data that is suitable to investigate the relevance of the graspability of
symbolic objects for their self-extension function.
This chapter will recap and densify the theoretical and empirical findings of this
dissertation with particular regard to this question and these aims. In the first section, a
consolidating overview of the main findings will be given. That section will be
followed by an outline of the theoretical and managerial contributions that derive from
these findings. Limitations of the overall project and the empirical studies will be
discussed subsequently. This report of limitations will be followed by an outline of
possible future research directions that arise from the work on and findings of this
project.
4.1 Overall Findings
According to the above highlighted research question and research aims, the
theoretical chapter of this dissertation approached a revised conceptual understanding
of the self-extension function of possessions. The basis of its development was the
proposition to tie the definition of possessions and objects to the bodily and perceptual
properties of humans (section 2.2.1). An object was accordingly defined as an entity
that is perceived to be physically graspable. Building upon this understanding, it was
further argued that humans use such objects as symbols for abstract meanings (sections
2.2.2 and 2.2.3). Furthermore, it was postulated that humans utilize these symbolic
objects to physically relate their immaterial meaning to their body and accordingly to
their perception of self (sections 2.2.4). Building upon construal-level theory, it was
argued that the proximity of a symbolic object results in feelings of increased
proximity to its meaning (section 2.3.2). It was further argued that this perceived
proximity results in stronger self-extension and increased behavioral intentions of
subjects towards that meaning (sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4).
97
By connecting previous research on possessions and their symbolic meaning to
construal-level theory, this dissertation therefore developed a refined approach towards
understanding the psychological mechanisms that underlie the self-extension
phenomenon. Unlike existing approaches that particularly focus on the connection
between objects and their meanings, this revised perspective concentrates on the
physical connection between symbolic objects and humans. Accordingly, the
importance of the physical existence of objective symbols is here not only seen in their
particular connection to the signified meaning but in the perceived proximity that they
create between their adherent, mentally created meaning and the body and mind of a
subject.
Building upon this understanding of symbolic objects, the third chapter of this
dissertation outlined five empirical studies that were conducted to test this conceptual
framework. Accordingly, these studies further served the second specified goal of this
dissertation: to investigate empirically the relevance of the graspability of objects for
their self-extension function.
Study 1 used a realistic experimental study design to test the basic hypothesis that the
presence of an object reduces subjects’ perceived distance to its symbolized meaning.
Results of study 1 revealed that subjects felt significantly closer to a personal
experience when paying attention to a physically close object that was connected to
this experience than when solely thinking of the experience (H1a). Results of study 1
hence support this essential notion of the developed framework.
Study 2 further refined this finding in a laboratory context. Subjects mentally
connected a personal experience to a graspable object. In two conditions, the object
was placed directly in front of subjects and they were either allowed to or not allowed
to touch it. In a third condition, the object was placed at 4-meter distance to subjects
and was therefore out of reach. Results revealed that subjects’ spatial distance to the
object corresponded to their perceived distance to the object’s symbolized meaning
(H1b). Further, the results countered two possible alternative explanations for this
finding. First, results indicated that the effect was independent of a more vivid
representation of the abstract meaning caused by the object, because subjects saw the
object in all three conditions. Secondly, results indicated that the found effect of
physical proximity of the object did not confound with touching the object.
Study 3 indicated that the physical proximity of an object only affected perceived
distance to the object’s meaning if object and meaning were symbolically connected
(H1a, H1b, and H4a). Weak support was found for the assumption that the effect of
98
object proximity on the perceived closeness of its meaning was more pronounced for
strong than for moderate object-meaning connections (H4a). Both findings are
important as regards the conceptual framework of this dissertation. They support the
notion that an object’s effect is not simply caused by an affective reaction of subjects
to its proximity but by a perceived transfer of its abstract meaning into the
experienceable world. Study 3 further supports the notion that physically close
symbolic objects not only reduce the perceived distance to their abstract meaning but
by doing so also increase subjects’ perceived self-extension (H2a, H2b, and H4b) and
behavioral intentions towards this meaning (H3a, H3b, and H4c). This finding is
particularly important concerning the underlying framework because it supports the
notion that a reduction of subjects’ perceived distance to an abstract meaning transfers
to an increase of subjects’ perceived self-extension towards that meaning. This
relationship between perceived distance and perceived self-extension supports the here
proposed association between construal-level theory and the extended self concept.
Further informative evidence results from the prestudy that was conducted prior to
study 3. This prestudy tested subjects’ perceptions of symbolic and indexical
connections between object-meaning pairs that were utilized in study 3. Different from
expected, subjects indicated a perceived indexical (factual) connection between an
object that was only symbolically (and hence mentally) connected to a meaning. This
finding is crucial concerning the theoretical argumentation in this dissertation: it
supports the here proposed notion that symbolic objects and their meaning are
primarily connected mentally and that even strictly symbolic connections between an
object and its meaning can be perceived as factual bonds (see sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4).
It consequently supports the notion that physical closeness to a purely symbolic object
can actually create a perceived factual connection to its meaning. This has relevant
implications for marketing theory as well as management, which will be discussed in
sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.3.
Study 4 replicated the previously found effects in a more realistic field-experiment and
therefore supports their validity outside of controlled laboratory settings. Results
indicate that physical proximity to symbolic objects can increase subjects’ selfextension towards an institution that is symbolically connected to the object (H2a and
H4b). Moreover, results indicate that this effect further transfers on subjects’
behavioral intentions and actual behavior towards that institution (H3a, H3b, and H4c).
Specifically, subjects indicated stronger intentions to become part of a club, indicated
higher willingness to pay for a membership, and showed higher chances to indicate
their email address for further information about the club if they were exposed to an
99
object that was symbolically connected to that club. Interestingly, these effects
occurred stronger when subjects were exposed to a membership card (strong-symbolic
connection to membership) than when they were exposed to a membership voucher
(weak-symbolic connection to membership). Possible implications of this finding will
be discussed in section 4.3.2, regarding its managerial contribution.
