How Is a Possession ''Me" or ''Not Me"?

Characterizing Types and an Antecedent

of Material Possession Attachment
SUSAN SCHULTZ KLEINE
ROBERT E. KLEINE III
CHRIS T. ALLEN*

Material possession attachment, a property of the relationship between a specific

person and a specific object of possession, reflects the extent of "me-ness" as-
sociated with that possession. The two Q-methodological studies reported here
investigated the nature of this me-ness (and "not me-ness"). Study 1 explores
different types of attachment and how these types portray various facets of a per-
son's life story (i.e., identity). It shows how strong versus weak attachment, affiliation
and/or autonomy seeking, and past, present, or future temporal orientation combine
to form qualitatively distinct types of psychological significance. Study 2 begins
development of a nomological network encompassing attachment by showing how
mode of gift receipt (self-gift vs. interpersonal gift), as an antecedent, influences
attachment type. Study 2 also examines aspects of successful and unsuccessful
gifts. Both studies demonstrate that unidimensional affect fails to adequately descritje
or explain attachment. Together, the two studies suggest a more parsimonious way
to represent person-possession relationships than has been offered in previous
studies. Moreover, the findings heip delineate the boundaries of attachment (e.g..
What does it mean to say a possession is "not me"?).

M aterial possession attachment is a property ofthe

relationship between a specific individual and a
specific material possession. Possessions of strong at-
tachment are more closely held to the proximal self,
are more affectively charged or cathected (Ball and Ta-
saki 1992; Belk 1987, 1988; Wallendorf and Arnould
1988), and are more positively valenced (Schultz,
Kleine, and Kernan 1989) than objects of lesser attach-
ment.
Possessions to which there is attachment help narrate
a person's life story; they reflect "my life." One kind of
strong attachment reflects a person's desirable connec-
tions with others. For example, one person's photo-
graphs signify "people who were important to me at
*Susan Kleine and Robert Kleine are assistant professors of mar-
keting, College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
85287-4106. Chris T. Allen is professor of marketing. University of
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221. Study 1 is based on the first au-
thor's dissertation (University of Cincinnati, 1989), which Chris Allen
supervised; Karen A. Machleit and David C. Lundgren were com-
mittee members and their contributions gratefully are acknowledged.
The authors thank Dwayne Ball, Marsha Richins, and Peter Reingen
for their many helpful comments on earlier drafts, and Deborah Lav-
erie and Julie Huntley for their help with study 2 data collection.
Last, but not least, the authors sincerely appreciated the many helpful
comments of the editor, associate editor, and two reviewers. Their
suggestions led to substantial improvements in the article.
327
one time in my life," a daughter's ring portrays her
mother's love, and another person's piece of furniture
reflects his family heritage. Another kind of attachment
portrays key' aspects of a person's individuality. Ex-
amples include a suit that "makes me feel good about
myself"; a ring that signifies "my first real job"; or pos-
sessions that fit "me." Least favorite possessions (weak
attachments) often represent a period in life from which
a person wishes to disconnect, or objects that are "not
me." In this way, attachments help narrate the devel-
opment of a person's life story.
Conceptualized as artifacts of life stories, strong at-
tachments are characterized by afliliation and auton-
omy seeking and a specific temporal orientation (e.g.,
past, present, or future; Schultz et al. 1989). Different
combinations of these characteristics yield qualitatively
distinct types of attachment; each type is used for cul-
tivating a different facet of one's life story, as the two
studies we describe below portray. Study 1 describes
qualitatively distinct types of attachment that individ-
uals use to portray their life stories. Study 2 begins de-
veloping a nomological network encompassing attach-
ment by investigating mode of gift receipt as an
antecedent that influences type of attachment. Study 2
also examines aspects of successful and unsuccessful
gifts. Together, the two studies offer a more parsimo-
nious way to represent material possession attachment
© 1995 by JOURNAL O F CONSUMER RESEARCH. Inc. • Vol. 22 • [Jccember 1995
All rights reserved. 0O93-5301/96/2203-OOO7$2.0O
 328
than has been offered in previous studies. We also dem-
onstrate that attachment is not unidimensional evalu-
ative affect (cf. Wallendorf and Arnould 1988). Finally,
as we examine both strong and weak attachments, our
findings illuminate what it means to say a possession is
nor me (Cohen 1989).
LIFE STORIES AND TYPES
OF ATTACHMENT
Investigators generally agree that individuals use at-
tachments to define and maintain their identities (e.g..
Ball and Tasaki 1992; Belk 1988; Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton 1981;Dittmar 1992; Kamptner 1991;
Myers 1985; Schultz et al. 1989; Wallendorf and Ar-
nould 1988). Identity is reflected in one's life narrative,
or life story, capturing various roles including past,
present, and anticipated future selves. My life narrative
describes the path of my identity development; it defines
who I am, who I have been, who I am becoming, and/
or who I am no longer.
Identity development is often examined through life
stages (e.g., Erikson 1968; Kamptner 1991). Yet there
are basic, archetypal modes of existence that underlie
life stages that motivate identity development (Kegan
1982) and are reflected as basic themes in life narratives
(McAdams 1985). These provide the fundamental di-
mensions of attachment.
Themes Reflected in Life Stories
A broad survey of the literatures about the self and
human nature reveals two archetypal modes of human
behavior that motivate development of the self: (1) af-
filiation versus autonomy seeking and (2) temporal
change versus stability management. Although there are
ostensibly other themes in the self literatures, one is
struck by the universal use of these two (e.g., Kegan
1982). Moreover, life narratives reflect these two themes
(McAdams 1985).
Archetypal Theme 1: Affiliation versus Autonomy
Seeking. People are motivated universally to establish
and maintain a personal and unique identity, distinct
from that of others (i.e., autonomy seeking), while at
the same time they are motivated to maintain inter-
personal connections that also define the self (i.e., af-
filiation seeking). Possessions reflect autonomy seeking
when they evidence individual accomplishments, dis-
tinctiveness, uniqueness, independence, self-control, or
other aspects of individual integrity (Schultz et al. 1989).
Likewise, affiliation seeking is apparent when posses-
sions reflect connections with others, with one's heritage
or tradition, or with occasions spent with important
others or reflect being in touch with or cared for by
others (Schultz et al. 1989). Although Western psy-
chology traditionally equates the autonomous self with
a person's "me," this conceptualization suggests that
affiliation-oriented possessions are just as much me as
those that reflect a person's individuality.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Affiliation and autonomy seeking underlie life-stage
development theories (see, e.g., Kegan 1982; McAdams
1985). At certain times in our lives we emphasize one
task or the other. For example, the identity stages of
toddlers or adolescents emphasize the autonomy-seek-
ing theme; at other times affiliation seeking dominates
a particular life stage. Maturity is defined by an ability
to engage both aspects of one's identity when needed
(Altman 1976; Kegan 1982). Although cultural differ-
ences affect the degree to which each mode is valued,
both are experienced by men and women of all ages
(Kegan 1982). Indeed, our constant struggle to negotiate
affiliation and autonomy seeking "may be our experi-
ence of the unitary, restless, creative motion of life it-
self" (Kegan 1982, p. 107).
Thus, if possessions to which there is attachment re-
flect identity development, they should exhibit affilia-
tion and/or autonomy seeking (Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton 1981; Schultz etal. 1989; Wallendorf
and Arnould 1988). Conversely, affiliation or autonomy
will tend not to be associated with possessions to which
individuals are relatively unattached (i.e., not me;
Schultz et al. 1989). An object of low attachment thus
indicates the absence of identity relevance or, in some
cases, its "has been/it's not me any longer" quality.
Archetypal Theme 2: Managing Identity Change ver-
sus Stability. A second protean theme in the identity
literatures is the evolutionary character of life stories.
Life narratives include an individual's current under-
standing of the present self, of past selves that are being
carried on, of past selves that are being let go, and of
anticipated selves (Erikson 1968; McAdams 1985). The
dialectic tension between stability (i.e., maintaining a
facet of identity) and change (i.e., acquiring or discard-
ing a facet of identity) is another motivator of devel-
opment of the self.
Temporal change versus stability thus should be re-
flected in possessions to which there is attachment (Belk
1988, 1990; Schultz et al. 1989). By their very nature,
concrete material things help us to maintain a "personal
archive or museum" (Belk 1988, p. 159), providing a
sense of permanence in the world. Material objects are
also used in the processes of becoming by signaling that
a desired identity is developing (Markus and Wurf 1987;
Solomon 1983; Wicklund and Gollwitzer 1982). Fi-
nally, we sometimes use material possessions to dis-
connect from, or to shed, old selves (Belk, Sherry, and
Wallendorf 1988; Myers 1985). By dispossessing our-
selves of a symbol of a former self, we aid the process
of leaving the past behind. Thus, possessions create a
tangible residue of past, present, and possibly antici-
pated future identity development.
A special possession, therefore, could facilitate self-
continuity by connecting a person with a desirable past
self (e.g., memories), a present self (me now), or a future
self (who I am becoming). A least favorite possession
could aid self-change by disconnecting an individual
from a past, "has been," no-longer-desired self. Thus,
MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT
affiliation, autonomy, and temporal orientation interact
to symbolize different facets of a person's life story.
Types of Attachments
The proposed conceptualization portrays attachment
as though it were located in a multidimensional space.
A point in this attachment space represents a specific
combination of more or less affiliation, more or less
autonomy, and past, present, or future temporal ori-
entation. This spatial metaphor suggests there are qual-
itatively distinct types of attachments depending on the
portion of the life story each attachment reflects. For
example, an individual's family heirloom reflects a past-
affiliation mode. This same person's attachment to an
