Egocentric Processing: The Advantages of

Person-Related Features in Consumers’

Product Decisions

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022

LIAD WEISS

This article explores the possibility that product features may resonate differently
with different consumers based on how consumers classify the product in relation
to their selves. Prior research has shown that relating products to a consumer’s
self affects product memory, judgment, and choice. Here we identify a novel way
in which the self contextualizes consumers’ product decisions: egocentric proc-
essing. We introduce a theoretical distinction between two types of product fea-
tures based on relative applicability to people versus products: person-related
(e.g., toughness) and product-related (e.g., durability). Seven experiments dem-
onstrated that consumers use self-categorization cues, such as ownership or
brand, to classify products in relation to the category of self. Consumers then use
the category of self, to which person-related features neatly apply, to process in-
formation about in-self products. Person-related features thus gain three advan-
tages in consumer decisions about in-self (vs. out-self) products: greater consider-
ation, faster processing, and higher importance. We see these advantages
especially when (1) similar advantages are present in self-judgment, (2) consum-
ers are self-focused, and (3) the self-categorization cue is self-defining. Our find-
ings both open up new ways for marketers to increase the appeal of products for
specific consumer segments and demonstrate ways to identify and target these
segments.

Keywords: self-concept, categorization, information processing, product features,

ownership, brands

I am so excited to tell you all about iPhone XS . . . .

It is the most beautiful iPhone we have ever made . . .
It’s also tougher.

Liad Weiss (liad.weiss@wisc.edu) is an assistant professor of market-
ing, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 975 University Ave., Madison,
WI 53706, USA. Please address correspondence to Liad Weiss. The au-
thor thanks Anat Keinan, Dan Bartels, Gita V. Johar, Joann Peck, Robin
Tanner, and the entire review team for their helpful comments and sugges-
tions; Stephen Spiller and Markus Brauer for their data analysis advice;
and Szu-Chi Huang for her help with validating the product-dependent/
product-independent construct. Support for this research was provided by
the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education at
the University of Wisconsin–Madison with funding from the Wisconsin
Alumni Research Foundation. Supplementary materials are included in
the web appendix accompanying the online version of this article.
Editors: Darren W. Dahl, Amna Kirmani, and Andrew T. Stephen
Associate Editor: Leonard Lee
Advance Access publication December 14, 2021
C The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.
V
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com  Vol. 49  2022
Philip W. Schiller, Senior Vice President of
Worldwide Marketing, Apple Event Keynote
(2018)
Once a year, in a carefully orchestrated event, Apple
reveals the features of the newest version of its flagship de-
vice, the iPhone. This event targets people who identify
closely with Apple and even see their iPhones as part of
their identity, such as tech-geeks, fans, and long-time
iPhone users (vs. people who do not feel connected to the
brand or own an iPhone). In seeking to maximize the
phone’s appeal (i.e., preference, choice, and willingness to
pay) for this specific audience, did Schiller choose his
words wisely? Did framing the iPhone’s ability to with-
stand shocks as “toughness” rather than “durability” and its
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab070