Study 5 particularly aimed at generalizing the previously supported impact of objects
on subjects’ perceived self-extension to an abstract meaning towards a broader
economic context. Specifically, it was tested whether subjects’ perceived stronger selfextension to brands of products that they owned than to brands of services they
regularly used. In line with the essential notion of this dissertation, it was argued that
physical products should ease subjects’ self-extension to the product brands (H1a).
Results of study 5 support this predicted outcome. Further informative evidence
resulted from the manipulation and control measures that were conducted in this study.
Subjects indicated that they did not only perceive the products as more graspable than
the specified services. The products were also perceived to be used more often and to
be closer to subjects’ everyday life than the named services. This result emphasizes the
notion that the graspability of goods might not solely affect self-extension to a
meaning because they transfer this meaning into the directly experienceable world
(H1a). The results further indicate that through this objectification, goods and
accordingly their meaning become a more prominent component of everyday life and
therefore physically and psychologically move closer to their owners and their owners’
selves (H1b).
4.2 Theoretical Contribution
4.2.1 Contribution to Extended Self Research
By connecting extended self research and construal-level theory, this dissertation
attempts to elaborate a more detailed and structured perspective of the broad extended
self concept – it therefore aims at making the concept itself more “graspable”. The
extended self concept has been criticized to be too comprehensive and too indistinct
(Cohen 1989). The here proposed conceptual framework hence aims at meeting these
objections.
The proposed framework particularly contributes to a more detailed understanding of
possessions and of the psychological processes that underlie the self-extension
phenomenon. This understanding not only supports a more distinct conceptualization
100
of the self-extension function of possessions per se; it thereby also supports the
applicability of the extended self concept to various related research phenomena and
research domains.
Further, the proposed definition of objects provides a discussible notion of how to
distinguish actual possessions that consumers own from meanings that these
consumers and these possessions relate to. This specification of the very broadly
defined term “possession” – as it has been cultivated by Belk and related researchers –
naturally comes with the price of making the concept of possessions less global. At the
same time, it aims at distinguishing more distinctively between things that consumers
actually possess and those that they relate to. A stone (object) that a mountaineer
returns from an overmastered mountain (meaning) would be conceptually
indistinguishable from its meaning according to the prevailing definition of
possessions (see section 2.1.2). The here proposed distinction between graspable
objects and their meaning aims at clarifying this relationship between subjects, their
possessions, and the meaning that is attached to these possessions. By doing so, the
developed framework also aims at accentuating a quality of possessions (and symbolic
objects in general) that is perceived to be fundamental for human’s relationships to
these entities: this is the perceived ability of symbolic objects to make an intrinsically
inaccessible meaning physically and mentally graspable. Building upon this
argumentation, this dissertation carves out a possible human (consumer) motive that
constitutes a promising starting point for further inquiries of the extended self concept:
this is the need of humans to be physically close to objects (and surroundings) that
symbolize self-defining meanings (see Chapter 2.2) – or in other words, the need of
humans to be close to and to experience their selves.
By elaborating the idea that objects reduce subjects’ perceived distance and thereby
strengthen their perceived self-extension to certain self-related meanings, the
developed concept also supports the comparison of different kinds of objects and
possessions. Particularly regarding recent trends such as digital consumption or
sharing, the construct of perceived distance offers a potential dimension to compare
these various consumption-types concerning their self-extending ability. In this
context, it would be interesting to investigate, for example, whether consumers’
perceived distance to digital or shared goods is different to comparable physical
possessions and how such possible differences transfer to consumers’ perceived selfextension to the symbolic meaning of these goods.
Finally yet importantly, by stating the outlined influences of object graspability and
proximity, this dissertation follows the goal of increasing the awareness of the
101
relevance of physical object properties for consumer behavior. By doing so, it
emphasizes a more comprehensive view of economic goods that more carefully
contemplates the particular relevance of the physical properties of these offerings. This
return to a more material perspective of economic goods is particularly proposed with
regard to the outlined trend of consumer and marketing research towards an immaterial
perspective of the things that humans consume (see section 2.1.3). The research at
hand hence opposes the presently cultivated notion that material aspects of
consumption practices generally lose relevance. Alternatively, it follows Magaudda’s
argumentation that changes in technological or socio-economic circumstances result in
consumers’ adaptations towards the objects that they relate and attach to (Maggaudda
2011). Technological changes might result, for example, in a decreasing relevance of
graspable possessions such as books, photos, or CDs. At the same time, they seem to
increase consumers’ attachment to the particular objects that arise from these changes,
such as mobile phones, laptops, and tablet PCs. Similarly, social changes towards
more flexible lifestyles might result in lower attachments towards classic, inflexible
possessions such as houses, cars, or furniture. At the same time, they might cultivate
attachment to more mobile possessions such as clothing, wristwatches, headphones, as
well as bags and suitcases. As such, ascribing the graspability of possessions a
constitutional relevance for the self-definition of humans fosters the notion that these
extended parts of humans cannot simply be diminished but underlie a constant change
that derives from the ever-changing environment.
4.2.2 Contribution to Research on Symbolic Consumption
Extensive research that refers to the self-extension function of economic goods
concentrates on the symbolic meaning of these goods. A crucial interest of this
research is the question of how goods connect to their meanings and how consumers
react to these meanings.
As previously outlined, particularly Kent Grayson and his co-authors have advanced
the understanding of consumer research concerning how the meaning of things is
created and how consumers react to these meanings (Grayson and Shulman 2000;
Grayson and Martinec 2004; see also Belk 1988; Belk et al. 1989). Building upon the
semiotic concept of Charles Pierce (1903), Grayson and Shulman (2000) have
contributed to a more thorough understanding of how goods relate to their meaning.
