0% found this document useful (0 votes)

57 views39 pages

Material Possession Attachment

la consommation symbolique

Uploaded by

Fatoumata Gaye

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

57 views39 pages

Material Possession Attachment

la consommation symbolique

Uploaded by

Fatoumata Gaye

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 39

Kleine and Baker/An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment

An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment

Susan Schultz Kleine

Bowling Green State University

Stacey Menzel Baker

University of Wyoming
Susan Schultz Kleine is Associate Professor, Department of Marketing, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403,
(410) 354-8070, [email protected]. Stacey Menzel Baker is Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Marketing, College
of Business Administration, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3275, Laramie, WY 82071, [email protected]. Direct
correspondence to either author. The authors would like to thank Russ Belk for his personal insights, Rob Kleine for his insights and
feedback about the manuscript, and the editor and three reviewers for their many helpful suggestions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Material possession attachment reflects a vital and ubiquitous way people valuate goods. A significant body of
literature provides a foundation for describing what material possession attachment is. Yet there remains more
to investigate about how possession attachment involves acquisition, consumption, and disposition behaviors,
how it compares to place, brand, or consumption experience bonds, whether marketing activities influence
possession attachment, and how having attachments affects consumer well-being. An integrative review of the
attachment literature is needed to provide interested scholars a baseline from which to deepen and broaden our
understanding of how people valuate goods.

Definition and Boundaries of Material Possession Attachment

Material possession attachment is a multi-faceted property of the relationship between a specific individual or
group of individuals and a specific, material object that an individual has psychologically appropriated,
decommodified, and singularized through person-object interaction. Nine characteristics portray attachment: (1)
attachment forms with specific material objects, not product categories or brands; (2) attachment possessions
must be psychologically appropriated; (3) attachments are self-extensions; (4) attachments are decommodified
and singularized; (5) attachment requires a personal history between person and possession; (6) attachment has
the property of strength; (7) attachment is multi-faceted; (8) attachment is emotionally complex; and (9)
attachments evolve over time as the meaning of the self changes. Attachment is conceptually distinct from:
general trait materialism, product category involvement, and evaluative affect toward the possession.

The Value of Material Possession Attachments

The value of material possession attachment includes benefits and costs. Scholars have identified various non-
mutually exclusive kinds of value falling into two basic categories: self-definitional and self-continuity/change
meaning. Self-definitional attachments serve autobiographical, magical, contemplative, action, self-boundary
regulation, and self-cultivation values. Self-continuity/self-change value is reflected in the self-maintenance and
adaptive functions of attachments.
On the cost side, attachments bear opportunity costs in terms of investment of personal resources. Furthermore,
they may unreasonably constrain one’s options for self meaning making. How possession attachment correlates
with personal or collective happiness and life satisfaction is wide open for empirical investigation.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

volume 2004 no. 01 Available: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/kleine01-2004.pdf
Copyright © 2004 – Academy of Marketing Science.
Kleine and Baker/An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment

Possession Attachment Typologies and Method Issues

Numerous opportunities exist to enhance how we classify and study possession attachments. Factors limiting
the comparability of existing typologies include: that the typologies may capture different domains (e.g.,
“favorite” versus “most meaningful” possessions); different typologies are not always based on the same
perspective (i.e., investigator’s versus respondent’s); and unknown effects of different times and places of data
collection. Measurement scales need additional empirical attention. Scholars should continue using a wide
variety of familiar and new (to attachment research) methods to optimize our understanding of possession
attachment.

Age, Life Stage, and Gender Differences in Possession Attachment

Research to date on age, life cycle, and gender differences has been mostly descriptive. Age studies tend to find
that older people relate to their special possessions differently than younger people, reflecting stage-of-life and
other developmental issues. Gender studies universally find the predictable differences that men versus women
are more likely to own certain special possessions. The meanings of those possessions tend to differ predictably,
as well--autonomy seeking for men and affiliation seeking for women. Describing individual differences in
attachments is one way to suggest that possession attachments have adaptive and self-developmental value.
However, advancing the current literature on benefits and costs of cherished possessions requires a deeper look.
Scholars must seek to develop a fuller understanding of the role of possessions throughout the life cycle and in
relation to various role identities characterizing the individual.

Comparing Possession Attachment to Place, Brand, and Experience Attachments

Research explicitly relating types of attachments would help to clarify boundaries of possession attachments,
enhance understanding of the origins of possession attachment meaning and value, discourage inappropriate
conflation of different types (e.g., brand versus material possession attachment), and encourage cross-
fertilization across the related literatures. To encourage attachment scholars to broaden their scope, we compare
definitions and characterizations of material possession attachment with those for place, brand, and
consumption experience bonds.

Place Attachment - The literatures on place and possession attachment do not overlap significantly yet they
reflect remarkable similar descriptions of the two kinds of attachment. Place attachment can be defined as the
emotional bond formed by an individual to a physical site due to the meaning given to the site through
interactional processes (Milligan 1998). Place attachment shares the following characteristics with possession
attachment: place attachment forms with specific, psychologically, decommodified and singularized places; it is
a kind of self-extension; its formation requires personal history between self and place; it has degree of strength
(strong to weak), is multi-faceted (cognitive, emotive, and behavioral), emotionally complex, and dynamic.
Place and possession attachment also each serve similar basic functions: identity-definition (autonomous selves
and affiliated selves) and self-continuity/change (e.g., self-adaptation to new places). Place attachment
influences well-being and healthy self-development in both children and adults whereas disruption of place
attachments leads to the psychological and emotional costs of having them. Several studies demonstrate the
inextricable connection between the two types of attachments. Scholars should consider using both literatures in
their work on possession and place attachments.

Brand Relationships - Based on the literature to date, brand bonds and possession attachments should be
regarded as related, but distinct phenomena. Brands (as perceptions) and tangible possessions differ in
irreplaceability and potential for carrying indexical value. Brand relationships are characterized as analogous to
interpersonal bonds, an analogy that has yet to be successfully applied to possessions of attachment. Although
the literature shows each type of bond serves similar self-definitional purposes, it remains unclear how
Academy of Marketing Science Review
volume 2004 no. 01 Available: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/kleine01-2004.pdf
Copyright © 2004 – Academy of Marketing Science.
Kleine and Baker/An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment
intangible brands apply to self-preservation or self-adaptation in the way that tangible possession attachments
do. Most research about brand relationships ultimately serves commercial purposes while possession attachment
research is oriented toward understanding the effects of bonding with possessions on consumer well-being.
Scholars should carefully pause to consider key differences between the two person-object bonds but also how
attachment possession meaning may involve brand meanings. How brand relationships affect consumer well-
being is another area in need of investigation.

Experience Attachment - An understanding of attachment to experience would add clarity to material possession
attachment. Experiences are singularized through participation or observation and become irreplaceable.
Experiences important for self-definition, self-expression, or self-transcendence invite experience preservation
consumption (e.g., through material possessions), another topic in need of scholarly investigation. Experience
attachment, such as to sky diving or white water rafting, represents a personal, psychological bond to situations
(past, present, or future) that deliver desired symbolic benefits, and is both affective and cognitive in nature. It
is emotionally complex and involves psychological appropriation, as well as self-definition, intra-personal, and
interpersonal dimensions. The literature on optimal stimulation level (OSL), hedonic consumption, and flow
provide important bases for developing an understanding of this construct, which is ripe for future research.

Summary - A few attachment investigations implicitly study more than one type of person-object bond. Yet
studies explicitly acknowledging and seeking to understand relationships among different types of attachments
are uncommon. These different types of self-extensions share much in common; they deliver self-descriptive,
self-change/continuity, and self-transendence benefits. Yet these attachments differ in terms of tangibility,
permanence, transferability, indexicality, and irreplaceability. Also, each type of attachment is most relevant at
different stages of consumption. Likewise, each type bears different degrees of commercial interest and may
have different implications for consumer satisfaction and well-being. More empirical investigations are needed
to compare types of self-extensions to enhance our understanding of possession attachment. Careful scholarship
will involve consideration of similarities and differences among attachments as well as potential interactions
and linkages among them. Numerous opportunities exist for clarifying similarities, differences and connections
among possession, place, brand, or experience bonds to enhance our understanding of all types of attachments.

Possession Attachment: Status of the Literature and Future Research

The literature on material possession attachment provides a general, descriptive portrayal of people’s bonds
with material possessions. Integrating the literature leads to a clear definition, a reasonable understanding of the
boundaries of the concept, and a good sense of the self-descriptive and self-continuity/change benefits
possession attachments provide. The literature also portrays descriptions of age, life stage, and gender
differences in attachments. Remaining, however, are significant opportunities to deepen our understanding of
the role of possessions in life stage development and role-identity development. Also, we know that possessions
do not need to be expensive, rare, or exotic to become objects of attachment. The most mundane, ordinary
possessions serve attachment functions well. Scholarship has yet to identify properties of ordinary possessions
that encourage or discourage attachment.

The literature portrays numerous benefits of possession attachments, yet the costs of having them remains
poorly understood and empirical investigations directed at analyzing the downsides of attachment are rare.
Also under-investigated are shared possession attachments and group processes involved in attaching and
detaching from material possessions. Deconstructing layers of possession, place, brand, or experience meanings
affecting possession attachment and understanding the role of each attachment type in the consumption cycle
offer additional opportunities for scholars. Longitudinal studies examining the dynamic nature of possession
attachment are also sorely needed to deepen our theoretical understanding of attachment and its affects on well-
being. Ultimately, overcoming artificial boundaries between attachment literatures, use of creative
Academy of Marketing Science Review
volume 2004 no. 01 Available: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/kleine01-2004.pdf
Copyright © 2004 – Academy of Marketing Science.
Kleine and Baker/An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment
methodologies to investigate attachment, and moving beyond basic description to delve deeper into more
complex issues surrounding attachment are key to advancing scholarship about the value of material
possessions.

Keywords: Possessions, Possession Attachment, Place Attachment, Brand Relationships, Consumer Well-
Being, Consumption Experience, Materialism, Possession Meaning, Self-Concept, Symbolic Consumer
Behavior.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment

Material possession attachment reflects a vital and ubiquitous way people valuate goods. A significant body of
literature now provides a foundation for understanding material possession attachment. Yet there remains more
to investigate about how possession attachment involves acquisition, consumption, and disposition behaviors,
how it compares to place, brand, or consumption experience bonds, whether marketing activities influence
possession attachment, and how having attachments affect consumer well-being and life satisfaction.

A challenge facing scholars of attachment is defining the concept and its boundaries. Few reports of “special,”
“important,” “cherished,” or “favorite” possessions offer conceptual definitions of the phenomenon under study.
What is material possession attachment? What are its boundaries? Is material possession attachment part of a
larger class of self-extensions that are essentially the same? Can we equate, for example, material possession
attachment with place attachment or with person-brand relations? Assembling answers to such questions should
assist scholars in advancing the literature on consumers’ attachment to, and valuation of, material goods.

In this paper we integrate literature related to possession attachment to (1) offer a conceptual definition of
material possession attachment; (2) specify its boundaries; (3) discuss the value (benefits and costs) of having
possession attachments; (4) summarize age, gender, and life stage differences in material possession
attachments; (5) discuss methodological issues related to studying possession attachment; and (6) relate
possession attachment to place attachment, person-brand relations, and experience attachment. As these sections
unfold, questions for future research will be posed, reflecting our primary purpose to create a resource for
scholars pursuing questions about attachment and consumers’ valuation of goods and services.

BOUNDARIES OF MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT

Most reports of scholarly investigations of special, favorite, important, or cherished material possessions
provide only operational definitions of the phenomenon under study. To advance the study of material
possession attachment, we offer a conceptual definition of attachment and its boundaries that we believe
effectively reflects the relevant literature to date.

What Attachment Is

Material possession attachment is a multi-faceted property of the relationship between an individual or group
of individuals and a specific material object that has been psychologically appropriated, decommodified, and
singularized through person-object interaction. Nine characteristics further characterize material possession
attachment and help distinguish it from related concepts.

Specific material object - Material possession attachment forms with specific material possessions, not with
product classes or brands. The material objects are acquired through exchange, received as gifts, self-produced,
or found. Most often attachment possessions are ordinary objects that have special meaning formed through
experiences involving the object.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Individuals and their personal possessions have received the most scholarly attention although pairs or groups
of people (e.g., families or subcultural members) become attached to particular shared possessions (Belk 1988;
1992a; 1992b; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Olson 1985).

Psychologically Appropriated Material Object - Attachment does not require legal or physical possession (Belk
1992a; Furby 1978), only psychological appropriation; that is, a sense the object is “mine1”. Through
consumption people extract cultural meaning from, give meaning to, and claim goods as theirs (McCracken
1988). Examples of psychological appropriation include students taking possession of “their” chair in a
classroom for the term; lost, stolen, or destroyed valued possessions still perceived by the owner to be “mine”;
jointly held possessions perceived to be “ours” (Olson 1985); or singular culturally shared possessions, such as
the Statue of Liberty (Belk 1987). Psychological appropriation is necessary but not sufficient for material
possession attachment to form.

A Type of Self-Extension - Belk (1988) portrays how we extend ourselves into things such as people, places,
experiences, ideas, beliefs (see also Abelson 1986), and material possession objects. Conceptually, self-
extension encompasses objects perceived to be “mine,” including but not limited to possession attachments.
Only one study reports investigating the empirical relationship between self-extension and material possession
attachment (Sivadas and Venkatesh 1995). Study results were inconclusive, calling for more empirical work
investigating the attachment/self-extension relationship. We believe the literature portrays material possession
attachment as a type of self-extension among other types (e.g., brand bonds, place attachments).

Decommodified, Singular Possessions - We construct meanings for material objects in ways similar to how we
construct meanings for people; over time we get to know them as individuals (Kopytoff 1986). Self-extension
processes decommodify, singularize, and personalize particular material objects symbolizing autobiographical
meanings (Belk 1988). Perceived singularity often is associated with an unwillingness to sell the possession for
market value (Belk 1991a). A singular, irreplaceable possession becomes nonsubsitutable. It "is one that a
consumer resists replacing, even with an exact replica, because the consumer feels that the replica cannot
sustain the same meaning as the original" (Grayson and Shulman 2000, p. 17). A young child’s baby blanket is
one well-known example (Winnicott 1953) of no subsitutability; Grayson and Shulman (2000) discuss adult
examples. An unanswered empirical question is whether possessions must be irreplaceable to become
attachments.