288
WEISS
visual appeal in terms of “beauty” rather than “aesthetics”
increase its appeal for fans? Can we reliably predict which
product features will appeal to which consumers? This ar-
ticle explores the possibility that product features may res-
onate differently with different consumers based on how
consumers classify the product in relation to their selves.
We argue that framing the iPhone in terms of person-
related features, like toughness and beauty, helped Apple
maximize the phone’s appeal to consumers who classify
the iPhone as being inside the category of self.
Prior research has found that we view products as more
or less self-attached, linked to our identity, and associated
with our self or part of our self, based on factors such as
whether we own the item or feel a connection to its brand
(Belk 1988; Escalas and Bettman 2003; Kirmani 2009).
From a cognitive perspective, we can understand these
relationships between products and people as different
ways of expressing how a product is classified in relation
to the self. While we have long understood the self as a car-
dinal reference category for segmenting, organizing, and
understanding our environment (Rogers, Kuiper, and
Kirker 1977), especially our social environment (Brewer
1991), recent research has begun to explore the ways the
self is also used to classify and understand material objects.
Just as people can be classified into in-groups and out-
groups, products can also be classified as being inside or
outside of the category of self, based on ownership (Weiss
and Johar 2013). These ongoing acts of classification—di-
viding people into “us” and “them” and objects into “me”
and “not me”—allow us to meet our basic and ongoing
need to identify and separate the “self” from the “not self”
(Goffman 1972).
Relating items to the self has been shown to boost mem-
ory (Symons and Johnson 1997) and to impact product
judgment (Weiss and Johar 2013), valuation (Dommer and
Swaminathan 2013), and choice (White and Dahl 2007).
Adding to this research, we propose that classifying an
item as being inside the category of self allows people to
use this category (in addition to the “default” category of
products) to process information about the item. Following
Weiss and Johar’s (2013, 2016) theory of egocentric cate-
gorization, we call this egocentric processing because the
consumer uses the self as a central category and processes
item information based on the self. While previous re-
search has asserted that relating a good to a person’s self
TABLE 1
EXAMPLES OF PERSON-RELATED/PRODUCT-RELATED TERMS
Feature Person-related term
Ability to withstand shocks Tough, resilient
Visual appeal Beautiful, glamorous
Cross-situation functionality Adaptable
Fit for actual use Pragmatic
289
“may increase the accessibility of all attributes of a good”
(Morewedge and Giblin 2015, 343), we theorize and dem-
onstrate that categorizing an item as being inside the cate-
gory of self actually creates advantages for a specific
subset of the item’s features.
Which item features will benefit from egocentric proc-
essing? Since we use the self to process information about
persons (Rogers et al. 1977), both ourselves and others, we
predict that the features of an item that apply to persons,
akin to the features that we routinely use the self-concept
to process, should gain advantages when processing is ego-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
centric. To test this prediction, we introduce a new theoret-
ical distinction between two types of features based on
whether they mainly apply to people or to products. Our
pretests found that English speakers perceive some fea-
tures, like toughness and beauty, to be more appropriate for
describing people than products. We call the set of features
that meets this criterion person-related. In contrast, we
found that English speakers perceive other features, like
durability and aesthetics, to be more appropriate for de-
scribing products than people. We call this set of features
product-related. The higher applicability of person-related
features to the category of self (vs. of products) is predicted
to boost their consideration, processing, and importance in
decisions about items that people classify as being inside
(vs. outside of) the category of self. Emphasizing the
iPhone’s beauty and toughness, then, should increase its
appeal with Apple fans (vs. nonfans) since we expect these
person-related features to be more important and easier to
consider and process for people who classify the iPhone as
being inside the category of self.
Marketers regularly make choices about which features
to emphasize (e.g., durability or aesthetics) and what to
call a given feature (e.g., durable or tough); knowing which
features will resonate with which audience can be a power-
ful tool in targeted marketing communications. Table 1
provides examples of several features that marketers can
describe using person-related or product-related terms
(appendix).
Our findings have important marketing implications:
they open up new ways for marketers to tailor their mes-
sage to specific consumer segments. We demonstrate not
only that marketers can increase the appeal of high margin
products for consumers who classify these products as be-
ing inside the category of self, by using person-related
Product-related term
Durable, sturdy
Aesthetically pleasing, dazzling
Adjustable
Practical
290
features to target these consumers, but also (and crucially
from a practical standpoint) how marketers can identify
and target these consumers based on their brand use (study
1), affiliation (study 2), or stage in the purchase process
(studies 3 and 7). For example, study 1 shows that among