engagement ring reflects a future, affiliative self. A third
favorite possession, such as a sports trophy, reveals a
present, autonomy-seeking aspect of the person's life
story. Finally, an old T-shirt (a least favorite possession)
represents a past, now soured relationship.
The point is that individuals possess portfolios of at-
tachments—each attachment reflecting different com-
binations of affiliation, autonomy seeking, and past,
present, or future temporal orientation. These quali-
tatively distinct attachment types reflect different facets
of the life narrative. For example, accomplishing affil-
iative we-ness is a very different, and often opposing,
task from autonomous me-ness. Moreover, temporal
orientation helps explain the self-related tasks repre-
sented by a particular possession. Elements of our past
arefixed,done, and cannot be changed. We may choose
to keep certain possessions as artifacts of our life stories
or dispose of them. Yet present-oriented possessions
reflect tasks in the here and now; they reflect issues of
who I am now that currently are being cultivated.
This line of thought suggests that affiliation, auton-
omy, and temporal orientation work together for iden-
tifying fully the reasons for a possession attachment and
how it reflects the life narrative. For the two studies
reported below, we were interested in exploring how
temporal orientation combines with affiliation and au-
tonomy seeking to describe and explain qualitatively
distinct attachment types. For example, is affiliation or
autonomy more often focused on the workable present
or the unchangeable past aspects of one's identity? What
self-developmental issues are revealed through least fa-
vorite possessions that people still own?
STUDY 1
Methodology
Study 1 explored different types of attachment by
eliciting individuals' personal sentiments of favoriteness
and unfavoriteness about a wide variety of possessions.
We accomplished this through Q-methodology (Ste-
phenson 1953). Q-Methodology includes the Q-sort,
which is a comparative rating task in which individuals
rank order a Q-sample (i.e., a set of stimuli) with respect
to certain instructions (e.g., "Describe why this posses-
329
sion is a cherished one"). When participants' Q-sort
data are factor analyzed, each resulting factor represents
a group of people who ranked Q-sample stimuli simi-
larly. For this study, each factor represents a type of
attachment. Interpretation of each factor is based on
the Q-sample statements that are most and least char-
acteristic of that factor (i.e., attachment type). These
statements come from a Q-sort model, or prototypical
Q-sort, constructed for each factor. We also obtained
responses to open-ended questions to more fully inter-
pret the factors (Schlinger 1969).
We chose Q-methodology for several reasons. The
sorting task serves as a projective device (Kerlinger
1988). Through sorting, subjects express the relative
importance of various factors explaining their attach-
ment (something impossible with a measurement scale).
This allowed participants to reveal which combinations
of the proposed attachment dimensions were most use-
ful for describing their subjective viewpoints. Moreover,
the method allowed us to examine whether possession
liking or disliking is important for explaining attach-
ments. Last, Q-methodology uniquely walks the delicate
line between discovery and confirmation. The investi-
gator places general premises in the open while bringing
to the fore subjects' perspectives, which become the ba-
sis for conclusions. Thus, the method is ideal for in-
vestigating phenomena, like attachment, that are con-
ceptually underdeveloped (i.e., have no empirically
supported nomological network).
Participant Selection. Thirty individuals performed
Q-sorts, a sample size common in Q-method research
(e.g.. Brown 1980; Kerlinger 1988; McKeown and
Thomas 1988). The participants were college students
between the ages of 20 and 28. All were junior and se-
nior co-op students working their way through college.
Several were married or engaged to be married; all came
from midwestern or eastern U.S. blue-collar or middle-
class backgrounds.
The Q-Sample. The Q-sample is the set of stimuli
participants Q-sort; we designed 54 written statements
for our stimuli (see the Appendix). To thoroughly op-
erationalize our conceptualization of attachment, we
used a factorial design model to construct Q-sample
statements 1-42 (Brown 1980; Kerlinger 1988). The
"factors" correspond to the dimensions of attachment.
Our design is a 2 (strong attachment/me or weak at-
tachment/not me) X 2 (affiliation or autonomy) X 3
(past, present, or future temporal orientation) design.
Protocol data from Schultz et al.'s (1989) study pro-
vided a pool of natural language from which we pur-
posively sampled phrases about most and least favorite
possessions. In that study, judges coded subjects' open-
ended responses about most and least favorite posses-
sions into the categories of affiliation, autonomy, and
past, present, or future orientation. Use of respondents'
terminology facilitates sorting and reduces our chance
of misinterpreting respondents' meanings (McKeown
and Thomas 1988). Finally, Q-sample statements 43-
 330
54 (see the Appendix) reflect positive, negative, or neu-
tral affect that appeared frequently in Sehultz et al.'s
data. The statements for liking (no. 43) and disliking
(no. 54) represent Wallendorf and Arnould's (1988)
operationalization of attachment as approach-avoid-
ance affect.
The a priori categories for the Q-sample items serve
to ensure domain coverage yet are designated through
our external observer's viewpoint. The a priori desig-
nations represent a template that is kept in view during
interpretation, but the investigators' primary respon-
sibility is to let the participants speak for themselves
through the Q-sorting procedure. Thus, the template
remains fluid and open to change throughout the in-
terpretation of results, which implies that a statement's
prior designation may be changed during interpretation.
Possession Elicitation. We reasoned that a variety of
possessions would lend itself to exploration of different
attachment types. Yet, because attachment is not prod-
uct category specific, we also wished to see how attach-
ment might vary within category. Thus, from each par-
ticipant, we elicited four possessions: most cherished
possession, most favorite piece of clothing, least favorite
piece of clothing, and car. Upon arrival at the research
location, each participant filled out a questionnaire
which elicited the four possessions for which Q-sorts
would be performed. Investigators often regard posses-
sions that are "most cherished" or "most favorite" to
be strong attachments (e.g., Dittmar 1992; Kamptner
1991; Myers 1985; Sehultz et al. 1989; Wallendorf and
Arnould 1988). So, the questionnaire asked the partic-
ipant to "please think about the various things you
have—your material possessions. Think about your
most favorite, most cherished, most difficult to part with
material possessions. These things do not have to be
expensive or worth a lot of money—^just anything you
have which is very important to you. List below your
most favorite, most cherished, most difficult to part with
material possessions." The participant listed two to five
most cherished possessions. The next instruction stated:
"Now, please go back and select the one possession
which is your most favorite of those you listed. Then,
circle that object." Participants then answered similar
questions that asked for "your most favorite piece of
clothing" and "your least favorite piece of clothing."'
Clothing was selected because it has abundant meaning
for the self (Solomon 1985), and pretesting revealed
that subjects could respond about their attachment to
most or least favorite clothing. If the participants listed
a car as their most favorite, they were asked to circle
'In another study, student participants sorted a set of 48 ordinary
possessions from "like me" to "not like me" (Belk 1987, 1988). This
possession set included commonly owned objects—e.g., photographs,
car, wallet, and jeans—and included a participant's most and least
favorite possessions. Results showed that favorite possessions are more
central (like me) and least favorites less central (not like me) to the
self.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
their second most favorite thing from their favorite
possession list to be used for sorting task 1.
Q-Sort Administration. After filling out the posses-
sion-elicitation questionnaire, each participant per-
formed four sorting tasks: (1) most favorite possession,
(2) most favorite piece of clothing, (3) car, and (4) least
favorite piece of clothing.
Attached to a table were 54 blank, yellow, 3" X 5"
index cards, arranged in an 11-column quasi-normal
pattern into which subjects were asked to fit the 54 Q-
sample statements.^ Each of the 11 columns was marked
with a score from +5 (most characteristic) to - 5 (least
characteristic); the 0 column was labeled "neutral/don't
know/irrelevant."
Each participant was given a brief overview of the
procedure. Then the participant was given a well-shuf-
fled pile of 3" X 5" white index cards. On each card was
written one of the 54 Q-sample statements. The partic-
ipant first familiarized himself/herself with the state-
ments. Next, the participant divided the cards into three
piles, representing those statements that were (a) most
characteristic of the possession, {b) least characteristic
(most uncharacteristic) of the possession, and (c) the
remainder. After this initial sorting, the participant then
sorted the cards into the 11 columns of" the Q-sort dis-
tribution.
The participant was instructed, once s/he had sorted
all 54 cards, to reexamine the sort to be sure it repre-
sented his/her thoughts and to rearrange statements as
necessary. When the participant signaled completion,
the investigator collected the cards and recorded the
responses. The participant then responded, in writing,
to open-ended questions that asked (for the most cher-
ished possession sorting task): (1) "How did you acquire
it?" (2)"Where do you keep it and why?" and (3) "Why
is it a favorite?" For the most and least favorite clothing
sorting tasks, participants were asked, (1) "How did you
acquire it?" and (2) "Why is it (not) a favorite?" For
the car, the questionnaire asked, "Why did you sort the
cards the way you did?" This sequence was repeated
for each sorting task. Each participant was then de-
briefed.
Data Analysis
Factor Analysis of Q-Sort Data. The data for all
four sorting tasks combined were analyzed according
to standard Q-methodology procedures (see, e.g.. Brown
1980). First, we performed a principal components
analysis on the 54 (number of items in the Q-sample)
X 111 (number of participants' possessions) data ma-
^The number of statements (bottom row below) placed beneath
each of the 11 columns (-5 to +5 in top row below) appeared as
follows:
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
3 3 4 6 8 9 8 6 4 3 3
MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT 331

TABLE 1
STUDY 1 OBJECTS LOADING ON EACH FACTOR

Keeping memories of others It's me and 1 like it It's not me anymore Utiiity Breaking away