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Pirsig (1974) wonderfully illustrates possession personalization
and decommodification:

But over the miles, and I think most cyclists will agree with this, you pick up certain feelings about an
individual machine that are unique for that one individual machine and no other. A friend who owns a
cycle of the same make, model and even same year brought it over for repair, and when I test rode it
afterward it was hard to believe it had come from the same factory years ago. You could see that long

1
An object regarded as “mine” does not mean the object effectively symbolizes “me”. Although psychologically
appropriated, the object is not necessarily a symbol of “who I am,” “who I was,” or “who I want to be.” Individuals psychologically
appropriate and extend themselves into things besides material possessions; e.g., places, brands, experiences, ideas. Although
psychological appropriation is necessary, it is not sufficient for material possession attachment. That is, just because something is
“mine” does not mean that it is “me.”

Academy of Marketing Science Review

ago it had settled into its own kind of feel and ride and sound, completely different from mine. Not
worse, but different.

I suppose you could call that a personality. Each machine has its own, unique personality which
probably could be defined as the intuitive sum total of everything you know and feel about it. This
personality constantly changes, usually for the worse, but sometimes surprisingly for the better, and it is
this personality that is the real object of motorcycle maintenance. (p. 44)

Personal History Between Person and Material Possession –Pirsig’s description also illustrates why
possessions do not become decommodified and singularized without personal history between self and object.
Over time, particular goods become irreplaceable via possession rituals (e.g., using, displaying, cleaning,
storing, discussing, comparing) that extract meaning from, and give meaning to, the goods (McCracken 1988).
A toddler becomes attached to a special object (e.g., baby blanket, stuffed animal) over many, many repeated
uses. Adult possessions may become “contaminated” through constant or habitual use and dependency (e.g.,
one’s “faithful” wristwatch or constantly worn piece of jewelry) endowing it with personal meaning connecting
self and object (Belk 1988; Watson 1992).

The requirement of a personal history between person and possession is one of the strongest themes in the
special possession literature. (We will also find the same theme in the place attachment literature, to be
discussed below). However, the intriguing possibility of something we might call anticipatory self-extension is
suggested by Ball and Tasaki’s (1992) results. In their study of material possession attachment, teen and young
adult respondents expressed self-identification with strongly desired (but not yet acquired) goods. The sentiment
respondents expressed seemed to be that “if I had it, it would be me” and was tied to a particular age group or
life stage. This interesting result pattern deserves further attention. It relates to consumer desire (Belk, Ger, and
Askegaard 2003), age and life stage consumption differences, and the possibility that marketers may have some
pre-purchase influence on what goods or brands become self-extensions.

Attachment Has Strength - Although we use language such as “who I am” and “who I am not,” or what is “me”
and “not me,” to discuss attachments, attachment is really a matter of degree. Attachment to a possession can be
relatively strong or weak. Generally, strong attachment possessions include those regarded as "most difficult to
part with and most cherished," "attached to," or "irreplaceable." Strong attachments are more central to the
proximal self (Belk 1988) whereas weak attachments do not reflect the self as much or at all (Kleine, Kleine,
and Allen 1995). The strength of attachment may be indicated by behavioral tendencies such as unwillingness
to sell possessions for market value or to discard objects after their functional use is gone (Belk 1991b).

Attachment is Multi-Faceted - Attachment is a multi-faceted, relatively complex concept. Belk (1988) portrays
the extended self (including attachments) as being comprised of different layers from the private inner self-core
to the outermost collective layer. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) assert that special possession
objects (including possession attachments) vary in their symbolic purposes and identify various motivations for
attachments, suggesting multi-faceted person-possession ties. Working with social psychologists' distinction
between the public (interpersonal) and private (intra-personal) sides of the self (Greenwald and Breckler 1985),
Ball and Tasaki (1992) assert that possessions most useful for cognitively rehearsing elements of either self
aspect will be attachments. Kleine, Kleine, and Allen (1995) and Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan (1989) define
attachment to have facets of affiliation, autonomy, and past, present, and future temporal orientations. Each self
is associated with different kinds of possession attachments that reflect particular self-developmental tasks. The
portrayal of attachment as multi-faceted is another strong theme in the literature.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

In contrast to multi-faceted conceptualizations, attachment measurement scales proposed to date represent the
construct as a unidimensional construct. Ball and Tasaki’s (1992) nine-item Likert scale to measure attachment
captures the public and private self-cognitions leading to attachments (see Table 1 for scale items). Ball and
Tasaki demonstrate support for a separate, unidimensional measure of “emotional significance” capturing the
degree of emotional attachment a possession holds. Sivadas and Venkatesh (1995; see Table 1 for scale items)
provide confirmatory factor analysis support for the unidimensionality of their “possession attachment” and
“self-extension” measures. However, results failed to support discrimination between the two scales, requiring
further investigation into their validity.

TABLE 1
Measures of Possession Attachment, Emotional Significance of Possessions, and Self-Extension

Possession Attachment Scale (Ball and Tasaki 1992)

If someone ridiculed my ___, I would feel irritated.
My ___ reminds me of who I am.
If I were describing myself, my ___ would likely be something I would mention.
If someone destroyed my ___, I would feel a little bit personally attacked.
If I lost my ___, I would feel like I had lost a little bit of myself.
I don’t really have too many feelings about my ___ (reversed scored).
If someone praised my ___, I would feel somewhat praised myself.
Probably, people who know me might sometimes think of my ___ when they think of me.
If I didn’t have my ___, I would feel a little bit less like myself.

Possession Attachment (Sivadas and Venkatesh 1995)

I have no feelings for my ____.
I am emotionally attached to my ___.
I am sentimental about my ___.
My ___ reminds me of memories and experiences.

Incorporation Into the Extended Self (Sivadas and Venakatesh 1995)

My ___ helps me achieve the identity I want to have.
My ___ helps me narrow the gap between what I am and what I try to be.
My ___ is central to my identity.
My ___ is part of who I am.
If my ___ is stolen from me I will feel as if my identity has been snatched from me.

Emotional Significance Scale (Ball and Tasaki 1992)

My ___ reminds me of important people in my life.
My ___ reminds me of important things I’ve done or places I’ve been.
If I lost my ___, another one like it wouldn’t be as meaningful.

The contrast between multi-faceted conceptualizations and unidimensional measurement scales probably
reflects the challenge of capturing a rich concept such as attachment in measurement scale format. (Most studies
of special possessions do not use measurement scale techniques.) Confidence in a unidimensional
conceptualization of attachment requires additional validation, presenting opportunities for interested scholars.
Based on the literature, we conclude attachment should continue to be regarded as a multi-faceted construct.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Attachment is Emotionally Complex - Attachment possessions, laden with personal, deeply emotional meanings
are "extraordinary, mysterious, and emotion evoking rather than merely functional" (Belk 1992a, p. 45).
Attachment is emotional in experience quality, recorded in a cognitive-emotive understanding of the
possession’s symbolic, autobiographical, personalized meaning formed via a history between self and object.
The emotional quality of various possession attachment types is another area ripe for scholarly investigation.

Attachment is Dynamic - The meaning associated with a possession and the intensity of attachment to it does
not remain static but evolves as the person’s self evolves and the autobiographical function of the object
changes (Myers 1985). Myers (1985, p. 6) observed in her study of adults’ retrospection of childhood
attachments that “emotionally significant possessions are a sign of and participant in a person’s growth and
change” (Myers 1985, p. 6). Kamptner’s (1989; 1991) seminal studies of life stage meanings of possessions
shows systematic shifts in self accompany changes in attachment meanings.

Attachment being dynamic does not preclude particular possessions, such as heirlooms, from assuming
relatively static meaning. Heirlooms, for example, symbolize deep meanings of family and self-continuity that
are passed from one generation to the next (Curasi 1999; McCracken 1988; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000).
An unusual case of heirloom meaning is McCracken’s (1988) informant “Lois Roget,” the self-appointed
keeper of a home filled with generations’ worth of family possessions. This “curatorial consumption” pattern
“gives her important comforts, continuities, and securities that are generally now absent from the modern world.
But it also works to constrain and coerce her existence in ways that most of us would find intolerable” (p. 44).
McCracken suggests that in contrast to Mrs. Roget’s situation, modern conditions usually lead people to mold
and shape the meanings of household possessions to fit our identities.

Attachment itself, and the meanings of attachment possessions, tend to be dynamic in order to manage the
relentless conflict between desiring self-continuity and needing self-change (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995).
Considering this dynamic process from the point of view of the object itself, Kopytoff (1986) portrays how
things have biographies, just as people do. A branded good at its inception is a commodity that has a socio-
cultural meaning captured by its brand name (McCracken 1988). During its life cycle, a possession may be
exchanged (sold, given), consumed, or decommodified, or recommodified repeatedly. Appadurai (1986)
characterizes a possession’s biography as a “total trajectory” from production through exchange and distribution
to consumption and beyond. He says these “commodities in motion” “…move in and out of commodity state”
and “…such movements can be slow or fast, reversible or terminal, normative or deviant.” (p. 13). Thus,
commodity is a phase in an object’s life cycle which implies that being an attachment is another phase. How
attachment meanings change constantly is a fascinating area for scholarly investigation.

What Attachment Is Not

Scholars assert that attachment is conceptually distinct from materialism (Wallendorf and Arnould 1988),
product involvement (Ball and Tasaki 1992; Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan 1989), attitude or affect toward the
object (Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan 1989), and self-extension (Sivadas and Venkatesh 1995). Empirical
demonstration of the relationship between attachment and related constructs has been limited.

General Trait Materialism - Trait materialism is a tendency to invest one’s self in material goods (Belk 1985),
while possession attachment reflects the relationship between a specific person and a specific object. Both
Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) and Ball and Tasaki (1992) found empirical evidence that possession
attachment was discriminant from materialism.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Product Category Involvement - People experience attachments to possessions in relation to particular

possession objects, not product categories or brands. For example, becoming attached to a specific car or
photograph collection does not require enduring involvement (Bloch 1983) with the respective product
categories (Ball and Tasaki 1992). Likewise, attachment to a specific instance of a good does not generalize to
the product category or brand. However, empirical demonstrations of the relationship between product category
involvement, enduring involvement, and attachment would enhance understanding of the boundaries of each
construct.

Evaluative Affect - Attachment is not the same as attitude or evaluative affect (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995;
Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan 1989). Emotionally charged attachments often elicit mixed feelings such as
warmth, happiness, and sadness. Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan (1989) found that possessions of stronger
attachment tended to be associated with a different set of emotions than were possessions of least attachment.
Moreover, emotions associated with stronger attachments were not always positive nor were negative feelings
always associated with weak attachments. The literature suggests that reducing attachment to liking of the
object trivializes its self-identification significance and ignores examples of disliked objects of attachment.

Special Possessions - Studies about "special possessions" or "possession meaning" probably include, but
encompass something broader than, the domain of possession attachment (e.g., Belk 1992b; Mehta and Belk
1991; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Dittmar 1992; Furby 1991; Sayre 1994). Special
possessions are not necessarily self-reflective or in service of self-developmental purposes. Sometimes special
possessions are simply functional (Richins 1994).

Kamptner (1989) observed different possessions were elicited by varying prompts such as asking for "most
favorite possessions," "most cherished possessions," "most important possessions," "possessions I would take in
a fire," and so forth. Grayson and Shulman (2000) showed that cherished possessions are not necessarily
irreplaceable and vice versa. Further investigation is needed about how different prompts elicit different
possessions that reflect attachment, irreplaceability, self-extension, and so forth.

Summary: Definition and Boundaries of Material Possession Attachment

Academy of Marketing Science Review

VALUE OF MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT

In this section we review the literature about the value of material possession attachment. The benefits and costs
of attachment flow from goods’ singular capacity to carry and store meanings (McCracken 1988). Goods have
the property of indexicality, as they provide tangible, palpable proof of life events (Grayson and Shulman
2000). "Retaining a possession that is incontrovertibly and physically linked to a memorable past event helps to
verify for (a person) that the event has occurred" (Grayson and Shulman 2000, p. 8). Belk (1991a) describes
goods as “magical vessels” of meaning connecting us to deeper, less understood, and unarticulated aspects of
life (e.g., religion, magic, science). Flowing from this unique meaning-carrying capacity are the various benefits
and costs of possession attachments scholars have identified. To efficiently portray these overlapping benefits
of attachments, we organize them into two meta-themes: self-definitional value and self-continuity/change
value.

Self-Definitional Value

Having a tangible referent “out there” helps a person grasp “me” and provides opportunities for schema
rehearsal about “who I am”, “who I was”, or “who I am becoming” (Ball and Tasaki 1992). Although scholars
explain self-definitional value in different ways, each explanation reflects either the autonomy or affiliation
seeking motives driving self-development (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995).

Autobiographical Value - Viewed as an autobiography, a person’s self concept is a narrative construction told
and retold based on selected life events (McAdams 1993; Singer and Salovey 1993). Special possessions, such
as clothing, are among the cues that evoke autobiographical memory rehearsal (Kleine 2000). Autobiographical
rehearsal is self-comforting and presents opportunities for self-encouragement or confrontation and resolution
of life issues, as numerous examples in literature and poetry portray (Singer and Salovey 1993). According to
McAdams (1993), underpinning autobiographical narratives are the paradoxical themes of autonomy versus
affiliation seeking and self-continuity versus self-change management. These same themes are found in
personal accounts of possession meaning and describe self-developmental purposes of different kinds of
attachments (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995; Kleine 2000; Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan 1989).

Story-telling Value - Possession attachments not only mark life events, but also mark time and help tell personal
stories of search, self-discovery, growth, and achievement. In fact, though most discussions of material
possession attachment focus on particular objects, individuals may also be attached to sets of objects that reflect
role identities (product constellations; Solomon 1988; Solomon and Assael 1987; Solomon and Buchanan 1991;
Solomon and Douglas 1987) or reflect ritualistic behavior (e.g., collections; Belk 1995). Examples include
collections of photographs, souvenirs, trophies and other items telling the story of autobiographical events. For
self-perceived collectors of particular material objects (e.g., stamps, Coca-Cola memorabilia, Depression glass),
attachment has an added layer. While the collector feels attached to the pieces in the collection (though not
necessarily every piece), the whole collection represents something distinct from its parts (Belk 1995; Belk,
Wallendorf, Sherry, and Holbrook 1991). Not just the individual pieces, but the entire collection tells the story
of the experiences through which the collection was assembled (Belk, Wallendorf, Sherry, and Holbrook 1991).
Further study on attachments to collections, constellations of possessions, and the interrelationships among
related possessions would enhance understanding of possession attachment and its story telling value.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Contemplation Value: Who am I? - Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) categorize special

possessions into action objects and contemplation objects. Contemplation value refers to using objects “for
achievement of selfhood based on conscious reflection” (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; p. 96).
The authors suggest that older people find contemplation more valuable than younger people do. They suggest
that qualities of particular types of objects (e.g., photographs and stereos suited to mood manipulation) lend
themselves to contemplative use. Tourists (including children) often purchase souvenirs for their anticipated
contemplation value (Baker, Kleine, and Bowen, 2004).