Apple users, ad click for the iPhone 11 (vs. Galaxy 10) was
higher when the ad described the phone in person-related
terms (strong and beautiful), but not when the ad described
the phone in product-related terms (durable and dazzling).
We also show that even when consumers do not classify
the marketer’s product as being inside the category of self,
marketers can still benefit from using person-related fea-
tures by relating such features to a relevant product the
consumer already classifies this way. Study 6 demonstrates
this approach to the sale of add-ons for a product the con-
sumer already owns—a case for the consumer’s phone.
The study shows that relating the case’s features to the con-
sumer’s phone rather than to the case itself (i.e., a case that
“makes your phone resilient” vs. “is resilient”) increased
willingness to pay (WTP) for the case when the features
were described in person-related terms (resilient and beau-
tiful), but not when the features were described in product-
related terms (durable and aesthetically pleasing).
Across six lab studies and one field experiment, using a
variety of products and features, we found robust evidence
for the advantages of person-related features in consumer
decisions about in-self (vs. out-self) items. We document
three advantages of person-related features: greater consid-
eration (as shown through free feature listing), faster proc-
essing (as shown through response time), and higher
importance (as shown through ad click-through rate, WTP,
and choice). Theory-driven mediators and moderators im-
plicate egocentric processing as the driver of these effects.
We specifically find that the advantages of person-related
features for in-self (vs. out-self) items are bigger when sim-
ilar advantages are present in self-judgment, when consum-
ers are self-focused, and when the categorization cue
(brand, ownership) is essential to how people define the
self. We discuss these theory-driven boundary conditions
in detail following our report on studies 1–3. We next re-
view the relevant literature on egocentric categorization,
ownership, and branding and offer theoretical support for
our predictions.
THE PRODUCT-SELF LINK IN
CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
Extant research concludes that products and brands are
central to the consumer self. Products we own become
self-linked because we use them to construct, maintain,
and enhance the self (Beggan 1992; Sirgy 1982), which
gives products personal meaning (Rochberg-Halton 1984)
and creates emotional attachment (Ahuvia 2005). As prod-
ucts become associated with our selves (Gawronski,
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Bodenhausen, and Becker 2007), product memory
improves (Symons and Johnson 1997) and the accessibility
of positive product information is boosted
(Nayakankuppam and Mishra 2005). Owning (vs. not own-
ing) a product thus improves its valuation and preference
for us, creating an “endowment effect” (Thaler 1980).
We can also feel psychological ownership for an item
without legally owning it (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks
2003), for example, because we used to own it (Strahilevitz
and Loewenstein 1998) or anticipate owning it in the future
(Ariely and Simonson 2003). Even simply imagining that
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
we own an item increases its association with the self
(Peck and Shu 2009), leading to better item memory
(Cunningham et al. 2008) and a distinct pattern of brain ac-
tivity (Turk et al. 2011).
We also feel connected to brands that we have used and
had experience with (Kirmani 2009) or that are associated
with an in-group (Escalas and Bettman 2003). Connection
to a brand (e.g., Apple) can transfer to its products (e.g., an
iPhone), thereby improving valuation and preference for
the brand’s products (MacInnis and Folkes 2017; Park,
MacInnis, and Priester 2006).
THE SELF AS AN ORGANIZING
CATEGORY FOR PRODUCTS
Some researchers have taken the product-self link fur-
ther, arguing that products can extend (Belk 1988), be in-
corporated into (Escalas and Bettman 2003), overlap with
or become included in (Park, Eisingerich, and Park 2013),
or become part of (MacInnis and Folkes 2017) the self.
From a cognitive perspective, we can understand these
relationships as instances of a process of egocentric catego-
rization (Weiss and Johar 2013, 2016): different relation-
ships to products map onto differences in how consumers
categorize or classify products in relation to the self, with
self-linked products classified by the consumer as being in-
side the category of self.
If we understand product-self links as instances of ego-
centric categorization, then we can understand the circum-
stances that facilitate these links as cues that help people
classify items in relation to the self. We call these circum-
stances self-categorization cues, or self-cues for short–
mental or sensory markers that guide people in their classi-
fication of products as being inside or outside of the cate-
gory of self. Here we look at two self-cues: ownership and
branding. When a product’s self-cue indicates to consum-
ers that the product is inside the category of self (because
they own it or feel connected to its brand), we will refer to
the product as an in-self item. When a product’s self-cue
indicates to consumers that the product is outside of the
category of self (because they neither own it nor feel con-
nected to its brand), we will refer to the product as an out-
self item.
WEISS
ITEM CATEGORIZATION AND THE
ADVANTAGES OF SPECIFIC FEATURES
What are the consequences of categorizing an object in-
side the category of the self for how information about the