Objects loading on factor
Percentage gifts
Percentage most favorite
Percentage female
Pictures, snapshots, photo Shorts, stereo, car, summer Blouse, s/i/rt," sundress,' Car, car, car. Car, T-shirt, car.
aibums, wedding ring, family dress, jeans, jeans. T-stjirt,' sport coat,' car, car. -shorts,'
pictures, computer, car, car. jeans, shirt, suit. sttirt, skirt outtit,' car, car. -wool jacket
photo aibums, stereo. overalls," car, red suit. sweatstiirt,' vest,' -car
sweater,* car, diamond ring," T-sttirt, phone, tie, dress. skirt,' Hawaiian stiirt.
ring," music, fishing rod, car. sweater, biouse, car. sweater, car, jacket,'
coin collection, summer stereo, jeans, car, shirt. jeans, gym shorts.
dress, car, dress,* T-shirt, jacket, motorcycle, car. car, sweater, jeans.
bracelet," sweater, letterman golf clubs, car, cassette pink shirt,' sweater,'
jacket, engagement ring, fiy recorder, ring skirt, old shorts, -car
rod, dog, higt> school
uniform, car, car, trophies.
boxer shorts, dad's wailet.
shorts, car, flannel shirt," suit
pants, —television, —suit
vest, -T-stiirts,' -famiiy
pillow, —car, —car
21 4 52 n.a. 33
(7/34) (1/24) (11/21) (1/3)
88 100 9 n.a. 67
(30/34) (24/24) (2/21) (2/3)
43 43 37 37 40
(19/44) (13/30) (9/24) (3/8) (2/5)

NOTE. Least favorite objects are in //a//cs. Minus sign before object indicates it loaded negatively on the factor. Percentage gifts and percentage most favorite
objects loading on a factor are caicuiated after removing the number of cars that loaded on that factor. The car, as is described in the text, was not specified a priori
as most or least favorite, and we did not ask participants to specify whether it was received as a gift, n.a.. Not applicable.
"Object received as a gift.

trix.^ Note that, because the possessions are the "vari-
ables," sample size for analysis is determined by the 54
Q-sample stimuli. This analysis yields factors of pos-
sessions. Participants whose possessions group on a
particular factor sorted the statements essentially the
same way, from the many thousands of possible ways
to sort the 54 Q-sample statements."*
In this study, each factor represents a type of posses-
sion attachment. If there were only one type of posses-
sion attachment, all the participants would sort the Q-
sample similarly. This would yield one factor with most
favorites loading positively and least favorites nega-
tively. Alternatively, if participants' did not find the Q-
sample statements useful for expressing their attach-
ments, we would not be able to interpret the factors.
The conceptualization is upheld if the factors "corre-
spond to major variables of the theory" or conceptu-
alization (Kerlinger 1988, p. 517). The study 1 data
yielded five interpretable factors (see Table 1). Inter-
••Participants who failed to sort into the Q-sort distribution were
omitted from analysis. Resulting sample sizes were sorting task 1
= 29, sorting task 2 = 28, sorting task 3 = 29, and sorting task 4
= 25,
'Varimax rotation consistently gave superior results with these data.
Factors are retained more for their theoretical, as opposed to statistical,
significance (Brown 1980, p. 46). Heuristics used to determine the
number of factors to retain include (a) Retain factors on which at
least two persons load highly (Brown 1980), {b) Use Schlinger's (1969)
index numbers, and (c) Retain conceptually sensible factors (Brown
1980; Kerlinger 1988; McKeown and Thomas 1988). Scree plots
(Kerlinger 1988) also can be used as rules of thumb.
pretation of each factor's viewpoint is based on that
factor's Q-sort model.
Constructing the Q-Sort Models. A Q-sort model is
constructed for each factor. Conceptually, the Q-sort
model is a distribution of Q-sample statements proto-
typical of the viewpoint of those individuals who load
heavily on the factor. The Q-sort model is constructed
by first computing factor scores for each Q-sample
statement. The larger the magnitude of a statement's
factor score (i.e., absolute value), the more characteristic
or prototypical that statement is of the factor's view-
point. Next, on a factor-by-factor basis, the Q-sample
statements are arranged according to factor score—from
highest positive to lowest negative score. Finally, to fa-
cilitate interpretation and presentation, each ofthe 54
Q-sample statements is assigned to a column in the Q-
sort distribution used in data collection (i.e., assigned
a score from +5 to —5). This is done by assigning the
three Q-sample statements with the largest positive fac-
tor scores to the +5 (most characteristic) column ofthe
Q-sort distribution. The next three largest positive factor
scores are assigned to the next (+4) column in the Q-
sort distribution. This process continues until all that
remains are the three Q-sample statements with the
most negative factor scores; these statements are as-
signed to the least characteristic (—5) column. The re-
sulting Q-sort model reveals a type of attachment.
Interpreting the Q-Sort Model. Factor interpreta-
tion is based on the Q-sample statements most and least
indicative of a factor. Each statement's a priori category
332 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

serves as a template for interpretation. But until the Responses to the open-ended questions reinforce this
researcher observes how participants use each statement viewpoint. Factor 1 possessions signify "people who
vis-a-vis the entire Q-sample, the template remains fluid were important to me at one time" (participant 5's
and open to change. For example, statement 4, "It ties [P5's] photographs) or "belonged to someone very dear
me with memories and experiences," was frequently to me" (P25's grandmother's charm bracelet). Partici-
used in pretest protocols coded as autonomy seeking. pant 29's computer came from his brother, who "taught
Yet subjects might use statement 4 in conjunction with me how to use it before he passed away." Participant
affiliation statements, whereupon we would consider it 19 acquired interest in his favorite music from his older
to be portraying an aspect of affiliation. Participants' brother and friends; PI 8 acquired his varsity letterman's
written responses to the open-ended questions supple- jacket through team participation. The eight cars load-
ment interpretation. ing positively on Fl have sentimental associations such
as P82's: "It's an old car and I believe one should not
Results forget the past. My father likes it and has worked on it
. . . it reminds me of him."
Through factor analysis we identified five groups of The past orientation of Fl possessions provides a
participants, each representing a different type of at- sense of personal history:
tachment (see Table 1). Table 1 shows each possession
and whether the possession was received as a gift. 4. It ties me with memories
As we describe each factor's viewpoint, we report the and experiences. +5 0+4 0 +5
most and least indicative Q-sort model statements. We 44. It makes me feel senti-
list to the right of each statement five factor scores rep- mental or nostalgic. -¥4 - 1 +1 +1 +3
resenting the ranking of the statement for each of the 1. It reminds me of past ac-
five factors. An italicized factor score corresponds to complishments or other
the factor being discussed. A large positive score (+5, important events in my
+4, +3) indicates a highly indicative statement; a large life. +5 0+1 - 1 +1
negative score (-5, - 4 , -3) shows a most opposite —25. It doesn't have anything
statement for a factor. Reporting all five scores aids in to do with past events in
cross-factor comparisons. For example, we report my life. -3 0-3 0 -5
statement 8 as -34. It does not remind me of
8. It fits my image. 0 +5 - 5 - 2 +4 anyone from my past. - 5 +2 - 1 - 3 -2
So statement 8 is not indicative of factor 1 (0) or factor The past affiliation may be vvith important others "who
4 (-2), most indicative of factor 2 (+5) and factor 5 I never got to know" (P26's photographs), or with
(+4), and the opposite of factor 3 (-5) for which it someone who remains part of the participant's life
indicates a possession that "does not fit my image." (P27's wedding ring). Moreover, the intent to carry per-
sonal history into the future reveals the self-continuity
Factor 1 (Fl): Keeping Memories of Others. Forty- theme of Fl:
four possessions loaded on this factor, six of them neg-
atively. Participants ascribed affiliation-seeking motives - 3 3 . I probably will not care
to these possessions: about it in the future. -3 +2 +4 +2 +2
31. I do not plan to have it in
16. It reminds me of a person the future. -3 +1 +3 +4 0
who is important to me
now; +5 - 1 +2 - 2 - 4 Affect statements indicate the possessions' emotional
17. It reminds me of my par- significance:
ents or other family mem- 46. It makes me happy. . + i +4 - 3 - 2 0
bers. +5 - 1 +1 +1 - 4 45. It reminds me of some-
15. It reminds me of good thing I feel proud of. +3 0 -2 +1 -1
times with family or —49. I would not be upset if it
friends. +•# +1 +2 - 1 +1 were lost or stolen.
18. It makes me feel loved or -4 +1 +5 -5 -1
-48. It has no special meaning
cared for. +4 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 4 for me—it's just some-
12. It reminds me of an im- thing I have. -5+1+1+3-3
portant friend from my —47. I have no feelings for it. —4—\ +2 - 4 +1
past. +5-3 0-1+3
- 5 1 . I really do not like it at all. -3 - 4 +4 - 4 - 2
—37. It does nothing to help me
feel loved or cared for. -5+1 0+1+3 Yet liking of an Fl possession (Q-sample statement 43)
-40. It is unlikely that I will does not explain its significance. Affiliation and self-
keep it as a reminder of maintenance motives are better explanators ofthe Fl
my friends or family. -4 +3 + 2 + 2 0 type of attachment.
MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT 333