Action value: What I can do - The action value of special possessions involves “the development of self-control
through unique acts” (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; p. 96). Action value involves the
possession’s potential for enabling a sense of personal competence and control (Furby 1991). Children and
youth especially value objects (e.g., musical instruments, pets, sports equipment, stuffed animals) requiring
physical manipulation to release their meaning (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Myers 1985).

Self-Boundary Regulation - Material possessions considered “me” or “not me” designate self-boundaries, both
corporal and temporal (Belk 1988; Dittmar 1989; 1992; McCracken 1988). Possessions extend self-boundaries
back into the past (Belk 1991a; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981) or forward into the future
(Gentry, Baker, and Kraft 1995; Joy and Dholakia 1991; Kamptner 1989; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000).

Sometimes consumers consciously avoid particular possessions to define “not me” boundaries. Freitas, Kaiser,
Chandler, Hall, Kim, and Hammidi (1997) found young adults consciously rejected particular clothing items
defining “definitely not me.” Similarly, consumers define “not me” by rejecting "anti-constellations" to avoid
being associated with the corresponding stereotype (Hogg and Mitchell 1997). Interested scholars have many
opportunities to study the boundary regulation purposes of possessions.

Self-Cultivation and Self-Development - Emotionally significant possessions reflect and influence a person’s
growth and development (Bih 1992; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Kamptner 1989; 1991;
Myers 1985). Myers (1985) found the specific attachment possessions cited by study participants to vary
widely, yet the reasons for attachment were very similar at each life cycle stage.

Voluntary or involuntary disruption of attachments evidences their self-cultivation value (Milligan 1998).
Victims of a California firestorm felt loss of their pasts, neighborhoods, routines, hobbies, and workplaces—
things defining who they were. These losses led victims to renegotiate meanings of possessions surviving the
disaster, and to reconsider and rebuild their identities (Sayre 1994). For earthquake victims in Japan and the
United States, unexpected disruption of the possession component of their extended selves led to feelings of self
loss (Ikeuchi, Fujihara, and Dohi 1999). The fact that possession loss leads to self-disruption suggests the
importance of possessions for autobiographical and emotional purposes.

Attachment possessions are not just memorabilia that permit nostalgic reflection, “emotionally significant
possessions appear to reflect and influence the individual’s growth, in a dynamic process” (Myers 1985 p. 4).
Reciprocity exists between self and possession in this dynamic self-cultivation process (Bih 1992).

Affiliation Value - Many of our deepest attachments to possessions flow from past or present relationships the
possessions represent. Possession attachments often designate “who I am connected with” or “how we are
connected”, an understanding of one’s self as necessary to self-development as defining the autonomous me

Academy of Marketing Science Review

(Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). Possession attachments symbolize affiliation value in a variety of ways. For
example, gift receipt more often is associated with strong attachments than weak attachments. Attachment
forms because the gift stands for an important or valued relationship, even when the recipient dislikes the gift
(Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). Heirlooms that become attachments reflect familial associations defining who
a person is (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; McCracken 1988; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000).
Frequently, items such as photographs, jewelry, and other possessions appear on cherished possession lists
representing relationships with others.

Attachment and special possession studies traditionally focus on individuals. However, a growing body of work
has explored the affiliation value of shared attachments (e.g., McCracken 1989). Olson (1985) explored how
material artifacts in the home influences dyadic communication between co-habitating relationship partners.
Artifacts of young married couples reflected future-orientations and shared values, while those of older married
couples reflected past-orientations and substituted for verbal communication. Possessions of unmarried couples
were individual artifacts reflecting present-orientations and independence within the relationship.

Belk's (1992b) study of the possessions of Mormon families who migrated to the western U.S. also reflects
families’ shared meanings of possessions. The diary accounts Belk examined revealed a search for, and
reinforcement of, communal meanings via particular possessions. A sense of caring for one another during a
potentially life-threatening transition characterized their meanings. Possessions were also used to negotiate
balance between group isolation and worldliness on a collective level.

Mehta and Belk's (1991) exploration of possessions of Indian immigrants to the U.S. versus Indians residing in
India also addresses the issue of group identity and its assembly/reassembly and enhancement via possessions.
Indian immigrants preserved collective identities through consumption rituals such as celebration of Indian
holidays, eating Indian foods, or wearing Indian clothing. Possession artifacts used in the rituals were
particularly potent for maintaining appearances and self-perceptions of being Indian.

Bih (1992) and Joy and Dholakia (1991) also explored how objects were used for adapting to a new culture.
The Chinese students Bih (1992) interviewed used objects to connect with their home culture strongly values
family ties. Similarly, the Indian professionals Joy and Dholakia (1991) interviewed used possessions to situate
themselves in relationship networks. Possessions used for cultural adaptation may become attachments
reflecting affiliative value.

Self Continuity/Self-Change Value

Using possession meanings to negotiate the dialectic tension between self-continuity and self-change is the
second meta-theme in the literature. On one hand, attachment possessions bring past meanings into the present
and maintain present meanings. Possessions also help us project ourselves into the future, even beyond death
(McCracken 1988; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000). We also cling to goods that capture unrealized ideal selves
by using the goods for leverage toward imagined future conditions (McCracken 1988).

Adaptive Value - Possession attachments help people cope with and adjust to change. The sacred meaning of
special possessions flows from their role in various kinds of personal journeys (Belk 1997). Well-known is the
adaptive role of a young child’s baby blanket or other comfort items (Winnicott 1953; see also Gulerce 1991 for
a contrasting view). However, adults also keep or dispose of attachment possessions to aid life transitions, such

Academy of Marketing Science Review

as divorcing (McAlexander 1991), losing a loved one (Gentry, Kennedy, Paul, and Hill 1995), or anticipating
one’s death (Gentry, Baker, and Kraft 1995; Pavia 1993; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000).

Possessions are potent facilitators of late-life adaptation (Kamptner 1989; Rubenstein 1987; 1989; Sherman and
Newman 1977-78). Attachment possessions serve as “lighting rods for memories” and “restate to oneself the
core aspects of one’s identity and life accomplishments…” (Rubenstein and Parmalee 1992; p. 154). Similarly,
in a depth study of elderly people, Kamptner (1989) found that

Personal possessions appear to play a salient and meaningful role in many of the developmental tasks
and challenges that old age may bring. One's belongings may enhance mastery and control in the face of
losses; they may act as mood modulators; they may assist individuals in maintaining and preserving
their identities in the face of events that erode their sense of self; they may trigger and enhance the life
review process; and they may represent ties or bonds with others at a time of life when social losses tend
to be greater (p. 182).

Several studies reflect the adaptive value of possessions. In a study of elderly nursing home residents, Sherman
and Newman (1977-78) found a significant, positive relationship between residents’ life satisfaction scores and
having cherished possessions. Respondents most often listed photographs, religious items, symbolic jewelry,
and consumer items as cherished possessions. Wapner, Demick, and Redondo (1990) found that cherished
possessions provided historical continuity, comfort, and a sense of belongingness for a sample of nursing home
residents. More well-adapted residents tended to have cherished possessions. Adaptation was indicated by
measures of individual control, stress, response to conflicts, use of phone calls and letters, visitation to friends
and relatives, and support of residents and staff. The most common cherished possessions in Wapner, Demick,
and Redondo’s (1990) study included musical instruments, silverware, tools, or cameras because of their action
potential. In contrast, Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton’s (1981) living-at-home older respondents tended
to cherish possessions for their contemplation value. Do nursing home residents relate differently to cherished
possessions compared to elderly people living in private homes?

Possessions not only help elderly people adapt to new living environments, they also influence others'
perceptions of those elderly. Millard and Smith (1981) measured medical school students' perceptions of
photographs showing elderly hospital patients either surrounded by possessions or devoid of possessions.
Results suggested that elderly patients surrounded by personal belongings, get well cards, photographs, and so
forth, were perceived more positively and evaluated as feeling better, more effective, less dependent, and more
socially capable. The authors suggest that hospital staff may regard and treat elderly patients better if they were
permitted to display personal possessions.

Self-Preservation - Elderly adults preserve themselves by passing along possessions to younger family
members. Divestment rituals transfer possessions and their meanings from one generation to the next (Curasi
1999; McCracken 1988; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000). Scholars also have examined how non-elderly
people facing death relate to their possessions. For example, Pavia's (1993) study of HIV-infected informants
showed that as the illness progressed, loss of possessions was secondary to losses of jobs, homes, health, and
relationships. Echoing Furby's (1978) belief that bonding with possessions stems from the perceived control we
have over them, Pavia found the worst part of possession loss was the decreasing ability to have or keep
possessions, and consequent inability to maintain one's former self relationships (see also Stevenson and Kates
1999).

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Gentry, Baker, and Kraft (1995) describe how people at different life stages have different types of attachments,
particularly when faced with death. Younger people facing death want possessions "now" due to feeling there
is no tomorrow; whereas, dying adults do not want possessions because the possessions represent the ability to
be productive which is no longer meaningful.

The Costs of Attachments

Kamptner believes that "an individual's belongings are an important and perhaps necessary part of the self (at
least in Western cultures)…” (1989, p. 192). The importance of meaningful possessions may lie in a unique
ability to carry meaning verbal language does not (McCracken 1988). McCracken (1988) concludes although
some consumers engaging in “consumption pathologies” (e.g., defining one’s self in terms of material things
only), normally “the individual uses goods in an unproblematic manner to constitute crucial parts of the self and
world” (p. 88).

On the other hand, there are economic and psychic costs associated with having and using material possession
attachments. Attachment represents commitment of one’s resources and self that could be invested in other
things (Belk 1988; 1992a; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981). Relying heavily upon material goods
for self-construction may restrict the range of meanings from which the self can be built. Self-cultivation
becomes limited to the domain of the marketplace, "removing the ‘infinitely rich lived world’ from experience
and replacing it with a poverty of meanings within prevailing material factivity dictated by the opaque
contingencies of the market." (Kilbourne 1991, p. 454). That is, a person’s pool of experiences is reduced by
the objects into which one extends one’s self. Kilbourne views this as limiting the developmental potential of
individuals.

Perhaps the ultimate issue is how investing one’s self in material attachments affects well-being, life
satisfaction, and happiness (Belk 1992a). What are the opportunity costs of investing one’s self into material
attachments? How do possession attachments encourage or constrain attainment of self-potential, family and
cultural preservation, and so forth? Do particular kinds of attachments (e.g., adaptive) serve more useful
purposes than other kinds (e.g., clinging to the past)? Are material attachments substitutes for something else
more desirable, or are they singular (and necessary) in their effects on self-development and life satisfaction? Is
it better to have more or fewer possessions of attachment? What cross-cultural differences relating to degree of
economic development or cultural values exist?

Summary: The Value of Material Possession Attachments

On the cost side, attachments bear opportunity costs in terms of investment of personal resources. Furthermore,
they may unreasonably constrain one’s options for self meaning making. How possession attachment correlates
with personal or collective happiness and life satisfaction is wide open for empirical investigation.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

POSSESSION ATTACHMENT: TYPOLOGIES AND METHOD ISSUES

Scholars have developed several typologies of special possession categories or meaning content.
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) identified 41 categories of objects (e.g., furniture, musical
instruments, candlesticks) and classified these into two groups: action objects and contemplation objects.
Kampter (1989) and Wapner, Remick, and Redondo (1990) employed Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton’s
(1981) typology. For other examples of special possession typologies, refer to Furby (1978), Sherman and
Newman (1977-78), or Dittmar (1992).

Integrating special possession typologies presents three challenges. One, different prompts used across studies
to elicit respondents’ special possessions probably capture different domains of possessions. Prompts asking for
“special,” “most favorite,” “most cherished,” “irreplaceable,” “most important,” or “most likely to rescue in a
fire” elicit different possessions from the same respondents (Kampter 1989). Two, study conclusions depend
upon whether possession categories are based on the investigator’s interpretation of shared meanings of the
possessions (e.g., photographs generally mean such-and-such) or upon individuals' expressed meanings for
those possessions. Three, where and when data is collected may impact the typology in ways not yet
understood. For example, do participants respond differently, depending upon which role-identity “hat” they
wear when responding? Does the location of the interview (e.g., in the home) influence the special possessions
selected or meanings expressed by respondents? Scholars using existing or developing new typologies should
carefully consider these issues to deepen our understanding of special possessions.

Measurement scale development and validation also needs empirical attention. Ball and Tasaki’s (1992)
attachment measure is the sole example in published literature of a measure (see Table 1) with reasonable
empirical support. The utility of measurement scales for use with larger samples and ability to directly evaluate
construct validity warrants additional scholarly attention to measurement scale development and validation.

To advance understanding of possession attachment, scholars should consider creative use of various methods.
Photography (Millard and Smith 1981; Wallendorf and Arnould 1988), three-dimensional stereographic images
(Holbrook 1997); object sorting (Belk 1987), projective methods (Baker, Kleine, and Bowen 2004; Belk 1986),
and q-methodology (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995) illustrate the use of methods designed to enhance
responding and elicit participants’ subjective meanings. Continued use of multiple methods will enhance
understanding of material possession attachment. As Belk (1992a, p. 55) notes,

The blend of qualitative and quantitative work that has characterized object attachment research to date
seems a promising combination that should be continued. The qualitative work is best able to explicate
the feelings and meanings of object attachments, while the quantitative work is best able to detect broad
patterns of object attachments and their relationships to such key variables as media exposure,
happiness, and changes in political and economic structures.