object is processed and understood? Research on categories
and concepts has shown that when people classify an ob-
ject within a focal category (e.g., a laptop as a gaming
[working] device), it is easier for them to think about the
object in terms of attributes that are more applicable to this
category (e.g., as fun [efficient]) (Higgins 1996; Medin
1989). The stereotyping literature provides a similar con-
clusion (Tajfel 1969); when judging members within a so-
cial category, people consider (Miller and Turnbull 1986)
and heavily weigh (Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein 1987)
information about attributes that are applicable to that so-
cial category.
If we think of ownership and branding as self-cues that
guide categorization of an item as being inside or outside
of the self, we can begin to explore the possibility that ego-
centric processing of an item may create advantages for
some rather than all (Morewedge and Giblin 2015 on own-
ership) of the item’s features. Which item features will
benefit from egocentric processing of item information? If
item features that are more (vs. less) applicable to an item’s
category gain advantages, then we can expect that classify-
ing an item as being inside the category of self will create
advantages for those features that are more applicable to
the self. We use the self-concept to process information
about persons; this includes, for example, how slender,
beautiful, or smart we consider ourselves to be (Rogers
et al. 1977), but also how slender, beautiful, or smart we
consider others (Dunning and Hayes 1996). We propose,
then, that item features that are conveyed in person-related
terms (e.g., how slender, beautiful, or smart—or tough—an
iPhone is), akin to the features that we routinely use the
self-concept to process, should gain advantages from ego-
centric processing.
PERSON-RELATED VERSUS PRODUCT-
RELATED FEATURES
The types of features that people use to describe prod-
ucts vary along various dimensions, such as tangibility,
concreteness, or familiarity (Carpenter, Glazer, and
Nakamoto 1994; Trope and Liberman 2003). To explore
the possibility that the way consumers classify an item in
relation to their selves can create advantages for specific
features, we propose a novel distinction between feature
types, based on relative applicability to people versus
products.
Are there terms in the English language that are per-
ceived as more applicable to or appropriate for describing
person (product) traits, and, in that sense, are more person-
291
related (product-related)? Prior research in cognitive psy-
chology has noted that “the attributes used to describe per-
sons differ substantially from those used to describe
inanimate objects” (Mitchell, Heatherton, and Neil Macrae
2002, 15238), and that people tend to associate different
attributes with objects and with people (Barton and
Komatsu 1989; Mitchell, Macrae, and Banaji 2005). But
the ways people understand attributes in terms of their ap-
plicability to people versus products and the implications
of this distinction for marketing have not yet been studied.
Ample research has established the close link between
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
applicability and usage frequency: terms that are more ap-
plicable to a noun are more frequently used to describe it
(for a review see Higgins 1996). Thus, as a real-world indi-
cator of whether features vary in their applicability to peo-
ple versus products we examined whether certain English
terms are used more or less frequently to describe people
versus products. To calculate the frequency with which
commonly used adjectives referred to person- and product-
nouns, we used secondary data from two comprehensive
datasets: the English Web Treebank and WordNet. The
results revealed substantial variation in the relative fre-
quency with which 60 adjectives were used to describe per-
sons and products (web appendix A).
Frequency of use, while a valuable indicator of applica-
bility, must be calculated through a complex and laborious
process and is available only for a limited number of adjec-
tives that are sufficiently common in available data sets
(web appendix A). In order to make our methods more ap-
proachable and to broaden the scope, we tested whether
people actually perceive adjectives that are more (less) fre-
quently used to describe people (products) as being more
applicable to people (products). Ninety-five MTurk work-
ers were asked about the extent to which the 60 adjectives
for which we had usage frequency data applied to people
and products. In line with the high correspondence between
relative frequency of use and perceived applicability, the
frequency–applicability correlation was positive and sig-
nificant (r ¼ .77, p < .0001); this high correlation validated
that the direct measure of perceived applicability (a mea-
sure that is easily used and can be applied to any adjective)
captures a meaningful real-world variation.
In further pretesting among 121 MTurk workers, we
used the perceived applicability measure to classify fea-
tures for our studies (see appendix for the list of relevant
features). In our studies we used features that were rated as
more (less) applicable to people than to products to a de-
gree that was statistically significant as person-related
(product-related) features. Features that were rated as simi-
larly appropriate for describing people and products were
considered neutral.
Notably, person-relatedness can vary both within fea-
tures (across different labels of the same feature, e.g.,
strong vs. durable) and between features (across different
features, e.g., honest vs. portable). Our studies look at both