43. I really like it. +2 +5 -5 +2 +2 Temporally, the F2 type of attachment reflects the
here and now. And, although there is hint of the future,
Two least favorite clothing items loaded on this fac- the possession is not central to an aspirational self:
tor. Participant 9O's high school uniform (that she keeps
yet no longer uses) reflects sentimental associations, 11. It shows who I am becom-
while P99's uncomfortable suit pants have affiliative ing. 0 + i - 2 - 4 +1
connotations because he received them as a gift. 21. It makes me similar to
Six possessions loaded negatively on this factor, re- people I aspire to be like. 0 +J —3 —3 — 1
flecting a viewpoint that is the opposite of the Fl view- 27. I could easily be myself
point just described. Participant 97's least favorite without it. +2 +4 +5 0 +2
clothing item (T-shirts) "represent an image and a pe- 32. I could become who I
riod in life which I prefer not to be associated with," want to be without it. +1+5+5 0+1
demonstrating an intent to disconnect from the past, Consistent with F2's self-esteem connotations is a
or a self-change motive. Thus, we conclude that Fl rep- tone of liking and contentment:
resents a type of attachment that is characterized by
affiliation and self-continuity seeking. 43. I really like it. +2 +5 - 5 +4 +2
- 5 1 . 1 really do not like it any-
Factor 2 (F2): It's Me, and I Like It! For its 30 more. - 3 -4 +4 - 4 - 2
possessions, F2 reflects autonomy seeking with a present 46. It makes me happy. +3 +4 - 3 +2 0
temporal orientation. In contrast to Fl, F2 has a dis- -52. It makes me sad. 0 - 5 - 1 - 1 +1
tinctive me orientation: - 5 3 . It reminds me of some-
thing I feel bad about. - 2 - 5 - 1 - 2 +2
8. It fits my image. 0 +5 - 5 - 2 +4
5. It is a statement of who I A number of the F2 possessions reflect a realized de-
am now. 0 +4 - 4 - 3 0 sire such as P28's Guess overalls, which "I wanted really
-26. It doesn't fit my image any- bad." Again the self-assertion of one's tastes, style, and
more. 0-4+3+2-1 personality—one's me—is evident. Thus, we conclude
that F2 reflects present-oriented autonomy seeking.
-24. It used to be me, but not
anymore. -2-3 0-1+2 Factor 3 (F3): It's Not Me Anymore. Twenty-three
-38. It makes me feel out of possessions loaded positively on this factor; one loaded
style. -1-^+2+1 0 negatively. Participants would not mind if these pos-
sessions were removed from their lives and seem to be
Factor 2's self-esteem flavor reflects the me of the pres- contemplating disposition:
ent, an autonomous self, able to reflect on, appreciate,
and enjoy its own image. A blouse makes P2 "feel ex- 49. I would not be upset if it
pensive and unique"; P29's red summer suit "makes were lost or stolen. -4+1+5-5-1
me feel good about myself (more confident) when I 33. I probably will not care
wear it." about it in the future. - 3 +2 +4 +2 +2
Person-possession "fit" is also evident in P37's Notre 31. I do not plan to have it in
Dame sweater, which "represents a college favorite," the future. - 3 +1 +3 +4 0
and P24's old concert T-shirts, which represent "my These possessions do not fit. They are "not me now"
favorite group." Golf clubs (P33), stereos (P9 and P24), and "not who I am becoming":
a motorcycle (P7), or cassette recorder (PI 1) represent
playful activities that define me (I am a golfer or I like 26. It doesn't fit my image any-
The Who). Leisure pursuits or athletic play may also more. 0-4+5+2-1
be motivated by unique opportunities for accomplish- - 8 . It fits my image. 0 +5 - 5 - 2 +4
ment (i.e., an element of autonomy seeking). Moreover, - 5 . It is a statement of who I
F2 is distinctively not affiliation oriented: am now. 0 +4 -4 - 3 0
27. I could easily be myself
40. It is unlikely that I will without it. +2 +4 +5 0 +2
keep it as a reminder of 32. I could become who I
friends or family. - 4 +3 +2 +2 0 want to be without it. +1+5+5 0+1
- 1 3 . It reminds me of an im- 41. It has nothing to do with
portant family member my future. +1 0 + i +1 - 2
who is gone now. +1 - 5 - 4 +2 - 1 -10. It is a statement of who I
-20. It will help me carry on a would like to be. -1+2-5-5 0
tradition. +2 -3 - 3 - 1 0 - 9 . It has to do with my goals
—35. It reminds me of some- for the future. 0 + 1 -4 - 3 - 2
one from my past I —21. It makes me similar to
would rather forget. - 2 -3 - 1 - 2 +5 people I aspire to be like. 0 +3 —J —3 — 1
 334 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Participant 22's collarless blue shirt "doesn't do me 50. It is basically a functional,

any justice" and P34's pink dress shirt is "not very utilitarian object. -1 -1 0+5-1
masculine." Generally, these possessions are out of style 29. It is strictly utilitarian. -1-2 0+5-3
and do notfitthe participant's self-image, taste, or pref- 3. It has always related well
erences. Any connection with the object is a carryover to my needs. +1 +2 - 2 +J - 3
from the past: 6. It makes me feel indepen-
dent and self-sufficient. + 1 + 2 - 2 +5 +3
4. It ties me with memories
and experiences. +5 0+4 0 +5 Questionnaire responses reinforce this utilitarian ori-
-25. It doesn't have anything to entation. The car is "practical, basic transportation to
me" (P24), and "it gets me where I want to go and
do with past events in my
doesn't leave me stranded" (PI2). These participants
life. -3 0-3 0 -5 like their cars, but there is no evidence of attachment:
For example, P38 says "I used to like v-neck sweaters 43. I really like it. +2 +5 - 5 +4 +2
but now I very much dislike them." Participant 28's —51. I really do not like it any-
jean skirt is "no longer me." And PlO's secondhand more. - 3 - 4 +4 -4 - 2
sports coat from his grandfather captures "bad mem- 48. It has no special meaning
ories." Not surprisingly, F3 possessions are associated to me—it's just something
with negative aflfect: I have. - 5 +1 +1 +3 -3.
51.1 really do not like it any- Furthermore, F4 cars are neither affiliation nor au-
more. tonomy oriented:
- 3 - 4 +4 - 4 - 2
—43. I really like it. +2 +5 - 5 +4 +2 36. It has nothing to do with
-46. It makes me happy. +3 +4 -3 +2 0 my heritage. -2+1 0 +'^ - 2
—22. It has to do with an im-
Why, then, do participants keep these possessions? portant relationship. +1 - 2 - 2 -5 -3
We had asked participants how they acquired each of - 5 . It is a statement of who I
the possessions (except for the car sorting task). We un- am now. 0 +4 - 4 -3 0
covered an interesting pattern with respect to gift receipt -34. It does not remind me of
(see Table 1): 52 percent of the F3 (not me) noncar anyone from my past. - 5 +2 - 1 -3 -2
possessions were gifts, whereas, of the noncar posses-
sions associated with affiliation seeking (Fl), 21 percent These possessions may be obstacles to emerging
were received as gifts, and only 4 percent of the noncar selves:
autonomy possessions (F2) were gifts. Thus, having re- 39. It makes me diflferent
ceived a possession as a gift is more strongly associated from people I aspire to be
with weaker, not-me attachment (F3) than with stronger like. -1 0 0 + i +2
attachment (x2(F3 vs. Fl) = 6.41, clf= \,p< .05, Cra-
—21. It makes me similar to
mer coefficient C = .34; X^(F3 vs. F2) = 13.32, df= 1,
p < .05, C = .54). Apparently, gift receipt adds a layer people I aspire to be like. 0 +3 - 3 - J +1
of affiliation that makes even not-me objects more dif- 31. I do not plan to have it in
ficult to dispossess. Moreover, gift receipt may distin- the future. -3+1+3+4 0
guish types of attachment (X^(F1 vs. F2) = 3.99, df= 1 -10. It is a statement of who I
p < .05, C = .26). would like to be. -1+2-5-5 0
— 11. It shows who I am becom-
Two more of the F3 possessions connect their par- ing. 0 +3 - 2 -4 +1
ticipants to other people: P27's Hawaiian shirt, which —9. It has to do with my goals
he bought for a dance he attended with a girlfriend, and for the future. 0 + 1 -4 - i -2
P31 's pea-green blouse, which she bought for a Hallow-
een party. These affiliative connotations feed F3's am- Qverall, F4 represents possessions that serve present
bivalence—"It's no longer for me, but I can't get rid of utilitarian needs, and there is no evidence of emotional
it"—which is unique to this type of attachment. In fact, connections to them. Factor 4 portrays functional pos-
we have discovered that "least favorites" are not nec- session importance that is not explained by affiliation,
essarily weak attachments, but instead a different type autonomy, or temporal orientation.
of attachment that reflects emerging or anticipated self- Factor 5 (F5): Breaking Away. Three participants
change. loaded positively and two negatively on F5. Foremost,
F5 has a heavy past element:
Factor 4 (F4): Utilitarian Possessions. Seven cars
loaded positively on this factor; one loaded negatively. 4. It ties me with memories
These cars meet participants' basic needs for transpor- and experiences. +5 0 + 4 0 + 5
tation: 44. It makes me feel senti-
mental or nostalgic. +4 - 1 +1 +1 +3
MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT 335

