Notes on Peck & Shu (2009) - The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership

Paper: “The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 434–47.

Main Topic or Phenomenon Addressed

This paper investigates how the simple act of touching an object influences consumers’ feelings of ownership toward that object, even in the absence of legal ownership. The research examines the psychological mechanisms through which mere touch creates a sense of ownership and how this translates into increased valuation of objects.

Theoretical Construct

Perceived Ownership (Psychological Ownership): Distinct from legal ownership, this construct is characterized by the feeling that something is “mine” even without actual legal possession. It reflects an individual’s psychological attachment to an object based on feelings of control, intimate knowledge, and self-investment in the object.

Key Definition: “Psychological ownership is distinct from legal ownership and is characterized by the feeling that something is ‘mine.’”

The paper also introduces affective reaction as a mediating construct - the immediate emotional response (positive or negative) generated through touching an object.

Key Findings

1. Primary Finding: Mere touch increases perceived ownership of objects for both buyers (nonowners) and sellers (owners).
2. Mediation Effects: The relationship between touch and valuation is mediated by two distinct pathways:
   • Perceived ownership (always increases with touch)
   • Affective reaction (depends on touch valence¹)
3. Imagery Substitution: When touch is unavailable, ownership imagery (“imagine taking this home”) can substitute for touch in increasing perceived ownership and valuation.
4. Touch-Imagery Interaction: Ownership imagery is most effective when touch is unavailable; when touch is available, imagery provides no additional benefit.
5. Valence Matters: For pleasant-to-touch objects (Slinky), touch increases both perceived ownership and positive affective reaction, leading to higher valuation. For unpleasant-to-touch objects (Playfoam), touch still increases perceived ownership but decreases affective reaction, resulting in no net increase in valuation.

Boundary Conditions or Moderators

Touch Valence: The most critical moderator identified is whether the touch experience is pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant:

• Pleasant/neutral touch → increased valuation through both perceived ownership and positive affective reaction
• Unpleasant touch → no increase in valuation (competing effects of increased perceived ownership vs. decreased affective reaction)

Availability of Touch: The effectiveness of ownership imagery depends on whether physical touch is available:

• When touch unavailable → imagery significantly increases perceived ownership and valuation
• When touch available → imagery has no additional effect

Role (Buyer vs. Seller): While not explicitly tested as a moderator, the research suggests that sellers may be more influenced by touch than buyers when both groups are present simultaneously, potentially due to ownership status salience.

Building on Previous Work

Extends Endowment Effect² Literature: Traditional endowment effect research focused on legal ownership differences between buyers and sellers. This paper introduces perceived ownership as a psychological construct that can be manipulated independently of legal ownership.

Advances Haptic Research: Previous touch research examined information acquisition and product evaluation. This paper identifies a new mechanism - ownership feelings - through which touch influences consumer behavior.

Methodological Innovation: First to directly measure perceived ownership and statistically test its relationship to valuation, moving beyond the typical buyer-seller paradigm.

Challenges Assumptions: Questions the assumption that touch effects are solely informational, demonstrating psychological ownership as an alternative pathway.

Major Theoretical Contribution

The paper makes three significant theoretical contributions:

1. Establishes Perceived Ownership as Mediator: Introduces and validates perceived ownership as a key psychological construct that mediates the relationship between touch and valuation.
2. Dual-Process Model: Demonstrates that touch influences valuation through two independent pathways - perceived ownership (always positive) and affective reaction (valence-dependent).
3. Extends Endowment Effect Theory: Shows that endowment-like effects can occur without legal ownership through psychological mechanisms, broadening the scope of ownership research.

Major Managerial Implication

For Traditional Retailers: Encouraging product touch can increase perceived ownership and willingness to pay, explaining the link between touch and impulse purchases. The “try before you buy” strategy gains theoretical support.

For Online/Catalog Retailers: When touch is impossible, ownership imagery (“imagine this in your home”) can effectively substitute for physical touch to increase perceived ownership and purchase likelihood.

Product Strategy: Companies should consider the tactile properties of their products - ensuring pleasant touch experiences can enhance valuation, while unpleasant touch may not provide the expected benefits despite increasing ownership feelings.

Warning Validation: Supports the Illinois attorney general’s 2003 warning about retailers encouraging both touch and ownership imagery as potentially manipulative sales tactics.

Real-World Examples to Illustrate the Framework

Example 1: Apple Store Strategy When you walk into an Apple Store, every device is available for hands-on interaction. According to Peck & Shu’s framework:

• Touch Experience: Customers can pick up, hold, and use iPhones/iPads
• Perceived Ownership: Touching creates “this feels like MY phone” feelings
• Affective Reaction: Smooth, premium materials create positive touch sensations
• Outcome: Higher willingness to pay the premium price due to both ownership feelings and positive touch experience

Example 2: Car Dealership Test Drives

• Touch Experience: Customers grip the steering wheel, adjust seats, feel materials
• Perceived Ownership: “This could be my car” feelings develop during the drive
• Affective Reaction: Leather seats, smooth controls create positive sensations
• Outcome: Increased likelihood of purchase beyond just performance evaluation

Example 3: Online Retailer Compensation (IKEA) Since customers can’t touch online:

• Imagery Substitution: IKEA uses room visualizations and “imagine this in your home” messaging
• Perceived Ownership: Customers mentally place furniture in their actual rooms
• Outcome: Creates ownership feelings without physical touch
• Return Policy: 365-day returns reduce risk of negative post-purchase touch experiences

Example 4: Touch Valence in Action (Clothing Store)

• Pleasant Touch (cashmere sweater): Soft texture → increased ownership feelings + positive affect → higher willingness to pay
• Unpleasant Touch (scratchy wool): Rough texture → increased ownership feelings but negative affect → no increase in willingness to pay (competing effects cancel out)

Framework in Action - The Complete Process:

1. Touch Opportunity → Customer handles product
2. Dual Pathway Activation:
   • Path A: Touch → Perceived Ownership → Higher Valuation
   • Path B: Touch → Affective Reaction (+ or -) → Higher/Lower Valuation
3. Final Outcome: Net effect depends on whether positive affect reinforces or negative affect counteracts ownership feelings

Unexplored Theoretical Factors

Several potentially important moderators were not explored:

Individual Differences:

• Need for Touch (NFT) individual differences - only briefly mentioned but not systematically tested
• Cultural differences in ownership concepts and touch norms
• Age-related differences in touch preferences and ownership attachment
• Gender differences in haptic processing and ownership feelings

Product Characteristics:

• Product category effects (hedonic vs. utilitarian)
• Price level influences on ownership thresholds
• Product complexity and the role of expertise
• Brand familiarity and its interaction with touch

Contextual Factors:

• Social presence and public vs. private touch situations
• Time pressure and its effect on ownership development
• Store atmosphere and environmental factors
• Cross-cultural contexts and touch taboos

Process Variables:

• Duration of touch and ownership development over time
• Frequency of touch interactions
• Order effects (touch before vs. after other product information)
• Competing products and comparative touch experiences

Temporal Dynamics:

• Persistence of ownership feelings after touch
• Decay rates of perceived ownership
• Long-term ownership and attachment development

Reference

Peck, Joann and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 434–47.