292
types of variation. Study 4 tests the discriminant validity of
our typology by showing its better ability to account for
the results compared to other distinctions (abstract vs. con-
crete, intangible vs. tangible). This typology adds to the in-
fluential work that has generalized and standardized brand
personality research (Grohmann 2009; Johar, Sengupta,
and Aaker 2005). While the brand personality typology
asks which personality traits associated with products and
brands resonate with consumers in general (Aaker 1997),
we use a broader set of traits (including those not related to
personality, e.g., beauty) to ask which product traits reso-
nate with which consumers.
How does the distinction between person-related and
product-related features apply to the world of marketing?
Marketers can be expected to use product-related features to
promote products and brands, and they do. For example, on
their US websites, various car manufacturers describe their
cars in terms of features that our pretests classified as product-
related: Mercedes-Benz describes the 2020 EQC as
“aesthetic” and “compact,” and BMW portrays its 8 Series as
“smooth” and “convenient.” However, any observer of con-
temporary advertising can see that marketers also use person-
related features to position and advertise products and brands,
as shown in the opening quote from Apple. For example, on
their US websites, various car manufacturers also describe
their cars in terms of features that our pretests classified as
person-related but here are used to describe products:
Mercedes-Benz portrays the 2018 E-class Sedan as
“intelligent” and “daring,” and BMW depicts its 7 Series as
“intuitive” and its 5 Series as “elegant.” Thus, while marketers
already use both person- and product-related features to posi-
tion their products and brands, we study how they might make
strategic choices between these features based on the specific
consumer segment they wish to target.
Next, we outline our predicted effect (hypothesis 1) and
its psychological driver (hypothesis 2) and present findings
from studies 1 to 3. We then introduce theory-driven mod-
erators (hypothesis 3) and use studies 4–7 to test them.
Figure 1 presents an overview of the conceptual model
and the supporting evidence provided by each study.
THE ADVANTAGES OF PERSON-
RELATED FEATURES IN DECISIONS
ABOUT IN-SELF (VS. OUT-SELF)
PRODUCTS
When making decisions about in-self items, consumers
may use the category of self to guide their decisions about
the items. Since we use the self-concept to process infor-
mation about persons, we predict that processing item in-
formation based on the category of self will create
advantages for the item’s person-related features. We mea-
sure the advantages of person-related features in terms of
importance (as shown through WTP, choice, and ad click-
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
through rate), processing (as shown through response
time), and consideration (as shown through free feature
listing). We can understand these advantages as creating a
more prominent role for person-related features in con-
sumer decisions about in-self (vs. out-self) products. Stated
formally,
H1:Person-related features gain advantages in decisions
about in-self (vs. out-self) items.
H2:Egocentric processing drives the advantages of person-
related features in decisions about in-self (vs. out-self)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
items.
If consumers use egocentric processing to make deci-
sions about an item (i.e., if they process information about
the item based on the category of self), then we can expect
to find two complementary lines of process evidence: (1)
item inclusion in the category of self and (2) situational use
of the self (rather than of other relevant categories) as the
focal category for objects. We will use both lines of evi-
dence to implicate egocentric processing as the underlying
psychological driver for the predicted effect.
Next, studies 1–3 test the importance advantage of
person-related features (hypothesis 1) across advantage
indicators (click-through rate, study 1; WTP, study 2;
choice, study 3) and self-cues (brand, studies 1–2; owner-
ship, study 3). To examine egocentric processing as a
driver (hypothesis 2), we test whether item inclusion in the
category of self (study 2) or use of self as the focal cate-
gory for objects (study 3) statistically mediate the predicted
effect. We then go on to introduce moderators (hypothesis
3) and test their effect (studies 4–7). Following Meyvis and
Van Osselaer (2018) we winsorized variables that can be
impacted by outliers (i.e., WTP and RT); we report robust-
ness checks for this and for variable transformation in web
appendix B.
Study 1: Importance Advantage in the
Likelihood to Click on a Smartphone Ad on
Facebook
As a first test for the importance advantage of person-
related features in decisions about in-self (vs. out-self)
products (hypothesis 1), we used a field experiment, where
multiple cues exist and people act in their natural environ-
ment. An actual expression of purchase interest—the likeli-
hood to click on an ad on Facebook—was used as indicator
for feature importance. Features were considered more im-
portant if using them to describe the product in the ad in-
creased the likelihood to click on the ad. Following from
the example that opened the article, we specifically exam-
ined whether consumers would be more likely to click on
an ad for an in-self (vs. out-self) smartphone when it is de-
scribed using a person-related (but not a product-related)
feature. Self-cue was manipulated by changing whether the
advertised smartphone was by a brand the audience had
WEISS 293