Closely relating to the concept of contamination, these researchers have emphasized
the particular relevance of indexical (in other words, factual) connections between
personal possessions and their meanings. This perspective has shown to be particularly
102
fruitful in understanding the relationship that consumers create to very specific,
personal things. However, it runs the risk of undermining the powerful impact that
purely symbolic (or mental) connections between economic goods and their meanings
can have. A typical Apple product very unlikely actually touches an Apple designer or
engineer, and never even comes close to Apple’s Headquarter. It is produced
somewhere in China by people that consumers are unaware of (Kremp 2012). Still,
touching and owning the product for many consumers activates feelings of an
authentic connection to meanings that the Apple brand evokes. By emphasizing the
purely mental connection between objects and their meaning (as is particularly
accentuated by Saussure (1916)), this dissertation aims at further increasing the
consciousness for the impact that this non-factual connection between objects and their
meanings can have. Study 3 supports the notion that even purely symbolic objects can
evoke feelings of factual connections to their meaning. The here proposed framework
therefore also contributes to research regarding the transfer of semiotic theories into
consumer research. It thereby fosters a Saussurian perspective of the meaning of
things.
4.2.3 Contribution to Construal-Level Theory
In transferring construal-level theory into extended self research, this dissertation not
only contributes to a more distinct perspective on the self-extending function of
possessions and the symbolic meaning of things; it simultaneously emphasizes a
further application field of construal-level theory that so far has been widely neglected.
The utilization of construal-level theory to understand human reactions to symbolic
objects (or signs and emotional reaction to them, in a more general sense) is a fruitful
application field of this concept for future research – this particularly, as the concepts
of semiotics and construal-level theory show various parallels (see section 2.3). Nira
Liberman, who has been one of the main contributors to the development of construallevel theory, states together with Yaacov Trope and Elena Stephan in their article on
construal-level and psychological distance (2007, p. 353): “People believe that they
directly experience themselves and their immediate surroundings at the present
moment. Anything that is not present is distal. It may be thought of, constructed, or
reconstructed, but it cannot be experienced directly.” According to this statement, the
proposed consolidation of research on signs (semiotics) and construal-level theory
promises a wide range of informative insights into why and how humans react towards
symbols that concretize and hence make something experienceable that by itself is
inexperienceable.
103
4.3 Managerial Contribution
4.3.1 (R)Evolving towards an Object-Dominant Logic
As outlined in the introduction and theoretical part of this dissertation, marketing
research as well as marketing management show various evidence of an ongoing
development towards an immaterial perspective of economic goods (see section 2.1.3).
Developments such as digital consumption as well as sharing practices closely
correspond to concepts such as liquid possessions and the service-dominant logic that
particularly emphasize immaterial facets of consumption. Especially the management
orientated service-dominant logic supports a persisting change of marketing
management towards understanding their products and services from the perspective
of their immaterial uses and benefits.
The here developed framework can be perceived as an antithesis to this prevailing
development (see also Lindberg and Nordin 2008). Building upon the findings of the
research at hand, it is argued that the graspability of objects itself bears an essential use
to consumers that is neglected in contemporary utility-focused perspectives of
economic goods. Accordingly, management should pay careful attention to an
effective implementation and communication of graspable components of their
offerings. The proposed perspective can therefore be understood as a partial return to a
marketing logic that was prevalent in the early 20th century and that emphasized the
product nature of economic offerings (Shostack 1977; Vargo and Lusch 2004).
Different to the view of marketing scholars and practitioners from that time, the here
developed understanding however is less concerned with the plain functional
properties of offered physical goods. It rather emphasizes a return to the
experienceable objectification of abstract services and meanings that companies offer
and stand for.
On a strategic level, this logic goes as far as to elicit the question of whether
companies should position themselves as providers of graspable products or
immaterial services and how prominently they should communicate these two facets of
their offerings. It further breaks down to the question of which proportion of available
resources management should allocate to the development and realization of products
versus services. Should companies such as Hilti and Apple highlight the service
aspects of their offerings or their graspable products? Should IBM continue to
concentrate on consulting-services or should it partially return to the development of
graspable products? Should Google market its offerings as digital products or as digital
104
services? Should Amazon highlight the product nature of their e-reader Kindle or the
services that are offered for this product? These are just a few examples of questions
that the here developed framework aims to evoke.
On a more operative level, the object-dominant logic fosters the consideration of
where within its portfolio a company should include graspable objects to support
consumers in their self-extension. Examples of simple graspable components of
intrinsically abstract offerings illustrate how easy and effective such objectifications
can be implemented: credit card companies use the particular design of their credit
cards (such as the black American Express Card) to objectify a self-defining meaning
that is important to their customers. Clubs such as the Rotary Club use small insignia
to objectify self-extending memberships within these clubs. In a similar vein,
Lufthansa German Airlines offers its frequent flyers suitcase batches that are colored
depending on their customer status; being easily visible on luggage pieces, they
prominently objectify this self-extending status to their owners as well as to their
owners’ social surroundings. Similar is true for wristbands that visitors of festivals
receive and often continue to wear for months after the event. Campaigns such as the
anti-Aids campaign connect to simple insignia such as the red ribbon, thereby
stimulating their self-extending value; similar occurs for the Nike Livestrong
Wristband that objectifies consumers’ engagement in the Livestrong Foundation. Not
only have some of these simple objects gained cult status; they have further become
inseparable symbols of the meanings that they stand for.
These are just a few examples that highlight how simple objectifications can be
implemented and what potential lies within a thoughtful objectification of abstract
meanings. The here proposed object-dominant logic not only fosters management to
consider the objectivation of self-relevant components of their offerings; moreover, it
encourages management to pay careful attention to an appropriate selection and
marketing of these objects.
4.3.2 Exploiting the Self-Defining Meaning of Objects
The previously outlined findings and examples highlight the notion that objects can
become relevant components of economic offerings if they actually create a physical
connection between consumers and a certain self-extending meaning. Study 4
indicated that being exposed to a card that symbolized membership within a club had a
stronger impact on subjects in becoming a member of that club than a membership
voucher. This result, in combination with the above mentioned examples (credit cards,
105
luggage badges, insignia, and wristbands), stresses the notion that symbolic objects are
particularly effective if they symbolize consumers’ affiliation to a certain selfextending group or meaning.