12. It reminds me of an im- capture a type of attachment that reflects disconnection

portant friend from my from a part of one's self (self-change). Ambivalence,
past. +3-3 0-1+5 evident in F3 and F5, portrays the tension between self-
2. It reminds me of who I change and stability seeking through disconnection
used to be. +1 - 2 +1 0 +4 from old aspects of me (F3) or old relationships (F5).
-25. It doesn't have anything to The combinations of affiliation, autonomy, and past,
do with past events in my present, or future temporal orientation characterize
life. -3 0-3 0 -5 these qualitatively distinct types of attachment. Also,
- 2 3 . It has nothing to do with because cars reflected various types of attachments, the
who I was in the past. —1 0 0 0—5 results illustrate that attachment is not inherent in a
-17. It reminds me of parents product category.
or other family members. +5 —1 +1 +1 —4 Additionally, our results suggest that affect is inad-
equate for describing or explaining attachment, in con-
These possessions are linked to the participants'
trast to Wallendorf and Arnould's (1988) operational-
selves: ization of attachment as approach-avoidance affect.
8. It fits my image. 0 +5 - 5 - 2 +4 Liking occurred with the me attachments (F2), but not
-29. It is strictly utilitarian. -1-2 0+5-5 with the affiliative ones (Fl). Thus, liking does not
identify attachment. Moreover, liking was associated
Factor 5 possessions make the participants feel dis- with utilitarian possessions (F4), so liked objects are
tinct, typically an autonomy-seeking task:
not necessarily attachments.
7. It makes me feel unique, Finally, having received a possession as a gift is as-
not like everyone else. +2 +2—1 —2 -\-4 sociated with attachment in two ways: (1) gift receipt
-30. It is easy for anyone to is more strongly associated with weaker not-me attach-
have; it's not very unique. 0 +3 +3 +3 - 5 ment (F3) than with stronger attachment (Fl or F2),
and (2) gift receipt may distinguish between types of
Yet F5 is associated with negative feelings and bad
strong attachment (Fl vs. F2). We found this discovery
memories: especially intriguing and conducted study 2 to further
54. It reminds me of frustra- examine how mode of possession acquisition influences
tion or stress. - 2 - 2 - 2 +2 +5 attachment type.
35. It reminds me of someone
from my past I would
rather forget. - 2 - 3 - 1 - 2 +5 STUDY 2
37. It does nothing to help me
feel loved or cared for. -5+1 0 +1 +5 Our goal in Study 2 was to begin developing a no-
-18. It makes me feel loved or mological network encompassing attachment by ex-
cared for. + 4 - 2 - 1 -2 -4 ploring how mode of gift receipt, as an antecedent, in-
fluences attachment. The literature identifies two types
Participant 27's T-shirt "reminds me of an old very of gifts based on the giver: interpersonal gifts (see, e.g..
serious girlfriend who moved away." Participant 29 has Sherry 1983) and self-gifts (Mick and DeMoss 1990).
"various feelings about my car. I really like it yet it Things we receive from others will tend to symbolize
makes me feel so frustrated at times." As we would our relationship with the giver, especially if they are
expect from this ambivalence, neither liking nor dislik- more cherished possessions. Hence, we expected that
ing reflects this factor. Factor 5 is a type of attachment interpersonal gifts ("other" gifts) that become most fa-
that reflects the negotiation of self-change and the psy- vorite possessions would be more likely to reflect affil-
chological challenges of letting go. iation themes and to be associated with self-continuity
seeking, reflected in a past to present temporal orien-
Summary and Discovery tation.
Analyzing data from the four sorting tasks together In contrast to other-gifts, self-gifts are more me. They
revealed that the largest difference in the data was strong are things we buy for ourselves as rewards for accom-
versus weak attachment. We uncovered four types of plishments, to reinforce self-images of worth and com-
attachment: strong, affiliative, past-oriented attachment petency, or for self-comfort (Mick and DeMoss 1990).
(Fl); strong, present-autonomy-oriented attachment Thus, in accordance with the me-now orientation of
(F2); weak, not-me attachment (F3); and a "mixed" self-gifts, we anticipated that a favorite self-gift is more
(stronger than I like it) attachment (F5). A fifth factor likely to reflect autonomy seeking and be more present
reflected utilitarian (nonattachment) possessions (F4). oriented. Finally, we expected that least favorite self-or
Most favorite objects captured desirable connections other-gifts would reflect an absence of affiliation or au-
(self-stability) with others (affiliation) or reflected as- tonomy themes and a desire to disconnect from the
pects of one's individuality (autonomy). Least favorites past.
 336 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Methodology ignated - F l ) . Although the +F1 and - F l groups rep-

resent two ends of a common continuum, we will
Again, Q-methodology was used to elicit participants' interpret them as distinct groups to aid expositional
sentiments about most or least favorite self- and other- clarity.
gifts. A purposively selected convenience sample of 24
adults each performed two Q-sorts (for a most and a Positive Factor 1 (+FI): Keeping Memories of Oth-
least favorite possession). Two participants were ers. Seven most favorite other-gifts, plus one least fa-
dropped from the final analysis for deviating widely vorite other-gift, load positively on Fl. Each of these
from the Q-sort distribution. The remaining sample of favorite other-gifts also cross loads onto F2 (see Table
22 adult participants varied widely in age (from 21 to 2; we explain in the discussion the importance of these
71 years, X = 37 years) and life experience. It included cross-loadings). As anticipated, participants ascribed af-
10 males and 12 females. filiation-seeking motives to these mostly other-gifts:
Each of the participants was randomly assigned to
one of two versions of a questionnaire that elicited the 16. It reminds me of a person
possessions used as stimuli for the Q-sorts. Question- who is important to me
naire version A elicited first a most favorite self-gift and now. +5 -1 +3 +4
then a least favorite other-gift. Version B elicited first 22. It has to do with an im-
a most favorite other-gift and then a least favorite self- portant relationship. +5 -4 +2 -2
gift.^ Instructions to elicit most favorite self-gifts were 18. It helps me feel loved and
modeled after Mick and DeMoss (1990): "Please think cared for. +5 -1 +1 +2
of possessions you have that are: (a) things you bought 17. It reminds me of my par-
for yourself for having accomplished a personal goal, ent(s) or other family
to cheer yourself up because you were feeling down, for members. +4 0 0+2
your birthday, or when you had extra money to spend, 13. It reminds me of an im-
(b) most cherished, most favorite, (c) tangible, (d) things portant family member
you still have." We asked participants to identify two who is gone now. +4 -3 +2 +2
to five of these possessions. The participant then chose . 19. It helps me feel in touch
one of those possessions, described it in writing, and with something.
explained why he or she bought it. The other possessions +3 +1 +2 0
15. It reminds me of good
were elicited similarly, with instructions adjusted ap-
propriately for whether the desired possession was a times with family and
most or least favorite, and a self- or other-gift. friends. +3 +3 +4 0
—37. It does nothing to help me
After describing the most favorite self-gift (or other- feel loved and cared for. -4 0 0+1
gift), the participant then performed a Q-sort for that
possession following procedures used in study 1. The Positive factor 1 possessions reflect family affiliations,
study 1 Q-sample was augmented for study 2 by adding as illustrated by P19's gold Mickey Mouse watch, re-
three items—taken from or inspired by Bloch's (1983) ceived as a Father's Day gift on a family trip to Dis-
enduring involvement scale^designed to elucidate the neyland, and P30's love letters from her husband. Par-
hedonic or pleasure-seeking motive that might underlie ticipant 17's garnet ring from her mother represents a
attachments (see the Appendix). Data analysis and in- "gesture of her love." And PI 5's out-of-print book was
terpretation followed the same procedures used for specially obtained for him by his wife. Even P16's sun-
study 1. glasses (least favorites) were from his wife. Moreover,
+F1 possessions are linked with heritage and tradition
Results that the participants wish to maintain:
Principal components analysis with varimax rotation 4. It ties me with memories
uncovered four factors, or groups of possessions. Table and experiences. +3 +5 +5 +5
2 shows the factor pattern matrix, each possession, the 14. It involves my heritage or
participant's age and gender, whether the possession a tradition. -\-4 0 - 1 +5
was a self-gift or other-gift, and whether it was most" or 20. It will help me carry on a
least favorite. tradition. +J 0-5 0
-36. It has nothing to do with
Keeping (Disconnecting from) Memories of Others my heritage. -J 0 0 0
(+F1 and -Fl). Thefirstfactor reveals two groups of - 3 3 . I will probably not care
possessions: one that loads positively on the factor (des- about it in the future. - 5 +1 +1 +1
ignated +F1) and another that loads negatively (des- -40. It is unlikely that I will
keep it as a reminder of
'A most favorite was always elicited first because pretesting revealed friends or family. —5—1 0 0
respondents found the task too difficult if asked first about a least -32. I could become who I
favorite self- or other-gift. want to be without it. —5 +4 +1 +2
MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT 337

TABLE 2
STUDY 2 VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR PATTERN MATRIX

Person identification
Condition number Possession Affiliative memories It's me! Not me! Bad past Gender