Summary: Possession Attachment Typologies and Method Issues

Numerous opportunities exist to enhance how we classify and study possession attachments. Factors limiting
comparability of existing typologies include: the typologies may capture different domains (e.g., favorite versus
most meaningful possessions); different typologies are not always based on the same perspective (i.e.,
investigator’s versus respondent’s); and unknown effects on results of different times and places of data
collection. Methods including photography, three-dimensional stereographic images, object sorting, projective

Academy of Marketing Science Review

methods, and Q-methodology offer opportunities for method development. Measurement scales also need
additional empirical attention. Continued use of multiple methods will enhance understanding of possession
attachment.

AGE, LIFE STAGE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT

Age, life stage, and gender are the individual differences in attachment most often studied. Generally, age, life
stage or gender differences are found in the specific possessions people identify and sometimes in their
articulated meanings for those possessions.

Age and Life Stage Differences

Older Adults - Studies portray older people as no more or less attached to their favorite things than younger
people. However, some scholars have observed age and life stage variations in special possessions and the
reasons for possession favoriteness. According to Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) and
Wallendorf and Arnould (1988), older Americans’ favorite possessions represented familial and other
interpersonal ties more often than possessions of younger respondents. In Niger, older adults’ favorite
possessions also indicated age-related status differences (Wallendorf and Arnould 1988).

Kamptner’s (1989; 1991) seminal studies investigating the developmental implications of special possessions
showed that older subjects use material possessions to negotiate life reviews and to extend themselves
temporally into the future by giving special possessions to younger family members. More recently Price,
Arnould, and Curasi (2000) confirmed this adaptive, kin-keeping role of possessions in old age. Gentry, Baker,
and Kraft (1995) and Pavia (1993) observe that similar processes may apply to younger adults facing death,
suggesting that it is not age, per se, but life stage that influences cherished possession disposition.

Children - The literature reflects at least two views of how children relate to special possessions. The traditional
and most familiar view, first associated with Winnicott (1953), suggests that young children (up to about six
years old) use inanimate objects for transitioning toward independence and self-hood. Myers’ (1985) adult
participants identified blankets, stuffed toys, and dolls as their earliest possession attachments serving comfort
and security functions. In Winnicott’s view, having these transitional objects is universal among healthy
children, implying material possession attachment is necessary for healthy psychological development of the
autonomous self.

Gulerce (1991) proposes an alternate view of the developmental functions of children’s possession attachments.
This “transformational model” regards transitional possessions not as extensions of primary caregivers, but as
extensions of self. In contrast to Winnicott’s view, Gulerce’s cross-cultural and cross-socioeconomic status
research shows that transitional object attachment is not universal, but “subject to sociocultural influences” (p.
201). Children’s self-development cycles through periods of autonomy-seeking and affiliation-seeking as
opposed to a unidirectional drive toward independence. A similar pattern was observed in Myers’ (1985) and
Kleine, Kleine, and Allen’s (1995) studies of adults’ possession attachments. How children form possession
attachments and the kinds of attachments formed have implications for lifelong relationships to material
possessions (Gulerce 1991).

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Myers’ (1985) adult participants recalled special possessions from elementary school years representing the
ability to do things. The adolescent period was characterized by possessions representing autonomy and self-
reliance balanced with maintaining affiliative ties. Recollections of special possessions from young adulthood
reflected independence and autonomy seeking while maintaining closeness and intimacy with others. No doubt,
the meaning and function of attachment possessions changes through the life cycle and in ways captured by
theories about child development (Myers 1985).

Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) characterized children’s special possessions as tending toward
more action and future-oriented use. Complementing those findings, Baker, Kleine, and Bowen (2004) found
children (ages 8-13) were already beginning to form contemplative, symbolic meanings for souvenirs they
anticipated would serve as mementos marking special places.

Most of the studies of age and life stage related attachments are descriptive in nature. Considerable opportunity
exists to investigate the age and life stage developmental implications of cherished possessions to fill in the
picture of material possession attachment through the human life cycle.

Gender Differences

Gender Differences in the Possessions Themselves - Pioneering “special possessions” scholars tended to show
that men’s and women’s special possession differ based on the possessions themselves. That is, men and
women tend to possess different kinds of objects; therefore, objects of attachment also reflect gender
differences. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) observed significant gender differences in 12 of 41
categories of "special" possessions. Participants were interviewed in their homes, where gender roles were
likely salient. Women were significantly more likely to identify sculptures, photographs, plants, plates, glass,
and textiles than men, reflecting women’s expressive, home-oriented roles. Men more often identified
televisions, stereos, tools, sports equipment, vehicles, and yard equipment, reflecting men’s action-oriented
roles. Similarly, Kamptner (1989) found that among elderly adults, men listed motor vehicles, homes, and
small appliances most often; females identified homes, dishware-silverware, and jewelry most often.

Gender Differences in the Reasons for Possession Specialness - Different scholars put their own spin on gender
distinctions, yet the theme of men as autonomy seekers and women as affiliation keepers is universal in the
gender studies. “Women and men pay attention to different things in the environment and may even value the
same things but for different reasons” (Kamptner 1989, p. 189).

Elderly women in Kamptner’s (1989) study identified interpersonal-familial associations for most important
possessions significantly more often than did elderly men. She observed a similar pattern in meanings
respondents gave for possessions they would rescue in a fire. Wapner, Demick and Redondo (1990) found that
elderly women had significantly more cherished possessions, and those possessions were more often associated
with self-other relationships. Also, women were less likely to attribute utilitarian meaning and more likely to
attribute comfort functions to special possessions than were men. Similar patterns occurred in Sherman and
Newman’s (1977-78) study of nursing home residents.

Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) found that both U.S. and Nigerian women identified favorite possessions as
"made for them or given to them by others, antiques or heirlooms that tie them to previous generations, and
representational items (e.g., photos), depicting their children, spouses, and grandchildren" (p. 539). For
example, U.S. women tended to identify handicrafts, antiques, and representational items (e.g., photographs) as

Academy of Marketing Science Review

favorite possessions. Nigerian women named silver jewelry and other objects that symbolized their connections
to other women. U.S. male respondents identified art pieces, functional items, and plants and other living
things. Nigerian men identified religious books, charms, swords, and horses that symbolized a "real or desired
authority over persons or the spiritual world" (p. 539).

Dittmar (1989) conducted correspondence analysis between types of "most important" objects and the reasons
given for their importance to adult respondents. Both male and female respondents identified instrumental and
use-related reasons for choosing "most important" things. However, men tended to cite instrumental, use-
related, and self-expressive reasons significantly more often. Women more often cited emotional and relational
reasons. The results parallel and extend Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton's (1981) conclusion that men
cherished self-referent objects of action and women preferred objects of contemplation.

Analyzing diaries of Mormon families who migrated to the western U.S. in the late 1800's, Belk (1992b) found
that more women than men reflected deep possession attachments and meanings. Belk interprets this as
possible evidence of women's orientation toward continuity with former home and family versus the masculine
perspective of journey representing separation and challenge. As Belk notes, the diary accounts also may
reflect the social desirability of expressing the "correct" gender role.

Belk and Wallendorf (1997) found that achievement in women’s special collections occurred when the
collections provided connections to other people. Achievement for men occurred when their collections
represented control and mastery over the environment.

For many cherished possessions, such as men’s sports card collections, the possessions serve both instrumental
(to trade for money or enhance the value of their possessions) and expressive functions (signifying relationships
and evoking nostalgia) (Baker and Martin 2000). When both instrumental and expressive functions are coded
into possession meanings rather than treated as mutually exclusive, results may not reveal gender differences of
any significance (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). As Dittmar (1992) observes, although gender differences in
special possessions are real, men and women have more in common than not when it comes to reasons for
attachments.

Additionally, age or life cycle stage appears to be more strongly related than gender to differences in
possessions and their meanings, in studies examining all three variables. To achieve deeper understanding of
gender and material possession attachment, scholars must move beyond descriptions of gender differences
toward explaining how gender identity influences, and is influenced by material possession attachment.

Summary: Age, Life Stage, and Gender Differences in Possession Attachment

Research to date on age, life cycle, and gender differences has been mostly descriptive. Age studies find older
people relating to special possessions differently than younger people, reflecting stage-of-life and
developmental issues. Gender studies universally find predictable differences that men versus women are more
likely to own certain special possessions. The meanings of those possessions tend to differ predictably as well--
autonomy seeking for men and affiliation seeking for women.

Describing individual differences in attachments is one way to suggest that possession attachments have
adaptive and self-developmental value. However, advancing the current literature on benefits and costs of

Academy of Marketing Science Review

cherished possessions requires a deeper look. Scholars must seek to develop a fuller understanding of the role
possessions play throughout the life cycle and in relation to various role identities characterizing the individual.

COMPARING POSSESSION ATTACHMENT WITH PLACE, BRAND, AND EXPERIENCE

ATTACHMENTS

How does material possession attachment compare to attachments with places, brands, or consumption
experiences? Research explicitly relating types of attachments would help clarify boundaries of possession
attachments, enhance understanding of the origins of possession attachment meaning and value, discourage
inappropriate conflation of different types (e.g., brand versus material possession attachment), and encourage
cross-fertilization across the related literatures. To encourage attachment scholars to broaden their scope, we
compare definitions and characterizations of material possession attachment with those for place, brand, and
consumption experience bonds.

Comparing Place Attachment and Possession Attachment

The place attachment literature, dating back to the 1960s, is remarkably interdisciplinary involving
anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, social psychologists, folklorists, environmental and architecture
scholars, and others (Low and Altman 1992; Giulani and Feldman 1993). Likewise, a variety of interpretive and
confirmatory methods characterize place attachment inquiry.

The literatures on material possession and place attachments generally do not overlap yet each reflect
remarkably similar descriptions of the two attachment phenomena. We will not report a thorough review of the
place attachment literature as reviews can be found elsewhere (e.g., Low and Altman 1992; Giulani and
Feldman 1993). However, Belk (1992a) observed that attention to place attachments “reveals the narrow
partitions that have been employed in seeking to understand our bonds to the material environment” (p. 37).
With this in mind, we identify parallels observed in the possession and place attachment literatures.

Definition and Characterization of Place Attachment - To what kinds of places do people become attached?
Places of attachment vary widely in terms of size, scope, tangibility, and direct experience (Low and Altman
1992). Adults and children alike form emotional bonds various places such as natural landscapes (e.g., the
Grand Canyon), sacred cites (e.g., Jerusalem, Stonehenge), types of architecture (e.g., cathedral), living spaces,
neighborhood spaces (e.g., city park, bicycle trail), and so on.

A challenge in comparing scholarship on possession and place attachments is the absence of a single definition
of place attachment. However, across the place attachment literature is a strong theme of person-place bonding
that develops over time via repeated interactions with place (Low and Altman 1992; Milligan 1998; Williams,
Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson 1992). Milligan (1998) offers a representative definition: place attachment
is the emotional bond formed by an individual to a physical site due to the meaning given to the site through
interactional processes. Leading to this emotional bond with place are personalization processes that make a
place or space “me” or “mine,” “we” or “ours” (Low and Altman 1992; Cooper Marcus 1992). “Places
are…repositories and contexts within which interpersonal, community, and cultural relationships occur, and it is
to those social relationships, not just to place qua place, to which people are attached” (Low and Altman 1992,

Academy of Marketing Science Review

p. 7). Emotional bonds and their meanings form the basis of place attachment. This concept of emotional
bonding runs through both the place and possession attachment literatures.
What else does place attachment have in common with material possession attachment? The following
characteristics are found in both literatures:

1. Place attachment forms with specific places (e.g., the Grand Canyon, the woods behind my house, my
room), not with categories of places (e.g., all rafting rivers) or brands of places (e.g., all Six Flags
amusement parks).
2. The place must be psychologically appropriated; self-regulation of personal and shared spaces lead to
feelings of mastery, control, and appropriation (e.g., Cooper Marcus 1992; Chawla 1992; Harris, Brown,
and Werner 1996).
3. Place attachments are self-extensions (Belk 1988).
4. Attachment to place results from decommodification and singularization; place attachments are spaces
with low perceived substitutability (Milligan 1998), similar to possession irreplaceability.
Singularization occurs through rituals of manipulating, remodeling, decorating, and otherwise
personalizing spaces (Cooper Marcus 1992).
5. Attachment to place requires a personal, interactional history with the place (Bricker and Kerstetter
2000; Moore and Graefe 1994; Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson 1992). For example,
among the strongest place attachments are bonds formed with places where people were raised and
remained most of their lives (Hay 1998; Rowles 1990). Satisfying, repeated consumption experiences,
such as outdoor recreational activities, also lead to stronger place attachments (Moore and Graefe 1994;
Stokols and Shumaker 1981). Bricker and Kerstetter (2000) found that place activity (e.g., recreational)
involvement and centrality of the activity to people’s lives led to stronger place attachment.
6. Place attachment has degree of strength, ranging from strong to weak. This is sometimes expressed as
“rootedness” (Harris, Werner, and Brown 1996; McAndrew 1998) “place dependence” and /or “place
identity” (Bricker and Kerstetter 2000; Moore and Graefe 1994). Several place attachment measurement
scales have been developed and tested: Bricker and Kerstetter (2000), and Moore and Graefe (1994);
Harris, Werner, and Brown (1996); and McAndrew (1998).
7. Place attachment is multi-faceted, involving behavior, cognition, and affect (Brown and Perkins 1992;
Low and Altman 1992). Scholars have identified multiple dimensions of place attachment. For example,
investigators of attachment to recreational settings find place attachment is comprised of two
dimensions: place dependence and place identity (Bricker and Kerstetter 2000; Moore and Graefe 1994;
Stokols and Shumaker 1981).
8. Place attachment is emotionally complex (Low 1992). Place attachments are emotional bonds often
reflecting mixed feelings. For example, place attachments may include ambivalent or negative feelings,
such as feelings of drudgery accompanying place care (Brown and Perkins 1992).
9. Place attachments evolve over time as the meaning of the self changes. “Transformations in place
attachment occur whenever the people, places, or psychological processes change over time” (Brown
and Perkins 1992, p. 284). Disruptions of place attachment illustrate how changes in place lead to
changes in self (Brown and Perkins 1992; Harris Brown, and Werner 1996; Harris, Werner, and Brown
1996; Milligan 1998; Sayre 1994; Wapner, Demick, and Redondo 1990).