A further example that outlines this notion is a temporary frequent flyer card that
Lufthansa customers instantly receive when signing up for the airline’s frequent flyer
program. The card is attached to the inflight magazine, which contains a form that
customers can use to sign up for the program. When using this form, customers can
directly detach a temporary membership card that is later exchanged for a regular
membership plastic card. This temporary membership card hence not only instantly
objectifies the membership to the frequent flyer program; it also facilitates customers’
awareness and prospect of receiving the actual membership card.
This example further highlights the notion that creating and accentuating objects that
symbolize customers’ affiliation to self-extending group or meaning can be an
effective alternative to creating materials (such as vouchers) that solicit customers’
engagement to an economic offering.
4.3.3 Managing the Meaning of Objects
The conceptual framework and empirical findings of this dissertation emphasize the
relevance of symbolic (and thus purely mentally created) connections between objects
and their meaning. Results from study 3 indicate that even purely symbolic
connections between objects and their meaning can be perceived as factual
relationships between these two entities. Accordingly, as previously outlined, an Apple
product does not need to have a physical connection to an Apple employee to be
perceived as factually related to the Apple brand. Similarly, a Marlboro cigarette does
not need to be developed, manufactured, and marketed by a US-American Cowboy to
be perceived as factually and authentically connected to the brand Marlboro and its
particular image.
The results of this research emphasize the notion that the connection between symbolic
objects and their meaning is of a primarily mental nature and that this mental
connection is itself already affective in connecting consumers to a certain self-defining
meaning. Following the argumentation of Saussure (1916), the meaning of an object is
therefore arbitrary until it is individually learned or even socially conventionalized.
From this perspective, the crucial challenge for management in symbolically loading
objects lies accordingly not in actually creating a factual connection between the
object and its meaning; it lies much more in providing subjects and markets with the
106
necessary information to create and conventionalize a relevant self-extending meaning
of that object.
4.4 Limitations
The outlined conceptual argumentations and empirical studies include limitations that
shall be pointed out and discussed in this section.
By connecting the understanding of possessions to the here defined notion of graspable
objects, this dissertation strongly narrows down previously outlined understandings of
possessions. As shown by Belk (1988) as well as Pierce et al. (2003), possessions can
include other ungraspable entities such as ideas, beliefs, experiences, rights, or virtual
goods. This dissertation consciously separates these ungraspable possessions from the
here defined graspable objects. Accordingly, the outlined findings have to be limited to
these graspable or, in other words, material kinds of possessions. However, as the
findings support a relevance of the graspability of possessions for consumer behavior,
it is argued that a more careful distinction between graspable and ungraspable
possessions should be considered concerning future research in the field of possessions
and the extended self. The here developed understanding of graspable objects sets a
foundation for a possible differentiation between graspable and ungraspable
possessions. However, future research will have to further elaborate whether this
conceptual differentiation has a strong enough explanatory power to be integrated into
the general concept of the extended self.
A further limitation refers to the definition of graspable objects and its transfer into the
overall framework and empirical analyses of this dissertation. An object has here been
defined as an entity that is perceived to be physically graspable. This definition derives
from an analysis of the development of the word “object” as well as associated terms.
Further, the definition is based on objects that consumers typically name when asked
to specify personally important objects. Finally, this definition is based on a
preliminary study that was conducted in this context. Based on these sources, this
definition is proposed for future conceptualizations of objects and material possessions
within consumer research. However, further research is needed to test the applicability
and explanatory power of this definition. Above that, the here conducted empirical
analyses support the defined hypotheses for this specified kind of graspable objects.
However, further research will be needed to test whether the defined object properties
(such as size) actually influence the self-extending functions of symbolic objects.
107
In addition to these conceptual limitations, further limiting aspects must be outlined
regarding the conducted analyses.
Three of the five reported experiments were conducted using student samples. The
question of whether student samples should be used in consumer research has long
been discussed. It however has been considered as adequate and is widely practiced for
the specific use of the development and testing of new theories (Calder et al. 1981). As
the main aim of this dissertation lies in advancing consumer theory, the utilization of
student samples is hence regarded as acceptable. However, to meet further this
limitation, studies 1 and 5, which particularly aimed at identifying and generalizing the
predicted effects in real-world situations, were conducted with samples of German and
Swiss adults. The results of these studies showed similar patterns as the studies
conducted with students. This similarity further indicates that the results were not
biased by specific characteristics of students.
Finally, the exclusive utilization of experimental study designs and the extensive
reliance on scale-measurements must be commented upon as limiting factors of the
conducted analyses. As outlined, experiments were consciously used complementarily
to the qualitative and conceptual research history in the field of possessions and the
extended self. To still account for the external validity of the revealed effects, the
conducted studies aimed at being as realistic ( and non-hypothetical) as possible.
Study 1 referred to actual possessions and experiences of subjects. Study 4 was
conducted in cooperation with an existing organization and measured actual behavior
such as the specification of email addresses. Finally, study 5 also referred to real
possessions and services that participants own respectively regularly use. As such, the
conducted experiments aimed at utilizing realistic study designs to ensure a large
external validity of the measured effects. Further studies that rely on actual company
activities as well as on actual consumer behavior would however be sensible
complements to the here reported experiments.
4.5 Future Research
The conceptual framework of this dissertation proposes a revised understanding of the
popular extended self concept. By altering the perspective of this prominent concept,
this dissertation presents a variety of opportunities for novel approaches towards
existing and new research questions. These opportunities for future research are
outlined in the following sections. Building upon the three main components of the
108
here proposed framework, the suggestions for further inquiries are structured regarding
their reference to objects, subjects, and meanings.
4.5.1 Future Research on Objects
Future Research on Physical Object Properties
An object has here been defined as an entity that is perceived to be physically
graspable. As outlined in the limitations of this dissertation, a further investigation of
the explanatory power of this differentiation of objects from other entities constitutes a
promising field for future research. Future research could investigate the influence of
object properties that relate to graspability on the ability of these objects to fulfill a
self-extending function: a particularly interesting property for testing in future studies
would be object size. Based on the conceptualization of objects in section 2.2.1, it is
assumed that particularly small or large objects are less effective in reducing perceived
distance and in increasing self-extension towards a certain meaning. Fragileness,
slipperiness, or perishableness could be further possible object properties – amongst
others – that negatively influence objects’ self-extending ability (see in this context
also Locke’s thoughts on the solidity of objects (Locke 1690, pp. 66-69)).