M-O 19 Mickey Mouse watch .80 .35 01 -.20 M

M-0 30 Love letters .69 .48 .06 .03 F
M-0 01 Bookcase .66 .50 -.19 .26 M
M-0 17 Gold garnet ring .66 .54 -.07 .00 F
M-0 46 Diamond earrings .65 .35 .10 .09 F
M-0 48 Corner cupboard .63 .57 -.07 -.09 F
M-0 15 Out-of-print book .61 .39 .07 .11 M
L-0 16 Oakely sunglasses .43 .18 .34 .26 M
L-0 12 Chinese egg -.45 -.13 .22 .30 F
L-S 15 Telescope -.55 .10 .09 .16 M
L-S 46 Orange sweater -.56 .01 .16 .37 F
L-O 02 Dining table -.57 -.25 39 -.02 M
L-S 29 Pair of sculptures -.59 .04 .462 .17 M
L-S 19 Radio-controlled car -.61 -.04 .24 -.42 M
L-S 01 Sofa -.65 -.28 .22 .01 M
L-S 03 Computer software -.70 -.05 -.08 .13 M
L-S 17 Shorts -.70 -.15 .21 .09 F
M-S 04 Tom-tom thing .19 .77 -.08 .20 F
M-0 21 Watercolor painting .28 .75 -.03 .13 M
M-0 29 Stereo .16 .74 -.01 -.35 M
M-S 12 Limited edition print .19 .72 -.03 -.22 F
M-0 03 Mount Hood picture .45 .70 -.06 .09 M
L-S 21 College ring .21 .70 -.06 .26 M
M-0 11 Garnet necklace .28 .66 -.08 -.20 F
M-S 16 Car compact disc player .06 .62 -.29. -.37 M
M-S 14 Family portrait .47 .58 .07 .12 F
M-S 06 Curio cabinet .35 .57 -.09 -.19 F
M-S 02 Denim jacket -.19 .56 .04 -.20 M
M-S 52 Sapphire ring .00 .53 .08 -.18 F
M-S 50 Mahogany bureau .45 .51 -.37 .00 M
L-O 04 Compact disc -.10 .48 .23 -.03 F
M-O 08 Tire .36 .47 .03 -.36 • F

M-S 10 Antique dresser .36 .45 .01 -.05 F

L-O 50 Sweater -.17 -.50 .34 .46 M
L-0 07 Computer game .09 .04 .68 .06 M
L-0 14 Jewelry organizer -.26 -.25 .60 .22 F
L-S 48 Blonde wig -.19 .12 .57 -.43 F
L-0 52 Picture frame -.24 .25 .50 .13 F
L-S 08 Piggy bank -.38 -.08 .47 .07 F
L-O 10 Living Bible -.00 -.03 .41 -.04 F
L-S 30 Chocolate turtles -.32 -.33 -.05 .72 F
L-S 11 Black pump shoes -.24 .02 -.22 .47 F
L-O 06 Broken antique doll .16 -.10 .29 .39 F
M-S 07 Computer -.00 .03 -.27 -.60 M

NOTE. Condition assignments are designated as most (M) or ieast (L) favorite foiiowed whether the possession is a self (S) or other (O) gift. Gender is designated
as maie (M) or female (F). Italicized numbers designate the factor to which a possession was assigned.

- 4 1 . It has nothing to do with -47. I have no feelings for it. -4 - 3 +3 - 1

my future. -4 +1 -1-3 +1 -50. It is basically a functional,
utilitarian object. -4 -2 +2 +3
To illustrate, Pi's bookcase was his great-grand- —49. I would not be upset if it
mother's and "carries a lot of heritage." Participant were lost or stolen. -4-1-2 0
46 describes the diamond earrings, received from her Positive factor 1 objects recall gestures of love and
grandmother for her sixteenth birthday, as especially portray an aspect of each participant's ongoing self
significant because her grandmother received them through familial connections. In accordance with our
from her mother on her sixteenth birthday. These Q- expectation that other-gifts would tend to reflect affil-
sample statements reveal the cherished character of iation seeking and self-continuity maintenance, eight
these possessions: ofthe nine +F1 objects are most favorite other-gifts.
 338 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Negative Factor 1 (-F1): Nonaffiliative, Disconnec- least favorites loading positively on F3 also commem-
tions. In contrast to the most favorite other-gifts of orate past events. For example, P21 bought his college
+F1, —Fl includes nine least favorite possessions, in- ring "to mark the completion of my Bachelor's degree."
cluding seven self-gifts. These possessions fail to serve In accordance with a me orientation, F2 is not affiliation
affiliation needs and reflect self-discontinuity. For ex- oriented:
ample, P46's orange sweater (a self-gift) reminds her of
"my awful summer job in Philly—an awful summer 42. It does nothing to help me
and my old boyfriend." Of the radio-controlled car P19 feel connected with others. +1 +5—1 - 5
bought with birthday money, he says, "I thought it -22. It has to do with an im-
would be fun, but I almost never use it." Similarly, P3's portant relationship. +5 -4 +2 - 2
computer simulation game was bought as a self-reward — 13. It reminds me of an im-
but it "became total frustration . . . the longer I portant family member
messed with it, the more I hated it." Participant 17 never who is gone now. +4 -3 +2 +2
wears the shorts she bought as "a little pick-me-up" Moreover, F2 possessions are liked and enjoyed, yet
because they "make me look fat." Participant 12's with some reservation:
Chinese egg knickknack (although an other-gift) rep-
resents her former boyfriend overlooking her tastes. As 43. I really like it. +2 +4 0 +1
expected, these least favorites evidence themes of a lack 56. It is for enjoyment. 0 + i +4 - 4
of affiliation and autonomy and portray self-disconti- -52. It makes me sad. - 1 -4 - 3 +3
nuity. Moreover, these items failed to be the escape, -53. It reminds me of some-
treat, or reward for which self-gifts are intended (Mick thing I feel bad about. 0 -3 - 5 +3
and DeMoss 1990). As gifts, these possessions missed -46. It makes me happy. - 4 -3 +2 - 1
the mark.
And F2 possessions reflect strong attachments:
Factor 2 (F2): It's Me. Sixteen possessions loaded -29. It is strictly utilitarian. - 2 -4 -2 0
positively on F2; one loaded negatively. Nine of the 16 -47. I have no feelings for it. - 4 -3 +3 - 1
are most favorite self-gifts, consistent with F2's dis-
tinctive me-now orientation: The five other-gifts grouping on F2 also reflect the
receiver's distinct identity, suggesting that gifts from
8. It fits my image. - 2 +5 - 1 - 1 others sometimes reflect me more than the giver-re-
5. It is a statement of who I ceiver relationship. Examples include P3'^ picture of
am now. - 2 +4 -5 0 Mount Hood, which shows "I love mountain climbing,"
7. It makes me feel unique, and PI l's garnet necklace, which says "I love garnets."
not just like everyone else. +1 +3—1 — 1 To summarize, nine of the 10 most favorite self-gifts
Factor 2 possessions mark past events and personal ac- load on this present, autonomy-oriented factor, strongly
complishments that continue to be me: supporting our expectations. Ourfindingsthus converge
with Mick and DeMoss's (1990) theorizing about the
4. It ties me with memories self-esteem and identity maintenance motives behind
and experiences. +3 +5 +5 +5 self-gifts. The results also demonstrate that other-gifts
1. It reminds me of past ac- can serve these same me-oriented motivations.
complishments or other
important events in my Factor 3 (F3): It's Just Not Me. Six least favorite
life. 0 +5 - 1 +4 possessions cluster on F3. Four are other-gifts and two
15. It reminds me of good are self-gifts. Factor 3's viewpoint portrays possessions
times with family or for which there was never a good person-possession fit:
friends. +3 +3 +4 0 - 3 . It has always related well
-25. It doesn't have anything to to my needs. 0 + 1 -3 -3
do with past events in my 26. It doesn't fit my image any-
life. 0-5 0-5 more. 0 0+5+2
-23. It has nothing to do with 27. I could easily be myself
who I was in the past. +1 - 5 +1 - 2 without it. - 2 +2 -\-4 +1
Participant 4's "tom-tom thing," bought on a trip to 28. It has nothing to do with
France, "symbolizes that I had actually made it to (what who I am now. +1 —2 + i —3
seemed at the time) a very far, distant place which I —5. It is a statement of who I
had only dreamed of before." Participant 52's sapphire am now. - 2 +4 - 5 0
ring celebrated "the fact that I had just obtained my —2. It reminds me of who I
first real job." A compact disc player was PI 6's "gift to used to be. - 2 +2 -3 +5
myself after getting a patent on a new product I had Factor 3 possessions are least favorites that are "just
been working on as a pat on the back" (PI6). The two not me." Participant 52's picture frame (a wedding gift)
MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT 339