Value of Place Attachments - The benefits of place attachments parallel those for possessions. According to
Brown and Perkins (1992), place attachments serve two basic functions: identity-definition and self-
continuity/change.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Place attachments and identity-definition. Place attachment contributes to self-definition, self-

continuity, self-stability (Low and Altman 1992), and communal aspects of identity (Brown and Perkins 1992)
for both children and adults (Cooper Marcus 1992). Places serve as psychic anchors (Cooper Marcus 1992)
telling personal stories of individuals, families, or other groups.

Similar to how possessions are used for defining self-boundaries, places with identification value also define
"me" (Korpella 1989). Healthy self-development in children is affected by having place attachments through
which children learn self-regulation (Spencer and Woolley 2000). Chawla (1992) and Cooper-Marcus (1992)
identify ages 6 through 12 years as an important stage when place attachments form affecting self-development.
During this phase children explore safety and independence, regulate privacy, and experience nurturance from
the natural world via places. Adults carry out similar processes to regulate privacy and balance the dialectic
between public and private selves leading to greater attachment to place (Harris, Brown, and Werner 1996).

Places are settings for experiences defining a person’s likes, preferences, and autobiography. Places also permit
self-transcendence via sacred space. Place attachment to the home is stronger when a person is able to regulate
his or her privacy in the setting, allowing feelings of control and enhanced family functioning (Harris, Brown,
and Werner 1996).

Place attachment has a social, affiliative component, similar to possession attachment. Mesch and Manor (1998)
found that the majority of urban residents expressed stronger place attachment when they had more close
friends and neighbors living nearby. Rowles (1990) describes the sense of "social insidedness" that forms with
a place where a person feels they are part of a caring community, leading to greater place attachment. Milligan
(1998) describes the social construction of place meaning leading to a collective sense of place attachment.

Place attachment and self-continuity/change. Attachment is a life course phenomenon (Low 1992) in
ways similar to possession attachment. Dislocation disrupts self-continuity (Fried 1963; 2000) and fragments
spatial and group identity. Group identity may also be disrupted by reconstruction of homes and sacred spaces
(Fried 1963). Although one’s sense of place attachment becomes disrupted by relocations at different points in
the life span, people naturally establish roots to new locations and establish new place bonds.

The adaptive function of possessions is highlighted in Rubenstein’s (1987; 1989; Rubenstein and Parmalee
1992) studies of nursing home and adult care facility residents and how they adapted to impersonal institutional
environments devoid of personal identity. Similarly studies of possession use by elderly people to adapt to
senior living quarters are also about self-transitions and adaptation to new places (Kamptner 1989; McCracken
1988; Millard and Smith 1981; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000; Sherman and Newman 1977-78; Wapner,
Demick, and Redondo 1990). Such studies about place adaptation involving possessions demonstrate the
inextricable link between place and possession attachment.

Place Attachment Benefits Versus Costs - The place attachment literature generally portrays person-place bonds
positively. Place attachment has been linked to physical health (Stokols, Shumaker, and Martinez 1983) and
psychological well-being (Brown and Perkins 1993). The well-being and healthy development of children is
affected by the formation of place attachments (Chawla 1992; Cooper Marcus 1992). Place attachments provide
opportunities for children to learn self-regulation and to grow their social and cognitive worlds (Spencer and
Woolley 2000).

Academy of Marketing Science Review

The disruption of strong place attachments delivers the negative or cost side of place attachment. Disruptions
lead to stress, coping with loss, the formation of new place attachments, and renegotiation of self (Brown and
Perkins 1992). Disruption of stronger place attachments may inhibit adaptation to new places (Fried 2000;
Harris, Werner, and Brown 1996). McAndrew (1998) found that stronger place attachment led to greater
difficulty when people had to relocate to a new place. Relocation leads to grief of loss which is intensified when
the disrupted individuals have fewer satisfactory choices for relocation (Stokols and Shumaker 1982). Giulani
and Feldman (1993) consider that whether place attachments are more beneficial than costly depends upon
cultural values.

Linking Place and Possession Attachment - McCracken (1988) illustrates beautifully the inextricable link
between possessions and place attachments in the home. The case of McCracken’s informant “Lois Roget”, the
keeper of multiple generations’ worth of deeply meaningful family heirlooms and possessions charged with
historical significance. “Her objects are so densely vested with the memory of human beings, and the human
beings so densely vested with the memory of these grand old pieces of furniture, that the two appear as different
moments in a historical process that endlessly converts ancestors into objects and objects into descendents”
(McCracken 1988; p. 53). The furniture pieces’ meanings are tied to meanings of the place in which they are
kept.

Rubenstein’s (1987; 1989) studies with older adults provide some of the best illustrations of possession-place
attachment. His work shows the home is not only a “central staging ground for being and doing by older adults,
it also acts as a repository for cherished personal possessions” (1992, p. 153) He adds that “at first glance, the
relationship between place attachment and highly valued belongings may be obscure, but in our view it is
of vital significance” (1992, p. 153, emphasis added). Rubenstein views possession rituals as part of
personalizing the home, connecting people to places. He suggests as older adults’ spatial functioning decreases,
the role of cherished possessions as identity markers and connectors to home may increase.

Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton’s (1981) study of the meaning of household possessions also examines
inseparable place and possession meanings. Disruptions of person-place bonds often involve possessions tied
with the place. Burglary, natural disasters, voluntary relocation, or family changes (e.g., death, divorce, leaving
home) all involve violation of the extended self via both place and possessions (Brown and Perkins 1992;
Dittmar 1992). Place disruption parallels possession dispossession and its process of emotionally distancing
one’s self from possessions (Sayre 1994; Roster 2001; Young and Wallendorf 1989).

Joy and Dholakia’s (1991) study of home and possessions of Indian professionals in Canada reflects coping
with place disruption. Possessions were used to mark transience, to create an environment reflecting homeland,
and to help children socialize into Indian culture. Explicitly examining both place and possessions helped reveal
how possessions were used to cope with place disruption and manage individual and family self-definitions.

Place and possession attachment converge in Vinsel, Brown, Altman, and Foss’s (1981) study about university
residence hall rooms and how students’ possession displays were intertwined with adaptation to a new place.
Students whose possession displays reflected adaptation were more likely to remain in school; those who did
not display adaptation via possessions were more likely to drop out of school.

Souvenirs also illustrate the inextricable connection between place and possession. For example, a child's
Mickey Mouse replica, purchased during a family trip to Disneyland, captures inseparable layers of individual
and collective meanings, as well as possession and place attachment. Moreover, souvenirs and other possessions

Academy of Marketing Science Review

signify bonds to places, thus compounding place and material possession attachments (Baker, Kleine, and
Bowen 2004).

Collective possessions such as monuments and other local, regional, or national shared places extend our selves
and involve both place and possession attachment (Belk 1992a). Is the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower a
place or a collective possession? Scholars should acknowledge when they are studying both kinds of attachment
and take advantage of advances in both literatures.

Goods versus Places?- The definitions and characterizations of place and possession attachments are highly
similar yet there remain distinctions between the two scholars have yet to examine. What are the implications of
being attached to a portable possession versus an immovable place? Does it matter that many places have
longevity that most goods or objects do not? What are the parallels between attachments to custom made versus
mass produced possessions and places? What about differences between the values of privately possessed
versus shared possessions and places? These and many other questions present scholars with opportunities to
examine attachments to goods versus places.

Summary: Place Attachment and Possession Attachment - The literatures on place and possession attachment do
not overlap significantly yet they reflect remarkably similar descriptions of the two kinds of attachment. Place
attachment can be defined as the emotional bond formed by an individual to a physical site due to the meaning
given to the site through interactional processes (Milligan 1998). Place attachment shares the following
characteristics with possession attachment: place attachment forms with specific, psychologically,
decommodified and singularized places; it is a kind of self-extension; its formation requires personal history
between self and place; it has degree of strength (strong to weak), is multi-faceted (cognitive, emotive, and
behavioral), emotionally complex, and dynamic. Place and possession attachment also each serve similar basic
functions: identity-definition (autonomous selves and affiliated selves) and self-continuity/change (e.g., self-
adaptation to new places). Place attachment influences well-being and healthy self-development in both
children and adults whereas disruption of place attachments leads to the psychological and emotional costs of
having them. A number of studies demonstrate the inextricable connection between the two types of
attachments. Scholars would do well to use both literatures in their work on possession and place attachments
and to examine the shared and unique benefits or costs of both types of attachments.

Comparing Brand Relations and Possession Attachment

How do person-brand relations and material possession attachments compare? Is it appropriate to generalize
concepts and empirical results about possession attachment to brand relationships and vice versa? The literature
provides some clues to address these questions.

Defining and Characterizing Brand Relationships - Brand relationships are emotional bonds with brands
formed on the basis of brand relationship quality (Fournier 1998). Brand relationships may encompass more
than a strong love for the brand. For example, Keller’s (2003, p. 93) “brand resonance” includes the dimensions
of “attitudinal attachment” (a love for the brand and sense that it is something special) and “sense of
community” (affiliation with other people associated with the brand; see also Muniz and O’Guinn 2001). People
also form “self-brand connections” with brands they find useful for narrating life stories (Escalas 1996; Escalas
and Bettman 2000).

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Exactly with whom or with what a brand relationship forms remains ambiguous. Bonds form with
anthropomorphized brands, the companies producing the brands (Fournier 1998), and/or other people associated
with the brand (Keller 2003; Muniz and O’Guinn 2001; Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Which object
(perception, producer, others users, or some combination of those) defines a specific person-brand bond may be
difficult to establish. Thus, when scholars refer to brand relationships, brand bonds, or brand attachments it may
be unclear exactly to what they are referring.

Key Distinctions Between Bonds With Brands and Possessions - Brands differ from tangible possessions with
respect to indexicality and irreplaceability. A brand is a “collection of perceptions held in the mind of the
consumer” (Fournier 1998, p. 345; see also Keller 2003, p. 4; emphasis added). Being perceptions, brands
cannot hold indexical value the same way tangible material goods do (Grayson and Shulman 2000). Also,
possession irreplaceability (Grayson and Shulman 2000) takes on a different meaning with brands. Consumers
transfer brand meaning from one instance of a product to another. Establishing brands as irreplaceable with
other brands is the ultimate goal of many marketing activities. In contrast, the singular meanings of
irreplaceable attachment possessions, by definition, cannot be transferred to another instance of the good. For
example, a cherished set of Callaway golf clubs became attachments because a father gave them to his son who
used them for father-son golf outings. When the clubs were stolen and replaced with another set of Callaway
clubs, brand meaning transferred immediately to the new clubs. However, the personal, indexical meanings of
the originals were not readily transferred to the new set. From the marketer’s viewpoint, replacement is to be
encouraged, in direct contrast to the club owner’s desire to keep the irreplaceable, original clubs.

The analogy characterizing brand relationships and possession attachments differ. Marketers’ intentions when
they create and communicate about brands, and the way consumers form meanings for brands, indicate that
brand relationships parallel interpersonal bonds (Fournier 1998). Yet this analogy has yet to be successfully
applied to understand possession attachment. The possession attachment literature suggests special possessions
often are used to establish, preserve, or adapt to interpersonal relationships, but does not portray attachments
with possessions as like relationships with other people. Given key differences involving indexicality,
irreplaceability, and characterization of each attachment type, we conclude that brand relationship is
qualitatively different from material possession attachment.

Similarities Between Brands Relationships and Possession Attachments – The literature explicitly about brand
relationships (not necessarily the vast literature on brand loyalty), shows that brand relations involve
psychological appropriation of specific brands, self-extension, and possibly a personal history between self and
brand (Escalas 1996; Escalas and Bettman 2000; Fournier 1998). Fournier refers to “stronger” and “weaker”
brand relations while Escalas and Bettman (2000) discuss the strength characteristic of self-brand connections.
Person-brand relations are also multifaceted and emotionally complex in Fournier’s (1998) conceptualization
which identifies six dimensions of brand relationship quality. Fournier also portrays the dynamic, often cyclical
nature of person-brand relationships. These characteristics are similar to those describing material possession
attachment.

Similar to possession and place attachments, brand relationships may be formed via perceived collective or
shared ownership of the brand (e.g., brand communities, Muniz and O’Guinn 2000). For example, groups may
appropriate a brand name and reframe its meaning to fit group agendas (e.g., Ritson, Elliot, and Eccles 1996),
enhancing the group’s sense of community leading to stronger brand bonding (Keller 2003). Possible questions
of interest to scholars studying collective brand attachments are: What are the characteristics of brands lending

Academy of Marketing Science Review

them to appropriation by specific sub-cultures? What are the values and consequences of such brand
relationships for the brand managers and other user segments?

Similar to possession attachment, brands of stronger bonding are used for self-definitional purposes: to
negotiate identity and resolve life issues, to relate autobiographical stories, to define “me” and “not me”, to
connect with others, for contemplation and action, and to actualize possible selves (e.g., Aaker 1997; Escalas
and Bettman 2000; Fournier 1998; Sirgy 1982). Brands serve self-stabilizing (continuity enhanced by repeated
use of meaningful brands) as well as self-change, becoming functions.

The value of person-brand bonds for self-preservation remains less than clear. Being intangible, brands cannot
be exchanged between individuals in the same way that possessions such as heirlooms or gifts can be. However,
consumers bond with “inherited” brands; brands that a mother or grandmother always used, for example. Yet
questions about how brands are involved in heirloom giving and receiving along with other questions about the
role of brands in self-preservation remain unanswered.

The self-adaptive value of brand relationships also could be better understood. How might consumers use
brands for adjusting to different life stages, personal loss, or new places and circumstances? For example,
systematic differences in how woman at three different life stages related to brands in Fournier’s (1998) study
suggest developmental issues might be involved in person-brand bonding. Also in Fournier’s study, negotiating
the status of being divorced emerged in another informant’s brand relationships. Additionally, brands may aid
adaptation to new living locations: e.g., do familiar retail brands (e.g., supermarkets, restaurants, clothing
stores) help families adjust to new places? The use of brands for self-adaptation is wide open for scholarly
investigation.

Relevance to the Consumption Cycle - Brand relationships and possession attachments apply differently at each
phase of the consumption cycle (acquisition, use, and disposition). Much of the research about brand bonding is
aimed at learning how marketers can influence consumers’ acquisition (or re-acquisition) choices. For example,
research shows that marketing activities directly influence consumers’ mindsets (Keller 2003), advertisements
may encourage self-brand connections (Escalas and Bettman 2000), and marketer created brand personalities
lead consumers to identify with and buy particular brands (Aaker 1997). In contrast, advertising and other
activities designed to influence acquisition do not appear to directly affect the formation of possession
attachment. Possession attachment forms in post-acquisition use; its formation requires personal meanings to
form between person and possession, and these meanings are not necessarily marketer influenced. Possession
attachment, unlike brand bonding, also has interesting implications for disposition of specific possessions (e.g.,
Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2003; Roster 2001; Young and Wallendorf 1989).