Future Research on the Particular Effect of Touch
This research did not identify a particular effect of touching an object on subjects’
perceived distance to the object’s meaning. Future research could more intensively
investigate the particular relevance of touch in this context. An interesting field for
further inquiries is spanned by the question of whether the effectiveness of touching an
object increases if the object has an indexical and hence particularly factual connection
to its symbolized meaning. Therefore, future research could further investigate the
interaction between touching an object and the quality of the symbolic connection
between an object and its meaning.
Future Research on Digital Objects
As outlined, a growing proportion of possessions are of a digital nature. Particularly
books, music, and other information media are increasingly owned virtually.
Regarding this development, a promising field for future research could derive from
the question whether the visual display of these documents influences the perceived
distance that consumers feel to these digital entities and hence towards their meaning.
Intentionally or not, Apple has repeatedly transferred the logic of graspable objects
into their depiction of virtual properties. The desktop, for example, which was
109
developed by Xerox but marketed to a broad audience by Apple, can be understood as
a translation of the physical desktop into a virtual working space. Following this logic
further, the mouse can be understood as an extended hand that enables users to grasp
objects that are placed on this desktop or in virtual folders. Still today, Apple
implements representations of virtual objects that closely relate to their appearance in
non-virtual environments: in the cover-flow option, iTunes users can scroll through
their music library as if it was a collection of vinyl-records and the digital bookshelf
on the iPad displays virtually owned books as if they were sorted on a wooden
bookshelf. A promising field for future research is whether these kinds of depictions
enforce their perceived graspability and thus support their self-extending function.
4.5.2 Future Research on Subjects
Future Research on Subjects’ Insecurity
This research did not broach the issue of how consumer characteristics moderate the
proposed influence of object presence / proximity on subjects’ perceived distance
towards an object’s meaning. Research has repeatedly emphasized the connection
between consumer insecurity and materialism. The here developed framework
provides a potential approach to a more thorough and coherent understanding of this
connection. It is thinkable, for example, that secure consumers feel less distant per se
to self-defining meanings than insecure consumers do. Therefore, it can be proposed
that the potential reduction of distance to an abstract meaning by an object is larger for
insecure consumers than it is for more secure consumers.
Further, it could be interesting to investigate whether insecurity regarding certain selfextending domains increases the relevance of possessions in these specific domains. A
consumer, for example, that begins a new hobby might be more prone to objectify this
self-extending hobby by certain objects (equipment) than a consumer who has been
carrying out this hobby for a long time. A possible explanation for such discrepancy
could be that the more experienced person (compared to the inexperienced person) has
already reduced his perceived distance to that abstract meaning and is hence less
receptive to objects that provide a further distance reducing and therefore selfconnecting function to that meaning.
Future Research on Subjects’ Object Attachment
The research at hand concentrated on the impact that symbolic objects have on
subjects’ perceived distance and self-extension towards a meaning that is connected to
that object. Concentrating on this focus, this project did not pay attention to the
110
attachment that subjects create towards an object. The here proposed framework
however contributes a possible approach for future research in this field: further
inquiries in this direction could test whether the ability of an object to reduce the
distance to a personally relevant meaning drives consumers’ attachment to that object.
Future Research on Motivating and Demotivating Consequences of Object Proximity
The here outlined framework and reported findings support the notion that object
proximity enforces perceived self-extension and behavior towards the objects’
symbolized meaning. However, if objects actually reduce the perceived distance to a
certain self-extending meaning then their proximity could also have demotivating
consequences. This argumentation consequently refers to a compensatory influence of
objects: in reducing the perceived distance to an intended part of the self and therefore
providing a perceived accomplishment, a symbolic object might also demotivate a
person from actually behaving in line with that intended self. Future research on this
boundary effect of objects could be promising and an informative approach towards
explaining negative effects of materialism and consumption in general.
4.5.3 Future Research on Meanings
Future Research on the Personal Relevance of the Meanings of Objects
This research did not investigate the particular effect of the personal relevance of a
certain meaning on the self-extending function of objects. However, it indicates that
the distance reducing function of objects does account for personally important
meanings (such as weddings (study 1) or other personally important experiences
(study 2)) as well as for less essential meanings (such as Wimbledon (study 3) and the
Marketing Club St. Gallen (study 4)). Future research should pay closer attention to
the particular role of the relevance of a certain meaning for the here outlined selfextension process (Dodson 1996; Tom 2004). Previously mentioned examples such as
credit cards, frequent flyer luggage badges, festival wristbands, or the above
mentioned hobby equipment emphasize the notion that objects are particularly
effective if they are connected to personally relevant meaning. Future research could
test how the personal relevance of a meaning affects an object’s influence on the
subject’s perceived distance to that meaning. Moreover, an inquiry of the emotional
consequences of such reduction of perceived distance depending on the personal
relevance of a particular meaning would be a promising field for further research.
111
Further Research on Experienceable and Inexperienceable Meanings
As previously outlined, there is an ongoing debate concerning the timeliness of
material possessions and the idea of ownership. In many argumentations, this debate
closely relates to the question of whether material possessions or experiences are more
important and valuable to customers and their personal well-being (Van Boven and
Gilovich 2003; Caprariello and Reis 2013). Interestingly, this discussion seems to be
partially predetermined by certain stand- and viewpoints of the involved researchers.
Some researchers approach the question from the perspective of experiences (ibid).
Others researchers approach the question from the direction of material possessions
(see section 2.1.1). Material possessions usually have an inferior starting point in this
comparison as they are often (as it seems culturally) associated as being more
superficial and shallow as actual experiences. Building upon this foundation, most
research hence discusses these two consumption practices against each other. Little
research however has tried to identify the complementary nature of experiences and
material possessions.