does not match her decor or fit pictures she has. Par- —55. It offers me relaxation and
ticipant lO's beliefs do not align with the translation of fun when life's pressures
the Bible she received from a friend. Participant 48's build up. +2 +1 0 -4
blonde wig "no longer looks stylish, especially on me." -56. It is for enjoyment. 0 +3 +4 -4
These possessions are also characterized by weak at- —57. It sets me free. - 1 +1 - 4 -3
tachment; participants see no future for the object, yet Two least favorite self-gifts reflect these bad feelings.
evidence the paradox that they still own it: Participant 3O's chocolate turtles were bought as part
31. I do not plan to have it in of a fund-raiser for her dance studio: "Parents were not
the future. - 3 - 1 +5 -HI cooperative . . . we had many unpaid bills and it was
41. It has nothing to do with just a mess. It wasn't a wise choice." Participant 11
my future. - 4 +1 + i +1 purchased her black pump shoes for a special occasion,
—20. It will help me carry on a but they turned out to be uncomfortable and "were a
tradition. +3 0 - 5 0 waste of money." This sense of regret is associated with
- 9 . It has to do with my goals past events or relationships:
for the future. +2 0-4-1 2. It reminds me of who I
-10. It is a statement of who I used to be. - 2 +2 -3 +5
would like to be. +1 0 - i - 2 4. It ties me with memories
Yet F3 includes neither dislike nor negative feelings: and experiences. +3 +5 +5 -1-5
14. It involves my heritage
56. It is for enjoyment. , 0+3+4 —4 or a tradition. +4 0-1-1-5
—53. It reminds me of some- 1. It reminds me of past
thing I feel bad about. 0 - 3 - 5 +3 accomplishments or
—52. It makes me sad. - 1 - 4 -3 +3 other important events
Interpersonal connections may bring participants to in my life. 0+5-1+4
keep these possessions, as reflected in the fact that four 25. It doesn't have anything
of the six possessions were other-gifts. to do with past events in
my life. 0-5 0-5
15. It reminds me of good
times with family or At least part of the reason for keeping F4 possessions
friends. -t-3 +3 +4 0 may be their utilitarian value:
16. It reminds me of a person 50.. It is basically a functional,
who is important to me utilitarian object. - 4 - 2 +2 +3
now. +5 - 1 +3 +4 48. It has no special mean-
-35. It reminds me of someone ing—it's just something I
from my past I would have. - 3 - 2 +2 +3
rather forget. +1 - 5 -4 +2
Yet, again, affiliations are evident in these least favor-
To summarize, all F3 possessions are least favorites, ites:
and most of them are other-gifts. The F3 viewpoint re-
veals possessions that are not useful for autonomy- 16. It reminds me of a person
seeking purposes, supporting our expectations about who is important to me
least favorites. However, F3 possessions do evidence a now. +5 - 1 +3 +4
slight affiliation motive, consistent with their being -42. It does nothing to help me
mostly other-gifts, which may explain why the partic- feel connected with others. +1 +3 - 1 - 5
ipants still own them. -34. It does not remind me of
anyone from my past. 0—2 0 —-^
Factor 4 (F4) Bad Feelings from the Past. Four
possessions loaded on this factor: two least favorite self- To illustrate, P6 has mixed feelings about an antique
gifts, one least favorite other-gift, and a negatively load- doll with a broken head, given to her in memory of a
ing most favorite self-gift. Factor 4 possessions are dis- deceased friend.
liked, convey bad feelings, and do not serve any escape To summarize, in F4 we observe that least favorites
or reward purposes: tend not to reflect autonomy seeking, which is consis-
tent with our expectations. The feature that distin-
51. I really do not like it any- guishes F4 from other least favorites is its especially
more. 0 - 2 - 1 +4 strong negative overtone—its sadness and regret.
53. It reminds me of some-
thing I feel bad about. 0 -3 - 5 +3
52. It makes me sad. - 1 - 4 - 3 +3
Summary and Discovery
—45. It reminds me of some- To summarize, the key findings of study 2 are (a) a
thing I am proud of. +2 +2 +2 -5 majority (7 of 12) of the most favorite other-gifts re-
 340
fleeted affiliation and self-continuity seeking (+F1), (b)
9 of 10 most favorite self-gifts reflected a present au-
tonomy theme, and (c) least favorite gifts most often
(19 of 22) reflect neither autonomy nor self-continuity
seeking (-F1, F3, or F4), although F3 and F4 revealed
slight degrees of affiliation. This pattern of results sup-
ports our premise that mode of gift receipt tends to
influence attachment type (X^(gift type X attachment
type) = 9.66, df= 4, p < .05, Cramer coefficient C
= .47).
Study 2 also produced a provocative finding that
might have been anticipated from the gift-receipt lit-
erature (e.g., Mick and DeMoss 1990; Sherry 1983).
We observed that the meaningfulness of other-gifts is
reflected through "deep emotions" resulting from the
"conjoining of giver, receiver, and gift" (Sherry 1983).
All most favorite other-gifts loading on Fl (keeping
memories of others) also load strongly on F2 (it's me),
identifying that these possessions reflect both the Fl
and F2 viewpoints. These are successful gifts because
they simultaneously symbolize the relationship between
giver and receiver (Fl) and a match between gift and
receiver (F2). Put differently, these gifts reflect simul-
taneously we and me. Gifts that primarily serve affili-
ation seeking can also serve autonomy purposes, but
not vice versa. Additionally, this provocative discovery
illustrates the versatility of Q-methodology for exploring
phenomena such as attachment and gift-giving.
Study 2 also reveals that an unsuccessful other-gift,
evidenced by being a least favorite, is such because the
possession is a poor symbol of the recipient's identity
(not me) and/or of the giver-recipient's relationship (not
we). Identity and/or relationship appropriateness ap-
pear fundamental to gift-giving success.
Mick and DeMoss (1990) suggest that the extra
meaningfulness (and by inference, the success) of a self-
gift results from its being a deserved change from the
ordinary. Our data reveal that self-gifts become least
favorites (possibly despite initial rapture) for several
reasons: they fail to provide the sought-after reward
(e.g., - F l ) , they come to symbolize an unpleasant as-
pect of one's past life story (F4), or they fail to symbolize
identity (e.g., F3).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Two studies investigated participants' attachments
to a wide variety of most and least favorite possession
objects, including various special possessions, clothing,
and cars. The results illustrate how individuals use dif-
ferent attachment types to narrate different facets of
identity. Archetypal identity tasks of affiliation versus
autonomy seeking, along with identity change versus
stability management, combine to form qualitatively
distinct types of psychological significance. Addition-
ally, by showing that mode of gift receipt (self- vs. other-
gift) predicts attachment type, the findings contribute
to developing a nomological network encompassing at-
tachment.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
We observed that certain possessions to which there
is attachment capture the we facet of identity; they carry
relationships from the past into the present life story.
Other attachments focu5 on current identity work (me
now); they serve to connect the person to a significant
event, accomplishment, or other signifier of self-esteem.
Some attachments (like favorite other-gifts) portray
both we and me, indicating the unique contribution of
the affiliation and autonomy dimensions to under-
standing attachment. Yet another type of attachment
portrays "not me," apparently used for removing an
old, less desirable, piece of the life story.
Successful versus Unsuccessful Gifts
Our results empirically demonstrate certain aspects
of gift-giving success as perceived by the gift receiver.
Unsuccessful (least favorite) gifts are gifts described as
not me. These included interpersonal gifts that did not
reflect the receiver's me or self-gifts that failed to provide
the anticipated escape or reward. Additionally, we
found two kinds of successful (most favorite) gifts: (1)
a gift that represents a receiver's me (usually a self-gift)
and (2) a gift that primarily symbolizes the relationship
between giver and receiver and also fits with me (these
were always interpersonal gifts). We had expected that
the favoriteness of other-gifts would be driven by affil-
iation, and that appears to be so. However, the novelty
in our findings is that affiliation is often not enough for
gift-giving success; the gift must also fit the receiver's
personal identity.
The conventional wisdom that gift receipt is one way
individuals incur attachments might suggest that gifts
should be overrepresented among possessions to which
there is strong attachment. Yet we found the opposite:
a greater proportion of weak-attachment possessions
were received as gifts. The affiliative connections ac-
companying these gifts appears to have more to do with
why people keep not-me possessions than why people
incur strong attachments.
Generalizability
Our findings are derived from a wide variety of prod-
uct categories, which contributes to their generaliza-
bility. Nevertheless, theorizing about attachment would
be enhanced by further investigation in which subjects'
characteristics and/or possession categories are system-
atically varied to assess their influence on attachment
outcomes. Additionally, although American culture
emphasizes autonomy seeking, our participants did ex-
press affiliative attachments. Future investigators might
explore this further and examine how attachment types
(e.g., past- vs. present-oriented autonomy) play out in
cultures that place less emphasis on autonomy.
Q-Methodology
The two studies illustrate how Q-methodology is par-
ticularly useful for examining subjective consumption
MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT
phenomena. Our findings demonstrate the methodol-
ogy's discovery potential and its use for investigating
underdeveloped concepts (i.e., concepts having no a
priori, or empirically supported, nomological network).
Additionally, the methodology could be used to inves-
tigate consumers' subjectivity, not only for possessions,
but also for meanings of a variety of objects, people, or
events.
How Is a Possession Me or Not Me?
Attachment and Self-Extension
How do people use their relationship to certain pos-
sessions, objects, or events to infer the meaning of self?
The conventional view of person-possession relations
portrays the self as an inner core (the "true" self) sur-
rounded by layers of decreasing authenticity. In this
gravitational metaphor, an object's phenomenological
distance from the core self is related inversely to the
degree to which it reflects one's authentic or true self.
Self-relevant objects are those perceived as close to the
core self. This way of thinking implies a direct link be-
tween self and object and suggests a unidimensional
view of attachment, which our data show is problematic.
This approach also emphasizes self as me, ignoring the
importance to self-conception of relations with others.
Moreover, this model of the self has provided limited
opportunity to conceptualize, or empirically examine,
why certain possessions become strong attachments and
others do not.
Applying an alternative self-metaphor, we have
demonstrated the utility of the life narrative to more
usefully conceptualize, and empirically examine, the
question of me-ness. The self-narrative captures the
output of a person's progression through various life
stages. It is an integrated, sociohistorical self-construal,
weaving together stories that portray significant life ep-
isodes reflecting self-change and self-continuity. No
single facet ofthe narrative is more authentic than an-
other because one's life story is identity. A possession's
potency for self-significance arises indirectly via its link
to a meaningful life narrative episode. Thus, possessions
are not literally the self, but artifacts of the self.
Self-artifacts help narrate stories ofthe self and reflect
