Content area
Full text
Introduction
Psychological ownership, which focuses on individual attitudes and behaviors concerning the perceived ownership of objects, has recently attracted the attention of researchers in marketing (Atasoy and Morewedge, 2018; Gineikiene et al., 2017; Kuchmaner et al., 2019; Peck et al., 2013; Peck and Shu, 2009; Stoner et al., 2018; Truong et al., 2016). Empirical studies have reported that non-owners and potential buyers can develop psychological ownership through customer empowerment, ownership imagination or even merely physically touching a product (Fuchs et al., 2010; Lessard-Bonaventure and Chebat, 2015; Peck and Shu, 2009). Advertising that incorporates ownership-implying language appears frequently in the public media, as shown in slogans adopted by several major brands. These include, for example, ALIPAY, the core business of the Alibaba group (“my ALIPAY, my style”), Didi Chuxing (“Didi, your driver, one in a million”) and Vivo (“Vivo, our mobile phone”). This advertising strategy is not only used by corporations but also used by governments. For example, a national brand campaign launched in 2016 by the Chinese Government adopted ownership-implying language for its slogan (i.e. “national brand plan, inheriting our creation”) to collectively build a reputation for domestic products. However, consumers’ “ownership” of brands expressed in these advertising appeals is actually “pseudo-ownership” because those who purchase a product do not own the brand. Thus, an advertising appeal that uses ownership-implying language, such as possessive pronouns paired with a brand name, is described as “pseudo-ownership appeal.” The effect of this pseudo-ownership advertising appeal remains unclear. For example, it has not been determined whether pseudo-ownership advertising appeal effectively induces psychological ownership of the advertised brand, consequently shaping brand evaluations and purchase intentions. If so, the possessive pronoun (e.g. “my,” “our” or “your”) that most effectively induces psychological ownership and positive consumer responses in specific target markets (e.g. individual/collective oriented consumers and potential/current customers) remain to be determined.
The theoretical framework of psychological ownership theory suggested pseudo-ownership appeal would induce consumers’ psychological ownership of the advertised brand via an egocentric categorization of the brand as part of the self (Dagogo-Jack and Forehand, 2018; Weiss and Johar, 2013; Weiss and Johar, 2016). Four experiments explored the effects of pseudo-ownership advertising appeal on psychological ownership and consumer responses toward both a single business brand...