McCracken’s (1986) meaning transfer model provides one approach to unraveling how brand, possession, and
place meanings intersect in one special possession object (Fournier 1998). Holt (1997), Ritson and Elliot
(1999), Ritson, Elliot, and Eccles (1996), Muniz and O’Guinn (2001), and Kozinets (2001) illustrate how
marketers and consumers contribute to the social construction of multi-layered object meanings. Analyzing a
possession’s autobiography (Kopytoff 1986) also may provide clues for deconstructing layers of possession,
place, brand, or experience meanings.

Summary: Brand Relationships and Possession Attachments - Based on the literature to date, brand bonds and
possession attachments should not be regarded as the same phenomenon. Brands (as perceptions) and tangible
possessions differ in terms of irreplaceability and their potential for carrying indexical value. Brand

Academy of Marketing Science Review

relationships are characterized as analogous to interpersonal bonds, an analogy that has yet to be successfully
applied to possessions of attachment. Although the literature shows each type of bond serves similar self-
definitional purposes, it remains unclear how intangible brands apply to self-preservation or self-adaptation in
the way that tangible possession attachments do. Most research about brand relationships ultimately serves
commercial purposes while possession attachment research is oriented toward understanding the effects of
bonding with possessions on consumer well-being. Scholars should carefully pause before combining research
about possession attachments and brand bonds to consider key differences between the two person-object
bonds.

Experience Attachment and Possession Attachment

Confounding our understanding of possession attachment is the possibility that personal meanings held for
special possessions may be based upon singular experiences the possessions represent. Solomon (1986)
illustrates how a special piece of clothing may represent personal, experience-based meanings. A significant
number of respondents attributed their feelings about cherished pairs of Levi’s jeans to specific (most often
romantic) experiences. Special possessions representing singular experiences are found throughout the
attachment literature discussed above. Where does the value of such attachment possessions reside? Would it
enhance our understanding of possession attachment if viewed from the perspective of attachment to
experiences?

Definition and Characterization of Experience Attachment - Experience emphasizes process elements including
“affect, narrative, and ritual understandings” (Arnould and Price 1993). An experience is how participation or
observation affects a person in terms of how the person feels (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Holbrook and
Hirschman 1982) or what the person knows about the thing being participated in or observed (Bitner, Booms,
and Tetreault 1990). Experiences are “emotionally involving,” require “substantial mental activity,” and include
multiple “symbolic elements,” rather than tangible features (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982, pp. 96-97).

Shopping (Bloch, Sherrell, and Ridgway 1986), gift exchange experiences (Sherry and McGrath 1989),
collecting experiences (e.g., Belk, et al. 1991), sky diving (Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993), white water rafting
(Arnould and Price 1993), use of computer-mediated environments (Hoffman and Novak 1996), and sports card
show participation (Baker and Martin 2000) illustrate experiences people seek repeatedly, and become attached
to, for symbolic benefits. Thus, a working definition (which future research should develop further) of
experience attachment might indicate that it represents a personal, psychological bond to situations that deliver
sought after symbolic benefits.

Similarities to Possession Attachment - Marketing and consumer behavior scholars have not routinely examined
consumption experiences in terms of attachment. However, several parallels exist with material possession
attachment. Similar to possession attachments, experience bonds probably involve psychological appropriation
(“my experience”, “it’s me”), and consequently, self-extension (Arnould and Price 1993). The literature also
suggests that experiences of attachment are singularized through personal experience (“when I rafted down the
Little Colorado”) and become irreplaceable, inviting experience preservation consumption (e.g., photos,
souvenirs). It seems logical that a person’s bond with a particular experience can range in strength or intensity
of experience (feelings, flow, optimal stimulation level) and is emotionally complex (Arnould and Price 1993;
Hirschman and Holbrook 1982). Cherished experiences reflect both self-definitional, intra-personal meanings
and connections with others sharing the experiences (Arnould and Price 1993; Celsi et al.1993; Deighton 1992;
Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Special experiences support self-change, self-renewal, and self-continuity

Academy of Marketing Science Review

(Arnould and Price 1993). Future research should examine whether experience bonds are multi-faceted and how
they change over time or correlate with life stage or self-developmental processes.

Theoretical Perspectives - At least three lines of scholarship inform understanding of experience attachment:
optimal stimulation level, hedonic consumption, and flow. The concept of optimal stimulation level (OSL;
Berlyne 1960) partly identifies the symbolic value special experiences deliver. Empirical evidence shows that
individuals participate in experiences, such as gambling or decision making under risk, to manage their OSL
(Raju 1980; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1992). Many opportunities exist for scholars to study how various
consumption experiences lead to OSL and experience attachment.

Scholarship about hedonic consumption highlights how consumers seek experiences for the “fantasies, feelings,
and fun” they deliver (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). “Hedonic consumption
designates those facets of consumer behavior relating to the multisensory, fantasy and emotive aspects of one’s
experience with products” (p. 92). Sky diving (Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993) and white water rafting (Arnould
and Price 1993) illustrate experiences consumers seek repeatedly for their hedonic value. Special experiences
are sought to obtain the feelings evoked by them or because the experiences help tell autobiographical stories
(Arnould and Price 1993), similar to many possession and place attachments.

The concept of flow also informs our understanding of experience attachment. Flow happens when “what we
feel, what we wish, and what we think are in harmony”; it is what athletes refer to as “being in the zone”
(Csikszentmihalyi 1997, p. 27). To achieve flow an individual must have clear goals, become immersed in an
activity, pay attention to what is happening, and learn to enjoy the immediate experience (Csikszentmihalyi
1990, pp. 208-213). Flow requires active participation (as opposed to passive observation; Csikszentmihalyi
1997), as illustrated with white water rafters (Arnould and Wallendorf 1993) and sky divers (Celsi, Rose, and
Leigh 1993).

The Role of Material Possessions in Experiences - Material possessions often play a role in achieving optimum
stimulation level, feelings, or flow. For example, Celsi, Rose, and Leigh (1993) found sky divers had special
enabling possessions, such as color coordinated parachute gear. If a sky diver identifies a jump suit as a
cherished possession, it remains unclear where the locus of attachment lies: with the possession or the
experience (or both). Understanding how people are drawn to experiences leading to OSL, sought after
emotions, or flow may involve biological and motivational underpinnings related to the action or contemplation
value of possessions. To what extent do attachment experiences involve, or possibly lead to, the formation of
possession, place, or brand bonds?

Tangible possessions provide evidence of key experiences, such as with some collections, souvenirs, or flea
market purchases. Consumers obtain flow, OSL, and hedonic value from the experiences to which they are
attached. The process of collecting, involving hunting, evaluating, and gathering material things, takes
precedence for many collectors over the collectibles in driving many collectors’ behaviors (Baker 1996). The
journey and discovery of the collectible objects leads to bonding with the collecting experience. Similarly,
Sherry and McGrath (1989) observe that for some consumers shopping in gift stores, the thrill of the gift
exchange experience may be more important than the goods obtained. Also, Baker and Martin (2000) found that
sports cards dealers/collectors often participated in weekend sports card shows, not so much because they
wanted more sports cards, but because they loved the act of exchanging cards. In these, and similar cases,
people seek to repeat the ritual experience. They form an emotional and cognitive bonding to the behaviors

Academy of Marketing Science Review

involved. Each experience, while following a general ritualized script involving possession acquisition, is
unique and irreplaceable. Could experience attachment be involved in such situations?

Little research has studied experience consumption from an attachment perspective. Can or should the
experiential and symbolic paradigms be explored separately, as could be the case when studying collecting,
versus collections? Or are the experiential and symbolic dimensions inextricably linked, as in the case of many
souvenir objects (Baker, Kleine, and Bowen 2004)? As the culture of experience, as opposed to materialism,
grows many questions will remain in terms of why and how some experiences come to be the “chosen”
experience for setting goals and building skills so that flow, happiness, or life satisfaction may be sought.

Summary: Experience Attachment - An understanding of attachment to experience is important to provide

clarity about the boundaries of material possession attachment. Experiences are singularized through
participation or observation and become irreplaceable. Experiences important for self-definition, self-
expression, or self-transcendence invite experience preservation consumption (e.g., through material
possessions), another topic in need of scholarly investigation. Experience attachment, such as to sky diving or
white water rafting, represents a personal, psychological bond to situations (past, present, or future) that deliver
desired symbolic benefits, and is both affective and cognitive in nature. It is emotionally complex and involves
psychological appropriation, as well as self-definition, intra-personal, and interpersonal dimensions. The
literature on optimal stimulation level (OSL), hedonic consumption, and flow provide important bases for
developing an understanding of this construct, which is ripe for future research.

Summary: Comparing Possession Attachment To Place, Brand, and Experience Attachments

Bonds to possessions, places, brands, and experiences share at least one organizing characteristic: they are each
a type of self-extension (Belk 1988). Each type provides symbolic benefits delivering self-descriptive and self-
change/continuity value. Some types of self-extensions appear to serve these purposes better than others and in
different ways. Scholars should remain mindful of the similarities, differences, and linkages among
attachments. A few attachment investigations implicitly study more than one type of person-object bond. Yet
studies explicitly acknowledging and seeking to understand relationships among different types of attachments
are uncommon. The tangibility of possessions and places, the portability of possessions, the transferability of
brands, the inherent uniqueness of intangible experiences, or the permanence of many places give rise to their
unique meanings as self-extensions. These different self-extensions vary in their relevance at each stage of the
consumption cycle and bear different degrees of commercial interest and relevance to consumer satisfaction and
well-being. Numerous opportunities exist for clarifying similarities, differences and connections among
possession, place, brand, or experience bonds to enhance our understanding of all types of self-extensions.

POSSESSION ATTACHMENT: STATUS OF THE LITERATURE AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Academy of Marketing Science Review

in life stage development and role-identity development. Also, the complex emotional character of possession
attachment deserves further empirical attention.

We know that possessions do not need to be expensive, rare, or exotic to become objects of attachment. The
most mundane, ordinary possessions serve attachment functions well. Scholarship has yet to identify properties
of ordinary possessions that encourage or discourage attachment.

The literature portrays numerous benefits of possession attachments, yet the costs of having them remains
poorly understood. Although the costs of materialism have been studied, empirical investigations to identify
downsides of attachment, per se, are rare. Also under-investigated are shared possession attachments and group
processes involved in attaching and detaching from material possessions. Additionally, few studies examine
attachment and disposition, including processes of emotional and psychological detachment.

Comparing possession attachment to place, brand, and experience bonds opens the door for a more
comprehensive portrayal of possession attachment. These different types of self-extensions share much in
common. Yet differences involving tangibility, permanence, transferability, indexicality, and irreplaceability
distinguish them. Careful scholarship will involve consideration of similarities and differences among self-
extensions as well as potential interactions and linkages. Deconstructing layers of place, brand, or experience
meanings feeding possession attachment and understanding the role of each attachment type in the consumption
cycle offer intriguing opportunities for scholars.

Scholars should seek to understand how attachment types carry different degrees of commercial interest and
connection to self-satisfaction and well-being. Longitudinal studies examining the dynamic nature of possession
attachment also are sorely needed to deepen our theoretical understanding of attachment, its affects on well-
being, and its potential implications for marketing decisions. Ultimately, overcoming artificial boundaries
between attachment literatures, use of creative methodologies to investigate attachment, and moving beyond
basic description to delve deeper into more complex issues surrounding attachment are key to advancing
scholarship about attachment.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

REFERENCES

Aaker, Jennifer L. 1997. “Dimensions of Brand Personality.” Journal of Marketing Research 34 (August): 347-
356.

Abelson, Robert P. 1986. “Beliefs Are Like Possessions.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 16
(October): 223-250.

Appadurai, Arjun 1986. “Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value.” In The Social Life of Things:
Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Ed. Arjun Appadurai. New York: Cambridge University Press, 3-63.

Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price. 1993. “River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and the Extended Service
Encounter.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (June): 24-45.

Baker, Stacey Menzel. 1996. "Task Associative, Ego, and Extrinsic Goal Orientations: An Experiential
Analysis of Collector’s Search." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

__________, Susan Schultz Kleine, and Heather E. Bowen. 2004. “On the Symbolic Meaning of Souvenirs for
Children.” Research in Consumer Behavior 10: forthcoming.

__________ and Mary C. Martin. 2000. “The Meaning of Exchange in a Sports Card Subculture of
Consumption.” Research in Consumer Behavior 9: 173-196.

Ball, Dwayne and Lori Tasaki. 1992. "The Role and Measurement of Attachment in Consumer Behavior."
Journal of Consumer Psychology 1 (2): 155-172.

Belk, Russell W. 1985. "Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World," Journal of Consumer
Research 12 (December): 265-280.

__________.1986. “Measuring Consumers’ Meaning for Advertisements and Products.” In Advertising and
Consumer Psychology 3. Eds. Jerry Olson and Keith Sentis. New York: Praeger Publishers. 197-213.

__________. 1987. "Identity and the Relevance of Market, Personal, and Community Objects." In Marketing
and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale. Ed. Jean Umiker-Sebeok. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 151-164.

__________. 1988. "Possessions and the Extended Self." Journal of Consumer Research 15 (September):
139-168.

__________. 1991a. “Possessions and the Sense of Past.” In Highways and Buyways: Naturalistic Research
from the Consumer Behavior Odyssey. Ed. Russell W. Belk, 114-130.

__________. 1991b. “The Ineluctable Mysteries of Possessions.” In To Have Possessions: A Handbook on

Ownership and Property. Ed. Floyd W. Rudmin. Special Issue of Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality 6 (6): 17-55.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

_________. 1992a. "Attachment to Possessions." In Place Attachment: Human Behavior and Environment 12.
Eds. Setha M. Low and Irwin Altman. New York: Plenum Press, 37-62.

_________. 1992b. "Moving Possessions: An Analysis Based on Personal Documents from the 1847-1869
Mormon Migration." Journal of Consumer Research 18 (December): 339-361.