The derived framework offers an approach to consolidate these research streams on
experiences and material possessions. Building upon the here developed proposition
that customers constantly try to reduce the perceived distance to meanings that define
their self, it can be argued that both – experiences and material possessions – serve this
need. Personally relevant experiences can therefore be perceived as very direct
experiences of the self. On the other hand, personal possessions make self-extending
meanings accessible that intrinsically are not directly experienceable. Continuing this
notion, the value of a particular possession should hence vary with regard to the
experienceability of its meaning: the self-extending value of a material concert ticket,
for example, should be low in a situation in which a person is actually experiencing
directly a personally important concert. Once the concert is over and therefore only a
past memory, the self-extending value of the ticket should however increase, as it
becomes the most directly experienceable symbol of this personally important
experience. Personal possessions, from this perspective, can accordingly be perceived
as manifestations and stabilizations of these experiences and other elusive parts of the
self (Belk 1990). Research that further analyses these complementary functions of
experiences and possessions could be an additional interesting field for the further
application and development of the here proposed framework.
112
5 Conclusion
The essential aim of this dissertation was to approach the question of how the physical
graspability of symbolic objects relates to their self-extension function.
A review of previous research on the self-extending and symbolic meaning of objects
not only provided a meaningful basis for the investigation of this question; it also
carved out the tendency of present research to devalue the relevance of the materiality
of economic goods. Moreover, this review highlighted the ambiguity of present
research regarding the conceptualization of constructs such as possessions and
materiality.
Building upon these findings, an understanding of objects was developed that
considers their graspability as a constitutional property. It was argued that an
important quality of physical possessions and objects is their ability to provide a
perceived proximity between their symbolic meaning and the body and mind of a
subject. Construal-level theory served as a promising approach to conceptualize the
psychological processes that underlie this function of symbolic objects. The conducted
studies supported the presumption that physical proximity to a symbolic object reduces
perceived distance and strengthens perceived self-extension of subjects towards the
object’s symbolized meaning. Findings further supported the notion that this affiliation
positively transfers into subjects’ behavior towards the symbolized meaning.
Based on these empirical findings and the developed conceptual framework, a revised
understanding of the current extended self concept was proposed. Furthermore, a
possible consumer motive was outlined as an explanation for the human tendency to
utilize material possessions as extended parts of the self. This motive was described as
the need of humans to be physically close to objects (and surroundings) that symbolize
self-defining meanings – or in other words, the need of humans to be close to and to
experience their selves. By outlining and proposing this use of graspable objects, this
dissertation not only emphasized a revised managerial and theoretical perspective of
economic goods; it also contributed to variety of new approaches for future inquiries
of the investigated as well as related research fields.
Referring to these findings, the author intends to contribute to a more precise
understanding of why humans possess and therefore why and how they consume.
Consequently and relating to the very first sentence of this dissertation, the author
finally wishes to contribute to a deeper understanding of human being and behavior.
113
References
Ahuvia, Aaron C. (2005), “Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers'
Identity Narratives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 172-184.
Ariely, Dan, Joel Huber, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “When do Losses Loom
Larger Than Gains?” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (2), 134-138.
Aristotle (384-322 BC / 2005), Poetics, ed. and trans. Stephan Halliwell, Harvard:
Loeb Classic Library.
Bauman, Zygmunt (2007), Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bardhi, Fleura and Giana M. Eckhardt (2012), “Access-Based Consumption: The Case
of Car Sharing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 881-898.
Bardhi, Fleura, Giana M. Eckhardt, and Eric J. Arnould (2012), “Liquid Relationship
to Possessions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (3), 510-529.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and
Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6),
1173-1182.
Belk, Russell W. (1978), “Assessing the Effects of Visible Consumption on
Impression Formation,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, ed. H. Keith
Hunt, Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 39-47.
Belk, Russell W. (1985), “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material
World,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 265-280.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 15 (2), 139-168.
Belk, Russell W. (1989), “Extended Self and Extending Paradigmatic Perspective,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 129-132.
Belk, Russell W. (1990), “The Role of Possessions in Constructing and Maintaining a
Sense of Past,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, eds. Marvin E.
Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo: Association of Consumer
Research, 669-676.
Belk, Russell W. (2010), “Sharing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 715-734.
114
Belk, Russell W. (2013), “Extended Self in a Digital World,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 40 (3), 477-500.
Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry, JR. (1989), “The Sacred
and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 16 (1), 1-38.
Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others:
Identity Signaling and Product Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2),
121-134.
Bowlby, John (1969 / 1997), Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1, London: Pimlico.
Burke, Kenneth (1966), Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and
Method, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Caprariello, Peter A. and Harry T. Reis (2013), “To Do, to Have, or to Share? Valuing
Experiences Over Material Possessions Depends on the Involvement of Others,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (2), 199-215.
Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout (1981), “Designing Research
for Application,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (2), 197-207.
Cassam, Quassim (1997), Self and World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, LinChiat and Robert M. Arkin (2002), “Materialism as an Attempt to Cope
with Uncertainty,” Psychology & Marketing, 19 (5), 389-406.
Cohen, Joel B. (1989), “An Over-Extended Self?” Journal of Consumer Research,
16 (1), 125-128.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981), The Meaning of
Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Rick E. Robinson (1990), The Art of Seeing: An
Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter, Los Angeles: Getty Publications.
Dehling, Aurelie and Eric Vernette (2013), “Making Someone Else’s Object One’s
Own: The Matter of Second-Hand Item Appropriation,” EMAC, 42nd Annual
Conference.
Derbaix, Christian, Alain Decrop, and Olivier Cabossart (2002), “Colors and Scarves:
The Symbolic Consumption of Material Possessions by Soccer Fans,” Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, eds. Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent Nakamoto,
Valdosta: Association for Consumer Research, 511-518.
115
Descartes, René (1641 / 2011), Meditationen, ed. Andreas Schmidt, Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Descartes, René (1662 / 2003), Treatise of Man, trans. Thomas Steele Hall, New York:
Prometheus Books.
Dilthey, Wilhelm (1883 / 2013), Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften: Versuch
einer Grundlegung für das Studium der Gesellschaft und der Geschichte, Berlin:
Holzinger.