FIGURE 1

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Egocentric processing

Decisions about in-self Item inclusion in the category of Advantages of person-

Study
self
(vs. out-self) items related features
Mediation (H2) 2
Advantage
Evident Mediation (H2) 5 Study
Self-cue (H1)
Study from:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022

(in vs. out)
Moderation by extent to which 6–7 Consideration 5
Brand 1–2 self-cue is self-defining (H3b)
Processing 4
Ownership 3–7 Use of self as the focal category for
Study Importance 1–3, 6–7
objects

Mediation (H2) 3
Evident
from:
Moderation by self-focus (H3a) 5

extensive usage experience with (Kirmani 2009). (See web to 220,801 impressions (i.e., total number of exposures)
appendix C for the full stimuli for all studies.) over the duration of the campaign.

Method. Study 1 was conducted in the fall of 2019 on

Facebook. The objective was to increase the click-through
rate of an advertisement for a smartphone among US con-
sumers between the ages of 18 and 65 who access
Facebook using Apple products (based on targeting infor-
mation available through Facebook). The ad, once clicked,
led to the official selling page of the smartphone. The study
utilized Facebook split testing, an A/B testing service that
randomly divides audience exposure across each version of
an ad to test which version performs better, while ensuring
audiences are evenly split and statistically comparable.
The study used a 2 (cue: in-self vs. out-self)  2 (feature
type: person-related vs. product-related) between-subject
design. Our target market was composed of people who ac-
cess Facebook using an Apple device; their usage experi-
ence with Apple rendered the Apple brand (a non-Apple
brand) an in-self (out-self) cue. Our target audience for the
in-self (out-self) condition was therefore presented with an
ad for iPhone 11 (Galaxy 10), the most recent smartphone
by Apple (Samsung) at the time of the experiment. Feature
type was manipulated through two features listed on the
ad: for people in the person-related (product-related) fea-
ture ad, the smartphone was described as strong and beauti-
ful (durable and dazzling), as in figure 2.
A daily budget of $216 per day for five days, evenly
split between the four conditions, was set based on a 90%
power assessment done by Facebook. The budget led to a
total reach (i.e., different people exposed) of 156,510 and
Results and Discussion. Altogether, 1,457 Facebook
users (of the 156,510 users reached) clicked on the ad they
saw, giving a total click-through rate of .931% (the average
CTR for Facebook ads is 0.90%; Irvine 2020). A logistic
regression of ad click (1 ¼ click, 0 ¼ no click) on cue (in-
self ¼ 1, out-self ¼ 1), feature type (person-related ¼ 1,
product-related ¼ 1), and their interaction showed no ef-
fect of feature type (b ¼ .026, SE ¼ .027, v2 ¼ .94, p ¼ .33),
a significant effect of self-cue (b ¼ .07, SE ¼ .027,
v2 ¼ 6.8, p ¼ .009), and importantly a significant two-way
interaction (b ¼ .08, SE ¼ .027, v2 ¼ 9.66, p ¼ .002).
Planned contrast supported the predicted importance ad-
vantage of person-related features in decisions about in-
self (vs. out-self) items (hypothesis 1): ad click was higher
for the ad for the in-self (vs. out-self) phone when it was
described as strong and beautiful (Min-self ¼ 1.1% vs. Mout-
2
self ¼ .82%, v ¼ 16.68, p < .0001, odds ratio ¼ 1.35), but
not when it was described as durable and dazzling (Min-self-
¼ .89% vs. Mout-self ¼ .91%, v2 ¼ .12, p ¼ .72, odds
ratio ¼ .97).
As stated earlier, person-relatedness can vary both
within feature (across different labels of the same feature,
e.g., strong vs. durable) and between features (across dif-
ferent features, e.g., honest vs. portable). To generalize
study 1’s within feature findings, a separate study repli-
cated these results using a between feature design. We re-
port these results in web appendix D.
294
FIGURE 2
FACEBOOK ADS, STUDY 1
In-self, person-related
Out-self, person-related
Study 2: Importance Advantage in Incentive-
Compatible Valuation of a Mug
Study 2 further tested the predicted importance advan-
tage of person-related features in decisions about in-self
(vs. out-self) items (hypothesis 1) using an incentive-
compatible product valuation (Atasoy and Morewedge
2018) rather than click-through rate as indicator for feature
importance. We also examined egocentric processing as a
driver (hypothesis 2) by testing whether the predicted ef-
fect is mediated by item inclusion in the category of self.
Self-cue was manipulated by changing the brand of the fo-
cal product, a coffee mug, to reflect either an in-group or
an out-group of the study’s student population (Dommer
and Swaminathan 2013).
Method. One hundred and ninety-two students in an in-
troductory marketing class in a large midwestern university
participated in a short online study for course credit. Three
failed an attention check and were excluded from further
analysis, leading to a sample size of 189 participants.
Participants were informed that they would enter a draw
for $35 in cash as an additional reward. After acknowledg-
ing their understanding of this compensation, participants
were presented with a picture and a short description of a
mug—the focal product category. The study employed a 2
(cue: in-self vs. out-self)  2 (feature type: person-related
vs. product-related) between-subject design. For partici-
pants in the in-self (out-self) cue condition, the mug had a
logo of the participants’ own (a different regional) univer-
sity, relating the mug to their in-group (out-group)
(Dommer and Swaminathan 2013). Feature type was
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
In-self, product-related
Out-self, product-related
manipulated through the mug’s description: for participants
in the person-related (product-related) feature condition,
the mug was described as strong (durable). As a DV, par-
ticipants were asked for the maximum $ amount they were
willing to pay (WTP) for the mug using an open-ended re-
sponse box (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018). To render the
WTP decision incentive-compatible, participants were in-
formed that they may actually be required to pay the
amount they stated and receive the mug.
Two items (adapted from Weiss and Johar 2013) then
measured the mug’s inclusion in the category of self
(1 ¼ “not at all,” and 7 ¼ “very much so”). The average of
these items, specifically the extent to which participants
felt that the mug was “part of you” and “somehow integral
to who you are” (r ¼ .84, M ¼ 2.08, SD ¼ 1.28), served as
the predicted mediator. To test alternative processes, we
measured participants’ perception that the mug “was like
a person” (M ¼ 1.48, SD ¼ 1.05) and “was like a friend”
(M ¼ 1.44, SD ¼ .92) (1 ¼ “not at all,” and 7 ¼ “very
much so”; adapted from Aggarwal and McGill 2007). A
four-item Importance to Identity scale (Luhtanen and
Crocker 1992) then measured the importance of the uni-
versity identity (1 ¼ “not at all,” and 7 ¼ “very much so”)
with statements like “Being a [student at the focal univer-
sity] is an important reflection of who I am.” Identity im-
portance (a ¼ .84) did not vary across self-cue conditions
(in-self: M ¼ 4.99, SD ¼ 1.22; out-self: M ¼ 5.11,
SD ¼ 1.39; t (1851) ¼ .65, NS). Participants then provided
demographic information and were debriefed and
1 Two participants did not provide a response to this measure.
WEISS 295

thanked. One participant was selected at random to re-
ceive the stated prize.
Results. WTP (winsorized at 1% and 99%) was entered
untransformed (skewness ¼ 1.87 < 1.96) into a 2 (cue: in-
self vs. out-self)  2 (feature type: person-related vs.
product-related) analysis of variance (ANOVA). The
results showed a significant effect of self-cue (F(1,
185) ¼ 5.8, p ¼ .017, gp2 ¼ .0304), no effect of feature type
(F(1, 185) ¼ 1.49, NS), and a significant two-way interac-
tion (F(1, 185) ¼ 5.32, p ¼ .022, gp2 ¼ .028). Planned con-
Alternative Explanations. One may wonder whether
the effect can be explained by the anthropomorphism of
the mug (McConnell et al. 2011) or its perception as a
friend (Chandler and Schwarz 2010), but this was not the
case. The same mediation analysis with three mediators
showed that only mug inclusion in the self (.9709, 95% CI
[.1194–2.2831]), but not the extent to which the mug was
like a person (.0902, 95% CI [.8633 to .3244]) or like a
friend (.0414, 95% CI [.2254 to .6692]) mediated the ef-
fect. The 2  2 means and ANOVA results of mug as per-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022