_________. 1995. Collecting in a Consumer Society, London: Routledge.

_________. 1997. “Been There, Done That, Bought the Souvenirs: Of Journeys and Boundary Crossing.” In
Consumer Research: Postcards From the Edge. Eds. Stephen Brown and Darach Turley. London:
Routledge, 22-45.

_________, Guliz Ger, and Soren Askegaard (2003). “The Fire of Desire: A Multisited Inquiry Into Consumer
Passion.” Journal of Consumer Research 30 (December): 326-351.

_________ and Melanie Wallendorf. 1997. “Of Mice and Men: Gender Identity in Collecting.” In The
Material Culture of Gender, The Gender of Material Culture. Eds. Katharine Martinez and Kenneth L.
Ames. Hanover and London: University Press of New England.

_________, __________, John F. Sherry, Jr., and Morris B. Holbrook. 1991. Collecting in a Consumer
Culture.” In Highways and Buyways: Naturalistic Research from the Consumer Behavior Odyssey. Ed.
Russell W. Belk. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 178-211.

Berlyne, D. E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Bih, Herng-Dar. 1992. “The Meaning of Objects in Environmental Transitions: Experiences of Chinese
Students in the United States.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 12: 135-147.

Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard H. Booms, and Mary Stanfield Tetreault. 1990. “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing
Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents.” Journal of Marketing 54 (January): 71-84.

Bloch, Peter H. 1983. "An Exploration into the Scaling of Consumers' Involvement with a Product Class." In
Advances in Consumer Research 8. Ed. Kent Monroe. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 61-65.

__________, Daniel L. Sherrell, and Nancy M. Ridgway. 1986. “Consumer Search: An Extended
Framework.” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (June): 119-126.

Bricker, Kelly S. and Deborah L. Kerstetter. 2000. “Level of Specialization and Place Attachment: An
Exploratory Study of Whitewater Recreationists.” Leisure Sciences 22: 233-257.

Brown, Barbara B. and D. Perkins. 1992. "Disruptions in Place Attachment." In Place Attachment: Human
Behavior and Environment 12. Eds. Irwin Altman and Setha Low, New York: Plenum Press, 279-304.

Celsi, Richard L. Randall L. Rose, and Thomas W. Leigh. 1993. “An Exploration of High-Risk Leisure
Consumption through Skydiving.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (June): 1-23.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Chawla, Louise. 1992. "Childhood Place Attachments." In Place Attachment: Human Behavior and
Environment 12. Eds. Setha M. Low and Irwin Altman. New York: Plenum Press, 63-86.

Cooper-Marcus, Clare. 1992. "Environmental Memories." In Place Attachment: Human Behavior and
Environment 12. Eds. Setha M. Low and Irwin Altman. New York: Plenum Press, 87-112.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: HarperPerennial
Books.

__________. 1997. Finding Flow. New York: Basic Books.

__________ and Eugene Rochberg-Halton. 1981. The Meaning of Things. London: Cambridge University
Press.

Curasi, Carolyn Folkman. 1999. “In Hope of an Enduring Gift: The Intergenerational Transfer of Cherished
Possessions: A Special Case of Gift Giving.” In Advances in Consumer Research 26. Eds. Eric J. Arnould
and Linda M. Scott. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 125-132.

Deighton, John. 1992. “The Consumption of Performance.” Journal of Consumer Research 19 (December):
362-372.

Dittmar, Helga. 1989. "Gender Identity-Related Meanings of Personal Possessions." British Journal of Social
Psychology 28: 159-171.

__________. 1992. The Social Psychology of Material Possessions. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson. 1996. "Narrative Processing: Building Connections Between Brands and the Self."
Dissertation. Duke University.

__________ and James R. Bettman. 2000. "Using Narratives and Autobiographical Memories to Discern
Motives." In The Why of Consumption: Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires. Eds. S.
Ratneshwar, David Glen Mick, and Cynthia Huffman. New York: Routledge Press, 237-258.

Fournier, Susan. 1998. "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research." Journal of Consumer Research 24 (March): 343-373.

Freitas, A., S.B. Kaiser, J. Chandler, C. Hall, J. Kim, and T. Hammidi. 1997. “Appearance Management as
Border Construction: Least Favorite Clothing, Group Distancing, and Identity…Not!” Sociological Inquiry
67: 323-335.

Fried, Marc. 2000. “Continuities and Discontinuities of Place.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 20
(September), 193-205.

Furby, Lita. 1978. “Possession in Humans: An Exploratory Study of its Meaning and Motivation.” Social
Behavior and Personality 6 (1): 49-64.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

__________. 1991. “Understanding the Psychology of Possession and Ownership: A Personal Memoir and an
Appraisal of Our Progress.” In To Have Possessions: A Handbook on Ownership and Property. Ed. Floyd
W. Rudmin. Special Issue of Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6 (6): 457-464.

Gentry, James, Stacey Menzel Baker, and Fred B. Kraft. 1995. "The Role of Possessions in Creating,
Maintaining, and Preserving One's Identity." In Advances in Consumer Research 22. Eds. Frank R. Kardes
and Mita Sujan. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 413-418.

__________, Patricia F. Kennedy, Catherine Paul, and Ronald Paul Hill. 1995. “Family Transitions During
Grief: Discontinuities in Household Consumption Patterns.” Journal of Business Research 34: 67-79.

Grayson, Kent and David Shulman. 2000. “Indexicality and the Verification Function of Irreplaceable
Possessions: A Semiotic Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research 27 (June): 17-30.

Greenwald, Anthony G. and Steven J. Breckler. 1985. “To Whom is the Self Presented?” In The Self and
Social Life. Ed. Barry R. Schlenker. New York: McGraw Hill.

Giuliani, M. Vittoria and Roberta Feldman. 1993. “Place Attachment in a Developmental and Cultural
Context.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 13: 267-274.

Gulerce, Aydan (1991), “Transitional Objects: Reconsideration of the Phenomenon.” In To Have Possessions:
A Handbook on Ownership and Property. Ed. Floyd W. Rudmin. Special issue of the Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality 6 (6): 187-208.

Harris, Paul B., Barbara B. Brown, and Carol M. Werner. 1996. "Privacy Regulation and Place Attachment:
Predicting Attachments to a Student Family Housing Facility." Journal of Environmental Psychology 16:
287-301.

__________, Carol M. Werner, and Barbara Brown. 1996. "Relocation and Privacy Regulation: A Cross-
Cultural Analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15: 311-320.

Hay, Robert. 1998. "Sense of Place in Developmental Context." Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 5-
29.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook. 1982. “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts,
Methods and Propositions.” Journal of Marketing 46 (Summer): 29-101.

Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak. 1996. “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated

Environments: Conceptual Foundations.” Journal of Marketing 60 (3): 50-68.

Hogg, Margaret and Paul C. N. Mitchell. 1997. "Exploring Anti-Constellations: Content and Consensus." In
Advances in Consumer Research 24. Eds. Merrie Brucks and Debbie MacInnis. Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research, 63-67.

Holbrook, Morris B. 1997. “Stereographic Visual Displays and the Three-Dimensional Communication of
Findings in Marketing Research.” Journal of Marketing Research 34 (November): 526-536.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

__________ and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. 1982. “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer
Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September): 132-140.

Holt, Douglas B. 1997. “Poststructuralist Lifestyle Analysis: Conceptualizing the Social Patterning of
Consumption in Postmodernity.” Journal of Consumer Research 23 (March): 326-350.

Ikeuchi, Hiromi, Takehiro Fujihara, and Itsuko Dohi. 1999. "Involuntary Loss of Extended Self of Victims of
Great Hanshin Earthquake and Northridge Earthquake." In European Advances in Consumer Research 4.
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 28-36.

Joy, Annamma and Ruby Roy Dholakia. 1991. "Remembrances of Things Past: The Meaning of Home and
Possessions of Indian Professionals in Canada." In To Have Possessions: A Handbook on Ownership and
Property. Ed. Floyd W. Rudmin. Special Issue of Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6 (6):385-
402.

Kamptner, N. Laura. 1989. "Personal Possessions and Their Meanings in Old Age." In The Social Psychology
of Aging. Eds. Shirlynn Spacapan and Stuart Oskamp. Newbury Park: Sage, 165-196.

__________. 1991. "Personal Possessions and Their Meanings: A Life Span Perspective." In To Have
Possessions: A Handbook on Ownership and Property. Ed. Floyd W. Rudmin. Special Issue of Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality 6 (6): 209-228.

Kleine, Robert E., III and Jerome B. Kernan. 1991. “Contextual Influences on the Meanings Ascribed to
Ordinary Consumption Objects.” Journal of Consumer Research 18 (December): 311-324.

Kleine, Susan Schultz . 2000. “Using Clothing to Bring Alive Autobiographical Memories.” Operant
Subjectivity 23 (2:, 92-115.

__________, 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 (December): 327-343.

Kilbourne William E. 1991. “The Impact of the Symbolic Dimensions of Possession on Individual Potential: A
Phenomenological Perspective.” In To Have Possessions: A Handbook on Ownership and Property. Ed.
Floyd W. Rudmin. Special Issue of Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6 (6): 445-456.

Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process.” In The Social Life of
Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Ed. Arjun Appadurai. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 64-94.

Korpela, K. M. 1989. "Place-Identity as a Product of Environmental Self-Regulation." Journal of

Environmental Psychology 9: 241-256.

Kozinets, Robert V. 2001. “Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meaning of Star Trek’s Culture of
Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research 28 (June): 67-8.

Low, Setha. 1992. “Symbolic Ties That Bind: Place Attachment in the Plaza.” In Place Attachment: Human
Behavior and Environment 12. Eds. Setha M. Low and Irwin Altman. New York: Plenum Press, 165-186.
Academy of Marketing Science Review
volume 2004 no. 01 Available: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/kleine01-2004.pdf
Copyright © 2004 – Academy of Marketing Science.
Kleine and Baker/An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment 32

__________ and Irwin Altman. 1992. "Place Attachment: A Conceptual Inquiry." In Place Attachment:
Human Behavior & Environment 12. Eds. Setha M. Low and Irwin Altman. New York: Plenum Press, 1-12.

McAdams, Dan P. 1993. The Stories We Live By: Personal Myths and the Making of the Self. New York, NY:
William Morrow & Co.

McAlexander, James H. 1991. "Divorce, the Disposition of the Relationship and Everything." In Advances in
Consumer Research 18. Eds. Rebecca Holman and Michael Solomon. Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research, 43-48.

McAndrew, Francis T. 1998. “The Measurement of “Rootedness” and the Prediction of Attachment to Home-
Towns of College Students.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (December): 409-417.

McCracken, Grant. 1986. “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of
the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods.” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (June): 71-84.

__________ 1988. Culture and Consumption, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

__________ 1989. “’Homeyness’: A Cultural Account of One Constellation of Consumer Goods and
Meanings.” In Interpretive Consumer Research. Ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman. Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research, 168-184.

Mehta, Raj and Russell W. Belk. 1991. "Artifacts, Identity, and Transition: Favorite Possessions of Indians
and Indian Immigrants to the United States." Journal of Consumer Research 17 (March): 398-411.

Mesch, Gustavo S. and Orit Manor. 1998. "Social Ties, Environmental Perception, and Local Attachment."
Environment and Behavior 30 (July): 504-519.

Millard, Peter H. and Chris S. Smith. 1981. "Personal Belonging--A Positive Effect?" Gerontologist 21: 85-
90.

Milligan, Melinda. 1998. "Interactional Past and Potential: The Social Construction of Place Attachment."
Symbolic Interaction 21(1): 1-33.

Moore, Roger L. and Alan R. Graefe. 1994. "Attachments to Recreation Settings: The Case of Rail-Trail
Users." Leisure Science 16: 17-31.

Muniz, Jr., Albert M. and Thomas C. O’Guinn. 2001. “Brand Community.” Journal of Consumer Research 27
(March): 412-432.

Myers, Elizabeth. 1985. "Phenomenological Analysis of the Importance of Special Possessions: An

Exploratory Study." In Advances in Consumer Research 12. Eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B.
Holbrook. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 560-565.

Olson, Clark. 1985. “Materialism in the Home: The Impact of Artifacts on Dyadic Communication.” In
Advances in Consumer Research 12. Eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 388-393.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Pavia, Theresa. 1993. “Dispossessions and Perceptions of Self in Later Stage HIV Infection.” In Advances in
Consumer Research 20. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 425-428.

Persig, Robert. 1974. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. New York: William Morrow.

Price, Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Carolyn Folkman Curasi. 2000. "Older Consumers' Disposition of Special
Possessions." Journal of Consumer Research 27 (September): 179-201.

Raju, P. S. 1980. “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demographics, and
Exploratory Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research 7 (December): 272-382.

Richins, Marsha . 1994. “Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Possessions,” Journal of
Consumer Research 21 (March): 504-521.

Ritson, Mark and Richard Elliot. 1999. “The Social Uses of Advertising: An Ethnographic Study of Adolescent
Advertising Audiences.” Journal of Consumer Research 26 (December): 260-277.

__________, __________, and Sue Eccles. 1996. “Reframing Ikea: Commodity-Signs, Consumer Creativity
and The Social/Self Dialectic.” In Advances in Consumer Research 23. Eds. Kim P. Corfman and John G.
Lynch. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 127-131.

Roster, Catherine A. 2001. “Letting Go: The Process and Meaning of Dispossession in the Lives of
Consumers.” In Advances in Consumer Research 29. Eds. Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent Nakamoto.
Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 425-430.

Rowles, Graham D. 1990. "Place Attachment Among the Small Town Elderly." Journal of Rural Community
Psychology 11(1): 103-120.

Rubenstein, Robert L. 1987. “The Significance of Personal Objects to Older People.” Journal of Aging Studies
1: 226-238.

____________. 1989. “The Home Environments of Older People: A Description of Psycho-Social Processes
Linking Person to Place.” Journal of Gerontology 44: S45-S53.

__________ and Patricia A. Parmalee. 1992. “Attachment to Place and the Representation of the Life Course by
the Elderly.” In Place Attachment: Human Behavior and Environment 12. Eds. Setha M. Low and Irwin
Altman. New York: Plenum Press,139-164.

Sayre, Shay. 1994. "Possessions and Identity in Crisis: Meaning and Change for Victims of the Oakland
Firestorm." In Advances in Consumer Research 21. Eds. Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder John.
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 109-114.

Schouten, John W. and James H. McAlexander. 1995. “Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the
New Bikers.” Journal of Consumer Research 22 (June): 43-61.