Dilthey, Wilhelm (1910 / 2013), Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den
Geisteswissenschaften, Berlin: Holzinger.
Dodson, Kimberly J. (1996), “Peak Experiences and Mountain Biking: Incorporating
the Bike into the Extended Self,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, eds.
Kim P. Corfman and John G. Lynch Jr., Provo: Association of Consumer
Research, 317-322.
Eco, Umberto (2002), Einführung in die Semiotik, ed. and trans. Jürgen Trabant,
Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.
Eisinga, Rob, Manfred te Grotenhuis, and Ben Pelzer (2012), “The Reliability of a
Two-Item Scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?” International
Journal of Public Health, 58 (4), 1-6.
Escalas, Jennifer E. and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The
Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339-348.
Escalas, Jennifer E. and James R. Bettman (2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups,
and Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378-389.
Field, Andy (2009), Discovering statistics using SPSS, London: Sage.
Fujita, Kentaro, Marlone D. Henderson, Juliana Eng, Yaacov Trope, and Nira
Liberman (2006), “Spatial Distance and Mental Construal of Social Events,”
Psychological Science, 17 (4), 278-282.
Grayson, Kent and Radan Martinec (2004), “Consumer Perception of Iconicity and
Indexicality and Their Influence on Assessments of Authentic Market
Offerings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 296-312.
Grayson, Kent and David Shulman (2000), “Indexicality and the Verification Function
of Irreplaceable Possessions: A Semiotic Analysis,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 27 (1), 17-30.
116
Habermas, Jürgen (1985), „Dialektik der Rationalisierung,“ in: Die Neue
Unübersichtlichkeit, ed. Jürgen Habermas, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 167–208.
Habermas, Tilman (1999), Geliebte Objekte: Symbole und Instrumente der
Identitätsbildung, Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Hahn, Robert A. and Arthur Kleinman (1983), “Perspectives of the Placebo
Phenomenon: Belief as Pathogen, Belief as Medicine: ‘Voodoo Death’ and the
‘Placebo Phenomenon’ in Anthropological Perspective,” Medical Anthropology
Quarterly, 14 (4), 3–19.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2012), PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed
Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling, White Paper,
http://www.afhayes.com/
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional
Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York: The Guilford
Press.
Hayes, Andrew F. and Kristopher J. Preacher (2013), Statistical Mediation Analysis
with
a
Multicategorical
Independent
Variable,
White
Paper,
http://www.afhayes.com/
Hongladarom, Soraj (2011), “Personal Identity and the Self in the Online and Offline
World,” Minds and Machines, 21 (4), 533-548.
Hjelmslev, Louis (1943 / 1961), Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
James, William (1890 / 1950), The Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, New York:
Dover.
Jaspers, Karl (1954 / 1989), Psychologie der Weltanschauungen, Berlin: SpringerVerlag.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetch, and Richard H. Thaler (1990), “Experimental
Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political
Economy, 98 (6), 1325-1348.
Kaufman, Jordy, Denis Mareschal, and Mark H. Johnson (2003), “Graspability and
Object Processing in Infants,” Infant Behavior & Development, 26 (4), 516-528.
117
Kleine, Susan Schultz, Robert E. Kleine, III, and Chris T. Allen (1995), “How Is a
Possession "Me" or "Not Me"? Characterizing Types and an Antecedent of
Material Possession Attachment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 327343.
Kotler, Philip (1977), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation,
and Control, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Kremp, Matthias (2012): “Umstrittene Tablet-Produktion: So werden in China Apples
iPads gebaut,“ Spiegel Online, http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/gadgets/0,1518,
827063,00.html
Krishna, Aradhna and Maureen Morrin (2008), “Does Touch Affect Taste? The
Perceptual Transfer of Product Container Haptic Cues,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 34 (6), 807-818.
Lehdonvirta, Vili (2010), “Online Spaces have Material Culture: Goodbye to Digital
Post-Materialism and Hello to Virtual Consumption,” Media, Culture & Society,
32 (5), 883-889.
Liberman, Nira, Yaacov Trope, Sean M. McCrea, and Steven J. Sherman (2007), “The
effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment,”
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (1), 143-149.
Liberman, Nira, Yaacov Trope, and Elena Stephan (2007), “Psychological Distance,”
in: Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, eds. Arie W. Kruglanski
and E. Tory Higgins, New York: The Guilford Press, 353-383.
Lindberg, Nina and Fredrik Nordin (2008), “From Products to Services and Back
Again: Towards a New Service Procurement Logic,” Industrial Marketing
Management, 37 (3), 292-300.
Locke, John (1690 / 2008), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Pauline
Phemister, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Love, Lisa L. and Peter S. Sheldon (1998), “Souvenirs: Messengers of Meaning,”
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, eds. Joseph W. Alba and J. Wesley
Hutchinson, Provo: Association for Consumer Research, 170-175.
Magaudda, Paolo (2011), “When Materiality ‘Bites Back’: Digital Music
Consumption Practices in the Age of Materialization,” Journal of Consumer
Culture, 11 (1), 15-36.
118
Marx, Karl (1844 / 2011), Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte aus dem Jahre
1844, Raleigh: Lulu.
Marx, Karl (1872 / 2009), Das Kapital, Cologne: Anaconda.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels (1848 / 1978), “Manifesto of the Communist Party,”
in: The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker, New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Mehta, Raj and Russell W. Belk (1991), “Artifacts, Identity, and Transition: Favorite
Possessions of Indians and Indian Immigrants to the United States,” Journal of
Murray, Keith B. and John L. Schlacter (1990), “The Impact of Services versus Goods
on Consumers’ Assessment of Perceived Risk and Variability,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 18 (1), 51-65.
Newman, George E. and Paul Bloom (2012), “Art and Authenticity: The Importance
of Originals in Judgments of Value,” Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 141 (3), 558-569.
Newman, George E., Gil Diesendruck, and Paul Bloom (2011), “Celebrity Contagion
and the Value of Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 215-228.
Nöth, Winfried (2000), Handbuch der Semiotik, Stuttgart: Metzler.