self-developmental tasks similar to those underlying life
narratives. Self-identifying possessions reflect who I am
as a unique individual, and/or who I am as I am con-
nected to others. Possessions that mark who I am not,
or who 1 was but am no longer, also signify identity.
The remainder of a person's possession portfolio in-
cludes things that are not self-identifying (e.g., utilitar-
ian only).
Self-signifying possessions help mark a path, or trail,
as it were, along which we have traveled in arriving at
the current me, placing identity in its sociohistorical
context. Thus, we conclude that people use possessions,
events, or places to infer the meaning of self when those
entities are connected to a developmental episode in
the life story. That is, people use external objects to
341
infer meaning of self when they are especially useful
for telling stories ofthe self.
Characterizing Attachment and Its
Relationship to Consumption Behavior
We characterize attachment as a multidimensional
signifier of self-extension. Diflerent kinds of attach-
ments result from combinations of these dimensions:
affiliation, autonomy, and past, present, or future tem-
poral orientation. The temporal orientation helps
identify whether a possession reflects self-continuity or
self-change, and suggests where in the attachment-de-
tachment cycle the person-object relation lies (Ball and
Tasaki 1992).
The future orientation of the proposed conceptual-
ization was not supported by either study. Apparently,
people do not become attached routinely to possessions
that represent emerging aspects of themselves. Attach-
ments form with things that mark a realized identity
development path, so it makes sense that attachments
are usually past or present oriented. Yet we are not
ready to dismiss the possibility of future-oriented at-
tachments. For example, several of our protocols re-
flected a distinct future orientation as they represented
an emerging relationship (e.g., engagement rings). Fu-
ture studies might examine the identity-development-
related meaning of such attachments.
Antecedents ofAttachment. Our findings show that
manner of possession acquisition predicts attachment
type. Also, the findings show that attachment is not
predicted by product class, possession type, or person
type; a specific person-object pairing is idiosyncratic to
the specific life story episode it narrates. Moreover, like
other emotionally complex consumption phenomena
(Allen et al. 1992), attachment is not adequately cap-
tured by unidimensional affect. Yet affect may be a pre-
dictor of attachment type (e.g., autonomy-oriented
possessions are more strongly associated with liking).
Other predictors of attachment type may add to this
nomological net. For example, what kinds of life epi-
sodes predict certain types of attachment? It seems that
discontinuous life changes offer especially potent op-
portunities to observe attachment.
Consequences of Attachment. We found intriguing
the implication that affiliative associations can make
even a not-me possession more difficult to dispossess.
How does attachrhent type affect the length oftime a
possession is kept, how it is kept or displayed, or how
it is disposed of? Are affiliative attachments more tem-
porally robust or emotionally potent than autonomy-
seeking ones? What emotions do certain types of pos-
sessions stimulate?
The findings about gifts and attachment demonstrate
how attachment can inform other aspects of consumer
behavior. In addition to gift giving, studies of attach-
ment may inform such areas as disposition (e.g., why
people keep nonfunctional items and how attachment
342
type affects manner of disposition), socialization (how
people use objects to narrate developing aspects of
themselves), or involvement (whether attachment is a
kind of involvement that includes we-ness along with
the me-ness of ego extension).
In conclusion, our characterization of attachment
goes beyond the unidimensional view (e.g., Wallendorf
and Arnould 1988) to yield a rich, multidimensional
construct that also is more parsimonious than frame-
works offered by others (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton 1981; Dittmar 1992). Moreover, the
two studies demonstrate that the conceptualization is
empirically workable and useful for building theory
about possession attachment.
APPENDIX
Q-Sample Statements
Strong Attachment
Autonomy Seeking:
Past:
1. It reminds me of past accomplishments or
other important events in my iife.
2. It reminds me of who I used to be.
3. It has always related well to my needs.
4. It ties me with memories of experiences.
Present:
5. It is a statement of who I am now.
6. It makes me feel independent and self-suffi-
cient, i^
7. It makes me feel unique, not just like every-
one else.
8. It fits my image.
Future:
9. It has to do with my goals for the future.
10. It is a statement of who I would like to be.
11. It shows who I am becoming.
Affiliation Seeking:
Past:
12. It reminds me of an important friend in my
past.
13. It reminds me of an important family
member who is gone now.
14. It involves my heritage or a tradition.
15. It reminds me of good times with family or
friends.
Present:
16. It reminds me ofa person who is important
to me now.
17. It reminds me of my parent(s) or other fam-
ily members.
18. It makes me feel loved and cared for.
19. It helps me feel in touch with something.
Future:
20. It will help me carry on a tradition.
21. It makes me similar to people I aspire to be
like.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
22. It has to do with an important relationship.
Weak Attachment
Autonomy Seeking:
Past:
23. It has nothing to do with who I was in the
past.
24. It used to be me, but not anymore.
25. It doesn't have anything to do with past
events in my life.
26. It doesn't fit my image anymore.
Present:
27. I could easily be myself without it.
28. It has nothing to do with who I am now.
29. It is strictly utilitarian.
30. It is easy f^or anyone to have; it's not very
unique.
Future:
31. I do not plan to have it in the future.
32. I could become who I want to be without
it.
33. I probably will not care about it in the fu-
ture.
Affiliation Seeking:
Past:
34. It does not remind me of anyone from my
past.
35. It reminds me of someone from my past I
would rather forget.
36. It has nothing to do my heritage.
Present:
37. It does nothing to help me feel loved or cared
for.
38. It makes me feel out of style.
39. It makes me feel different from people I as-
pire to be like.
Future:
40. It is unlikely that I will keep it as a reminder
of my friends or family.
41. It has nothing to do with my future.
42. It does nothing to help me feel connected
with others.
Affect Statements
Positive:
43. I really like it.
44. It makes me feel sentimental or nostalgic.
45. It reminds me of something I am proud of.
46. It makes me happy.
Neutral:
47. I have no feelings for it.
48. It has no special meaning to me—it's just
something I have.
49. I would not be upset if it were lost or stolen.
50. It is basically a functional, utilitarian object.
Negative:
51.1 really do not like it anymore.
MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENT
52. It makes me sad.
53. It reminds me of something I feel bad about.
54. It reminds me of frustration or stress.
Hedonic (Added for Study 2)
55. It oflers me relaxation and fun when life's pres-
sures build up.
56. It is for enjoyment.
57. It sets me free.
[Received April 1994. Revised June 1995. Brian
Sternthal served as editor and John Lynch as
associate editor for this article.]
REFERENCES
Allen, Chris T., Karen A. Machleit, and Susan Schultz Kleine
(1992), "A Comparison of Attitudes and Emotions as
Predictors of Behaviors at Diverse Levels of Behavioral
Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March),
493-504.
Altman, Irwin (1976), "Privacy: A Conceptual Analysis,"
Environment and Behavior, 8 (March), 7-29.
Ball, A. Dwayne and Lori H. Tasaki (1992), "The Role and
Measurement of Attachment in Consumer Behavior,"
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (2), 155-172.
Belk, Russell W. (1987), "Identity and the Relevance of Mar-
ket, Personal, and Community Objects," in Marketing
and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for
Sale, ed. Jean Umiker-Sebeok, Berlin: Mouton de Gruy-
ter, 151-164.
(1988), "Possessions and The Extended Self," Journal
of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 139-168.
(1990), "The Role of Possessions in Constructing and
Maintaining a Sense of Past," in Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 17, ed. Marvin E. Goldberg et al., Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 669-676.
-, John F. Sherry, Jr., and Melanie Wallendorf (1988),
"A Naturalistic Inquiry into Buyer and Seller Behavior
at a Swap Meet," Journal of Consumer Research, 14
(March), 449-470.
Bloch, Peter H. (1983), "An Exploration into the Scaling of
Consumers' Involvement with a Product Class," in Ad-
vances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, ed. Kent Monroe,
Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,
61-65.
Brown, Stephen R. (1980), Political Subjectivity, New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Cohen, Joel B. (1989), "An Overextended Self?" Journal of
Consumer Research, 16 (June), 125-129.
343
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi and Eugene Rochberg-Halton
(1981), The Meaning of Things. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Dittmar, Helga (1992), The Social Psychology of Material
Possessions, New York: St. Martin's.
Erikson, Erik H. (1968), Identity: Youth and Crisis, New York:
Norton.
Kamptner, N. Laura (1991), "Personal Possessions and Their
Meanings: A Life-Span Perspective," Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 209-228.
Kegan, Robert (1982), The Evolving Self Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kerlinger, Fred (1988), Foundations of Behavioral Research,
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Markus, Hazel and Elizabeth Wurf (1987), "The Dynamic
Self-Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective," An-
nual Review of Psychology 38, 299-337.
McAdams, Dan P. (1985), Power, Intimacy, and the Life
Story: Personological Inquiries into Identity, Homewood,
IL: Dorsey.
McKeown, Bruce and Dan Thomas (1988), Q-Methodology,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mick, David Glenn and Michelle DeMoss (1990), "Self-Gifts:
Phenomenological Insights from Four Contexts," Journal
of Consumer Research, 17 (December), 322-332.
Myers, Elizabeth (1985), "Phenomenological Analysis of the
Importance of Special Possessions: An Exploratory
Study," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, ed.
Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 560-565.
Schlinger, Mary Jane (1969). "Cues on Q-Technique," Jour-
nal of Advertising Research, 9 (February), 53-60.
Schultz, Susan E., Robert E. Kleine, III, and Jerome B. Kernan
(1989), "'These Are a Few of My Favorite Things': To-
ward an Explication of Attachment as a Consumer Be-
havior Construct," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 16, ed. Thomas Srull, Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research, 359-366.
Sherry, John F., Jr. (1983), "Gift Giving in Anthropological
Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (Sep-
tember), 157-168.
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), "The Role of Products as Social
Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective," Journal
of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 319-329.
(1985), The Psychology of Fashion, Lexington, MA:
Lexington.
Stephenson, William (1953), The Study of Behavior, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric J. Arnould (1988), "'My Fa-
vorite Things': A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into Object At-
tachment, Possessiveness, and Social Linkage," Journal
of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 531-547.
Wicklund, Robert A. and Peter M. Gollwitzer (1982), Sym-
bolic Self-Completion, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.