trasts supported the predicted importance advantage of
person-related features in decisions about in-self (vs. out-
self) items (hypothesis 1): WTP was higher for the mug
with participants’ own (vs. a different) university logo
when the mug was described as strong (in-self: M ¼ $9.36,
SD ¼ 7.42; out-self: M ¼ $5.07, SD ¼ 4.16, F(1,
185) ¼ 10.61, p ¼ .0013, gp2 ¼ .054), but not when it was
described as durable (in-self: M ¼ $6.15, SD ¼ 4.93; out-
self: M ¼ $6.06, SD ¼ 7.45, F(1, 185)< 1, NS).
Mediation. In support of egocentric processing as the
underlying process (hypothesis 2), a bootstrapping analysis
with 10,000 samples (PROCESS model 14; Hayes 2013)
confirmed the mediating role of mug inclusion in the self
(.8425, 95% CI [.023–2.0545]). Mug inclusion in the self
significantly mediated the effect of self-cue on WTP when
the mug was described as strong (1.1037, 95% CI [.3731–
2.2452]), but not when it was described as durable (.2612,
95% CI, [.1628 to .8791]). The 2  2 means and
ANOVA results for mug inclusion in the self are shown in
tables 2 and 3. Mediation details for all studies are pro-
vided in web appendix E.
son and mug as friend are shown in tables 2 and 3.
Study 3: Importance Advantage in a Choice
Between Headphones
Study 3 further tested the predicted importance advan-
tage of person-related features in decisions about in-self
(vs. out-self) items (hypothesis 1) using choice (rather than
ad click-through rate or WTP) as indicator for feature im-
portance. Study 3 used item ownership (rather than brand)
as self-cue. While studies 1 and 2 held ownership of the
considered item constant in order to focus on brand, study
3 did not provide brand information for the considered
item in order to focus on ownership. Using ownership as
self-cue allowed us to limit the presence of confounding
factors like brand associations (knowledge, experience, or
familiarity) and appearance (e.g., logo), which using brand
as a self-cue may introduce. In order to hold these factors
constant in testing our theory, studies 3 through 7 use own-
ership as self-cue.
Study 3 also further tested egocentric processing as a
driver for our effect (hypothesis 2). Whereas study 2 did so

TABLE 2

MEANS BY FEATURE TYPE AND SELF-CUE, STUDY 2

Feature type Self-cue Mug in self Mug as person Mug as friend

Person-related (strong) In (n ¼ 47) 2.55 1.68 1.7

Out (n ¼ 43) 1.53 1.33 1.19
Product-related (durable) In (n ¼ 47) 2.49 1.34 1.38
Out (n ¼ 52) 1.73 1.54 1.46