Oxford Dictionaries (2013), Online Oxford Dictionaries, http://oxforddictionaries.com
Peck, Joann and Terry L. Childers (2003), “To Have and To Hold: The Influence of
Haptic Information on Product Judgments,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 35-48.
Peck, Joann and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived
Ownership,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 434-447.
Peck, Joann and Jennifer Wiggins (2006), “It Just Feels Good: Customers' Affective
Response to Touch and Its Influence on Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing,
70 (4), 56-69.
Peck, Joann and Jennifer Wiggins Johnson (2011), “Autotelic Need for Touch,
Haptics, and Persuasion: The Role of Involvement,” Psychology & Marketing,
28 (3), 222-239.
Peirce, Charles S. (1903 / 1983), Phänomen und Logik der Zeichen, ed. and trans.
Helmut Pape, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.
119
Pierce, Jon L., Tatiana Kostova and Kurt T. Dirks (2003), “The State of Psychological
Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research,” Review of
General Psychology, 7 (1), 84-107.
Philosophie (1999), Philosophie Dtv-Atlas, Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Prelinger, Ernst (1959), “Extension and Structure of the Self,” Journal of Psychology,
47 (1), 13-23.
Richins, Marsha L. (1994), “Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of
Possessions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 504-521.
Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Nancy Wong (2009), “The Safety of
Objects: Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection,” Journal of
Ross, Michael and Anne E. Wilson (2002), “It Feels like Yesterday: Self-Esteem
Valence of Personal Past Experiences, and Judgments of Subjective Distance,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (5), 792-803.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916 / 2001), Grundfragen der allgemeinen
Sprachwissenschaften, ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, trans. Herman
Lommel, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schultz, Susan E., Robert E. Kleine, III, and Jerome B. Kernan (1989), “These Are a
Few of My Favorite Things: Toward an Explication of Attachment as a
Consumer Behavior Construct,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, ed.
Thomas K. Srull, Provo: Association for Consumer Research, 359-366.
Semin, Gün R. and Eliot R. Smith (1999), “Revisiting the Past and Back to the Future:
Memory Systems and the Linguistic Representation of Social Events,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (6), 877-892.
Shostack, G. Lynn (1977), “Breaking Free from Product Marketing,” Journal of
Marketing, 41 (2), 73-80.
Siddiqui, Shakeel and Darach Turley (2006), “Extending the Self in a Virtual World,”
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, eds. Connie Pechmann and Linda
Price, Duluth: Association for Consumer Research, 647-648.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review,”
120
Sonneveld, Marieke H. and Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein (2008), “The Tactual
Experience of Objects,” in: Product Experience, eds. Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein
and Paul Hekkert, San Diego: Elsevier, 41-67.
Styvén, Maria Ek (2010), “The Need to Touch: Exploring the Link between Music
Involvement and Tangibility Preference,” Journal of Business Research, 63 (9),
1088-1094.
Tarn, David D. C. (2005), “Marketing-Based Tangibilisation for Services,” The
Service Industries Journal, 25 (6), 747-772.
Tom, Gail (2004), “The Endowment-Institutional Affinity Effect,” The Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 138 (2), 160-170.
Tomlinson, John (2007), The Culture of Speed: The Coming of Immediacy, London:
Sage.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological
Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440-463.
Trope, Yaacov, Nira Liberman, and Cheryl Wakslak (2007), “Construal Levels and
Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and
Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 83-95.
Tuli, Kapil R., Ajay K. Kohli, and Sundar G. Bharadwaj (2007), “Rethinking
Customer Solutions: From Product Bundles to Relational Processes,” Journal of
Marketing, 71 (3), 1-17.
Van Boven, Leaf and Thomas Gilovich (2003), “To Do or to Have? That Is the
Question,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (6), 1193-1202.
Van Boven, Leaf, Joanne Kane, A. Peter McGraw, Jeannette Dale (2010), “Feeling
Close: Emotional Intensity Reduces Perceived Psychological Distance,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 (6), 872-885.
Vargo, Stephan L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic
for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1-17.
Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric J. Arnould (1988), “My Favorite Things: A CrossCultural Inquiry into Object Attachment, Possessiveness, and Social Linkage,”
Weber, Max (1920 / 2013), Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus,
ed. Dirk Kaesler, München: Beck.
121
White, Robert W. (1959), “Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence,”
Psychological Review, 66 (5), 297-333.
Whorf, Benjamin L. (1956 / 2008), Sprache – Denken – Wirklichkeit: Beiträge zur
Metalinguistik und Sprachphilosophie, ed. and trans. Peter Krausser, Reinbek bei
Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Zeithaml, Valerie A., A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry (1985), “Problems and
Strategies in Services Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 49 (2), 33-46.
Curriculum Vitae
Name
Date of Birth
26. August 1982
Place of Birth
Cologne, Germany
Education
2009-2013
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Doctoral Studies in Business Administration / Consumer Behavior
University of Essex, United Kingdom
Summer Program in Quantitative Methods of Social Research
2003-2008
Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany
Diploma Studies in Media Economics
1994-2001
Prälat-Diehl-Schule, Gross-Gerau, Germany
Abitur
Work Experience
2009-2013
Center for Customer Insight, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Research Associate, Consumer Research
2004-2009
Localmotion Communication, Mainz, Germany
Entrepreneur, Media Design
2002-2009
Lufthansa German Airlines, Frankfurt (a. M.), Germany
Employee, Airline Services
2006-2007
J. Walter Thompson, Frankfurt (a. M.), Germany
Internship, Strategic Brand and Marketing Management
2005-2006
Springer & Jacoby, Hamburg, Germany
Internship, Advertisement

Having, Holding, Being - Universität St.Gallen

Transcription

Similar documents

Carousel Carnival Poster 2015 - Petaluma Valley Athletic Club

Pasadena Now » Enchanted Physics Forest Sprouting at Kidspace

Week 1: Fast Footwork Week 2: Ball Familiarity

Football Presentation

Devour - Roto Grip

Digital Patterns

Jump Float Serve

FIVB Technical Posters

IPT 2014 Problems

Big Quiz for CLIC Sargent