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.” In Advances in
Consumer Research 16. Ed. Thomas Srull. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 359-366.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Sherman, Edmund and Evelyn S. Newman. 1977-1978. "The Meaning of Cherished Personal Possessions for
the Elderly." Journal of Aging and Human Development 8: 181-192.

Sherry, John F., Jr. and Mary Ann McGrath. 1989. “Unpacking the Holiday Presence: A Comparative
Ethnography of the Gift Store.” In Interpretive Consumer Behavior. Ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman. Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 148-167.

Singer, Jefferson A. and Peter Salovey. 1993. The Remembered Self: Emotion and Memory in Personality. New
York, NY: Free Press.

Sirgy, M. Joseph. 1982. “Self Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review.” Journal of Consumer
Research 9 (December): 287-300.

Sivadas, Eugene and Ravi Venkatesh. 1995. “An Examination of Individual and Object Specific Influences on
the Extended Self and its Relation to Attachment and Satisfaction.” In Advances in Consumer Research 22.
Eds. Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder John. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 406-412.

Solomon, Michael R. 1986. “Deep-Seated Materialism: The Case of Levi’s 501 Jeans.” In Advances in
Consumer Research 13. Ed. Richard J. Lutz. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 619-622.

__________. 1988. "Mapping Product Constellations: A Social Categorization Approach to Consumption

Symbolism.” Psychology and Marketing 5 (Fall): 233-258.

_________ and Henry Assael. 1987. “The Forest or the Trees?: A Gestalt Approach to Symbolic
Consumption.” In Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale. Ed. Jean
Umiker-Sebeok. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer, 189-218.

_________ and Bruce Buchanan. 1991. “A Role-Theoretic Approach to Product Symbolism: Mapping a
Consumption Constellation.” Journal of Business Research 22 (March): 96-109.

_________ and Susan P. Douglas (1987), “Diversity in Product Symbolism: The Case of Female Executive
Clothing, Psychology & Marketing 4 (3): 189-212.

Spencer, C. and H. Woolley. 2000. "Children and the City: A Summary of Recent Environmental Psychology
Research.” Child: Care, Health and Development 26 (May): 181-198.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. and Hans Baumgartner. 1992. “The Role of Optimal Stimulation Level in
Exploratory Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research 19 (December): 434-448.

Stevenson, Gail J. and Steven M. Kates. 1999. “The Last Gift: The Meanings of Gift-giving in the Context of
Dying of AIDS.” In Advances in Consumer Research 26. Eds. Eric J. Arnould and Linda M. Scott. Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 113-118.

Stokols, D. and S. Shumaker. 1981. “People and Places: A Transactional View of Settings.” In Cognition,
Social Behavior, and the Environment. Ed. James Harvey. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 441-458.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

__________, __________, and J. Martinez. 1983. "Residential Mobility and Personal Well-Being." Journal of
Environmental Psychology 3: 5-19.

Vinsel, Anne, Barbara Brown, Irwin Altman, and Carolyn Foss. 1981. Privacy Regulation, Territorial Displays,
and Effectiveness of Individual Functioning.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38: 1104-1115.

Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric Arnould. 1988. "'My Favorite Things’: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into Object
Attachment, Possessiveness, and Social Linkage." Journal of Consumer Research 14 (March): 531-547.

Wapner, Seymour, Jack Demick, and Jose Pedro Redondo. 1990. "Cherished Possessions and Adaptation of
Older People to Nursing Homes." International Journal of Aging and Human Development 31: 219-235.

Watson, Lyall. 1992. The Secret Life of Inanimate Objects. Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books.

Williams, Daniel R., Michael E. Patterson, Joseph W. Roggenbuck, and Alan E. Watson. 1992. "Beyond the
Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place." Leisure Sciences 14:
29-46.

Winnicott, Donald W. 1953. “Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena.” International Journal of
Psychoanalysis 34: 89-97.

Young, Melissa Martin and Melanie Wallendorf. 1989. “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust: Conceptualizing
Consumer Disposition of Possessions.” In Proceedings of the AMA Winter Educator’s Conference. Ed. T.L.
Childers, et al. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 33-39.

Academy of Marketing Science Review

Understanding Material Self and Identity
No ratings yet
Understanding Material Self and Identity
4 pages
Understanding the Material Self
No ratings yet
Understanding the Material Self
5 pages
The Psychology of Property
No ratings yet
The Psychology of Property
10 pages
Relating Materialism and Attachment Richins
No ratings yet
Relating Materialism and Attachment Richins
12 pages
Yu Chen - Possession and Access Consumer Desires and Value Perceptions
No ratings yet
Yu Chen - Possession and Access Consumer Desires and Value Perceptions
16 pages
Psychological Ownership
No ratings yet
Psychological Ownership
6 pages
The Concept of Place Attachment in Environmental Psychology PDF
No ratings yet
The Concept of Place Attachment in Environmental Psychology PDF
5 pages
The Role and Measurement of Attachment in Consumer Behaviour
No ratings yet
The Role and Measurement of Attachment in Consumer Behaviour
20 pages
Hidalgo Hernandez 2002 Attachment To The Physical Dimension of Places
No ratings yet
Hidalgo Hernandez 2002 Attachment To The Physical Dimension of Places
6 pages
Measuring Place Attachment Insights
No ratings yet
Measuring Place Attachment Insights
8 pages
Theory of Attachment and Place Attachmen20211124-24601
No ratings yet
Theory of Attachment and Place Attachmen20211124-24601
38 pages
Understanding Material Self
No ratings yet
Understanding Material Self
6 pages
AP 230 - PSR - 1A - G03 - Houshold - Studies
No ratings yet
AP 230 - PSR - 1A - G03 - Houshold - Studies
14 pages
Kyle 2005
No ratings yet
Kyle 2005
26 pages
Place Attachment Assessment of A Heritage Place A Cas - 2018 - Frontiers of Arc
No ratings yet
Place Attachment Assessment of A Heritage Place A Cas - 2018 - Frontiers of Arc
10 pages
UTS Final Reviewer Lesson 1 To 3
No ratings yet
UTS Final Reviewer Lesson 1 To 3
100 pages
Place Attachment and Place Identity in N PDF
No ratings yet
Place Attachment and Place Identity in N PDF
10 pages
Place Attachment and Place Identity in Natives and Non-Natives
No ratings yet
Place Attachment and Place Identity in Natives and Non-Natives
10 pages
Attachment Theory and Place Bonds
No ratings yet
Attachment Theory and Place Bonds
39 pages
Uts G6 Draft
No ratings yet
Uts G6 Draft
7 pages
2010 Tripartite Scannell PDF
No ratings yet
2010 Tripartite Scannell PDF
10 pages
Measuring Place Attachment With The Abbr
No ratings yet
Measuring Place Attachment With The Abbr
32 pages
Place Attachment 2
No ratings yet
Place Attachment 2
8 pages
Understanding the Material Self
No ratings yet
Understanding the Material Self
2 pages
Understanding Material Values and Identity
No ratings yet
Understanding Material Values and Identity
8 pages
Workplace Attachment Styles
No ratings yet
Workplace Attachment Styles
26 pages
Its Personal The Effect of Personal Value On Utilitarian Moral Judgments 1
No ratings yet
Its Personal The Effect of Personal Value On Utilitarian Moral Judgments 1
6 pages
Uts Finals Reviewer
No ratings yet
Uts Finals Reviewer
12 pages
Jean-Paul Satre: Managing The Material Self
No ratings yet
Jean-Paul Satre: Managing The Material Self
21 pages
Ferraro, Escalas, Bettman - 2011 - Our Possessions, Our Selves Domains of Self-Worth and The Possession-Self Link-Annotated
No ratings yet
Ferraro, Escalas, Bettman - 2011 - Our Possessions, Our Selves Domains of Self-Worth and The Possession-Self Link-Annotated
9 pages
Understanding Material Possessions
No ratings yet
Understanding Material Possessions
4 pages
The State of Psychological Ownership Integrating A
No ratings yet
The State of Psychological Ownership Integrating A
47 pages
Measuring Place Attachment With The Abbreviated Place Attachment Scale (APAS)
No ratings yet
Measuring Place Attachment With The Abbreviated Place Attachment Scale (APAS)
12 pages
THEORYOFATTACHMENT
No ratings yet
THEORYOFATTACHMENT
39 pages
The Value of Possessions - More Than Just Things
No ratings yet
The Value of Possessions - More Than Just Things
1 page
To Buy or Not To Buy. That Is The Question
No ratings yet
To Buy or Not To Buy. That Is The Question
2 pages
Exploring the Material Self
No ratings yet
Exploring the Material Self
6 pages
Belk 2010
No ratings yet
Belk 2010
7 pages
Diener & Hagen. The Power of Place in Place Attachment
No ratings yet
Diener & Hagen. The Power of Place in Place Attachment
6 pages
Synopsis References
No ratings yet
Synopsis References
3 pages
Place Attachment in University Students Social Antecedents 2ayay6iani
No ratings yet
Place Attachment in University Students Social Antecedents 2ayay6iani
49 pages
History and Understanding The Self
No ratings yet
History and Understanding The Self
23 pages
UTS Finals Reviewer Lesson 1 To 3
No ratings yet
UTS Finals Reviewer Lesson 1 To 3
100 pages
Counted ESPSpring2016x
No ratings yet
Counted ESPSpring2016x
26 pages
Material Self and Identity Formation
No ratings yet
Material Self and Identity Formation
29 pages
Piso 3
No ratings yet
Piso 3
16 pages
Chou, Yu-Kai - Actionable Gamification - Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards-Octalysis Media (2015) - 157-187
No ratings yet
Chou, Yu-Kai - Actionable Gamification - Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards-Octalysis Media (2015) - 157-187
31 pages
Understanding The Self Module 2 Lesson 2
No ratings yet
Understanding The Self Module 2 Lesson 2
4 pages
Developmental Model of Place Attachment
100% (1)
Developmental Model of Place Attachment
12 pages
Uts Module 5
No ratings yet
Uts Module 5
19 pages
Lewicka2011 PDF
No ratings yet
Lewicka2011 PDF
24 pages
New Model for Measuring Sense of Place
No ratings yet
New Model for Measuring Sense of Place
21 pages
Chapter 2 Lesson 3 Managing The Material Self
No ratings yet
Chapter 2 Lesson 3 Managing The Material Self
37 pages
Understanding The Self - Managing The Material Self
No ratings yet
Understanding The Self - Managing The Material Self
35 pages
The Material Self
No ratings yet
The Material Self
6 pages
Cas 5 Exo
No ratings yet
Cas 5 Exo
10 pages
Greenhaus Et Powell 2006
No ratings yet
Greenhaus Et Powell 2006
22 pages
Galateanu 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 400 062009
No ratings yet
Galateanu 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 400 062009
9 pages
Consequences ETF
No ratings yet
Consequences ETF
17 pages
Constructing Markets and Organizing Boundaries 1
No ratings yet
Constructing Markets and Organizing Boundaries 1
8 pages
Constructing and Using Nascent Market Labels
No ratings yet
Constructing and Using Nascent Market Labels
56 pages
2014ValueofValueMarketing Theory
No ratings yet
2014ValueofValueMarketing Theory
5 pages
Navigating US-Japan Business Negotiations
No ratings yet
Navigating US-Japan Business Negotiations
6 pages
Complaint Management
33% (3)
Complaint Management
22 pages
Performance Evaluation & Control of Sales Force
No ratings yet
Performance Evaluation & Control of Sales Force
28 pages
Addressing Social Media Addiction in Schools
No ratings yet
Addressing Social Media Addiction in Schools
9 pages
Assignment Sociology of Education and Psychological Theories
No ratings yet
Assignment Sociology of Education and Psychological Theories
2 pages
Sensation and Perception
100% (1)
Sensation and Perception
13 pages
Celebrity Movement
100% (17)
Celebrity Movement
12 pages
Ucla PTSD Reaction Index For Chldren and Adolescents - Dsm-5 Version© Page 1 of 9
No ratings yet
Ucla PTSD Reaction Index For Chldren and Adolescents - Dsm-5 Version© Page 1 of 9
9 pages
MODULE-1 (Management Function Behaviour
No ratings yet
MODULE-1 (Management Function Behaviour
30 pages
Individual Inventory Report
100% (1)
Individual Inventory Report
2 pages
Development of The Research Competencies Scale
No ratings yet
Development of The Research Competencies Scale
18 pages
FS 1 Module 1
100% (1)
FS 1 Module 1
193 pages
The Facts About Gemini
100% (1)
The Facts About Gemini
5 pages
Foundations of Physiological Psychology
No ratings yet
Foundations of Physiological Psychology
3 pages
Influence Change Without Authority
100% (2)
Influence Change Without Authority
18 pages
Scoring Rubrics for Performance Assessment
No ratings yet
Scoring Rubrics for Performance Assessment
36 pages
Career Counseling
100% (3)
Career Counseling
12 pages
ACT Manual for Substance Abuse Counselors
No ratings yet
ACT Manual for Substance Abuse Counselors
9 pages
Compound Interest Problem Solving
No ratings yet
Compound Interest Problem Solving
4 pages
Lesson 9 Vygotsky Socio Cultural Theory AutoRecovered
100% (1)
Lesson 9 Vygotsky Socio Cultural Theory AutoRecovered
3 pages
Introduction To Ergonomics
No ratings yet
Introduction To Ergonomics
22 pages
Understanding Knowledge Types
79% (19)
Understanding Knowledge Types
6 pages
Grade 12 Uniforms & Self-Discipline
No ratings yet
Grade 12 Uniforms & Self-Discipline
2 pages
Counseling and Discipline for Productivity
No ratings yet
Counseling and Discipline for Productivity
18 pages
Qualities Behind Climbing Everest
No ratings yet
Qualities Behind Climbing Everest
2 pages
Keynote Intermediate End-Of-course Test B Answer Key
100% (3)
Keynote Intermediate End-Of-course Test B Answer Key
3 pages
Limitless Mind PDF
No ratings yet
Limitless Mind PDF
95 pages
Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Learning
No ratings yet
Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Learning
8 pages
الاقناع اسسه واهدافه في ضوء اسلوب القران الكريم PDF
No ratings yet
الاقناع اسسه واهدافه في ضوء اسلوب القران الكريم PDF
42 pages
Team & Group Module-3
No ratings yet
Team & Group Module-3
17 pages