TABLE 3

ANOVA FOR COMPETING MEDIATORS, STUDY 2

Mug in self Mug as person Mug as friend

F gp2 F gp2 F gp2

Self-cue 25.32** 0.1204 0.26 0.0014 2.73† 0.0146

Feature type 0.14 0.0008 0.17 0.0009 0.03 0.0001
Self-cue  Feature type 0.54 0.0029 3.25† 0.0172 5.05* 0.0266
†
p.1, *p <.05, **p<.0001.
296
by checking the mediating role of including the item in the
category of self, study 3 did so by checking the mediating
role of using the self as the focal category for objects. Our
theory suggests that while decisions about in-self items
may involve use of the self as the focal category, decisions
about out-self items do not. Prior research has shown that
using (vs. not using) a focal category in one task increases
the use of the category in a later task (Srull and Wyer
1979). We thus tested (i) whether making a choice about
in-self (vs. out-self) items increases the use of the self as
the focal category for objects in a subsequent task and (ii)
whether greater use of the self as the focal category for
objects predicts greater importance of person-related fea-
tures in product choice.
To measure the extent to which people use the self as
the focal category for objects, we used a method from
Weiss and Johar (2013; study 1). As an indicator of greater
situational use of the self as the focal organizing category,
we looked for greater consistency (or positive correlation)
between (i) the order in which items come to people’s
mind and (ii) the classification of these items as part of the
self. Finding that in-self items come to mind earlier than
out-self items reflects an implicit reliance on the self as an
organizing category for objects. Low consistency (or no
correlation) between item retrieval order and item classifi-
cation in the self reflects no use of the self as an organizing
category for objects.
Method. Two hundred and forty-nine students in an in-
troductory marketing class in a large midwestern university
participated in a short lab study for course credit. Five par-
ticipants failed an attention check and were excluded from
further analysis, resulting in a sample size of 244 partici-
pants. Prior research has found that directing attention to
the self facilitates the use of the self as a category for prod-
ucts (Weiss and Johar 2013; hypothesis 3b). To direct the
attention of all participants to the self in the context of the
focal product category of headphones, participants read a
definition of the relevant identity of audiophile and were
asked to “write two things about your self that reflect your
audiophile side.” Cue (in-self vs. out-self) was the sole fac-
tor and was manipulated between subjects using ownership
(Weiss and Johar 2013) by asking participants to imagine a
choice between two items either before or after owning
them. Participants in the in-self (out-self) products condi-
tion were asked to imagine that they “buy (consider) two
high quality headphones, with the intent to keep (acquire)
and use only one of them.” They were then shown a table
with the star rating of each device along six attributes and
were asked, “Based on how each of the headphones you
bought (considered) is rated along the following features,
choose which one you prefer to keep (buy).” (For discus-
sion of the theoretical and practical relevance of comparing
decisions before and after ownership, see the General
Discussion.)
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Of the six features, three were person-related (marked
with an asterisk in figure 3) and three product-related. To
generalize the test for the predicted effect, we created two
choice-sets; we used choice-set as a second (between-sub-
ject) factor. The choice of the headphones that were rated
better on two person-related features (indicated by a bold
outline in figure 3) served as the dependent variable.
Participants chose between headphones before moving to
part 2 of the study.
To capture the use of self as an organizing category for
objects, participants were asked to enter the first seven
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
objects “that come to your mind right now. Enter any prod-
uct or object as soon as it pops up.” After a short filler task,
they were shown the list of seven items that they had gen-
erated (presented in random order). They were asked to
drag the items into a box in an order that reflected a rank-
ing of the degree to which they saw these items as being
part of the self, with items they classify as more (less)
“me” further at the top (bottom). Input from these entry
and ranking tasks served to construct the predicted media-
tor. Two items (adapted from Peck and Shu 2009) then
tested the self-cue manipulation by measuring the psycho-
logical ownership that participants felt for the headphones
(r ¼ .89; 1 ¼ “strongly disagree,” and 7 ¼ “strongly
agree”). Results indicated a successful manipulation
(owned: M ¼ 4.21, SD ¼ 1.94 vs. unowned: M ¼ 2.08,
SD ¼ 1.27, t (242) ¼ 10.25, p < .0001). Participants then
provided demographic information and were debriefed and
thanked.
Results. Headphones choice (better rated person-
related features ¼ 1, better rated product-related
features ¼ 0) was submitted to a logistic regression with
cue (in-self ¼ 1 vs. out-self ¼ 1) as a single factor. The
analysis controlled for which of the two choice-sets the
participants responded to (b ¼ .74, v2 ¼ 27.06, p < .0001,
odds ratio ¼ 4.41). In further support of the importance ad-
vantage of person-related features in decisions about in-
self (vs. out-self) items (hypothesis 1), more people chose
the headphones with better person-related features when
the decision was about owned (vs. unowned) headphones
(b ¼ .3, v2 ¼ 4.41, p ¼ .036, odds ratio ¼ 1.815; 50% or 29/
58 vs. 38% or 23/61 and 83% or 50/60 vs. 71% or 46/65, in
choice-sets 1 and 2, respectively).
The results also supported the prediction that making a
choice about in-self (vs. out-self) items increases the use of
the self as an organizing category for objects, as shown
through greater consistency between (i) the order in which
items come to people’s mind and (ii) the classification of
these items as part of the self. A within-subject rank-order
(Spearman) correlation between these two variables was
calculated for each participant, Fisher transformed, and
submitted to an ANOVA with self-cue as a single factor. In
line with predictions, participants making decisions about
in-self (vs. out-self) items had significantly higher
WEISS 297

FIGURE 3

TWO CHOICE-SETS BETWEEN HEADPHONES, STUDY 3

Attribute Headphones A Headphones B Attribute Headphones A Headphones B

Outdoorsiness * Compactness

Compactness Outdoorsiness *

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022

Dependability * Adjustability

Adjustability Dependability *
Honesty * Smoothness

Smoothness Honesty *

NOTE.– Asterisks indicate person-related features. Bold outline indicates which headphones in each choice-set are rated better on two person-related features.

individual correlations (in-self: M ¼ .28, SE ¼ .059 vs. out-
self: M ¼ .08, SE ¼ .057, F(1, 242) ¼ 5.98, p ¼ .015,
gp2 ¼ .0241).
Mediation. In further support of egocentric processing
as the underlying process (hypothesis 2), a bootstrapping
analysis (PROCESS model 4; Hayes 2013) with 10,000
samples confirmed the mediating role of the use of the self
as the focal category for objects (as captured through the
rank-order correlations) (.0441, SE ¼ .0316, 95% CI
[.0035, .1304]).
THEORY-DRIVEN BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
Studies 1–3 show that the effect of self-cues on the
advantages of person-related features is robust enough to
be seen overall; studies 2 and 3 also implicate the role of
egocentric processing in the effect. Finding that egocentric
processing creates an overall advantage for person-related
features—regardless of the specific feature or the charac-
teristics of the individual respondent—may seem surpris-
ing. After all, the self is the category for a specific person
and is therefore highly variable. But this overall effect is
consistent with foundational findings in the self-reference
literature that relating (vs. not relating) to the self a list of
adjectives “deemed appropriate for a self-description task”
improved recall of the adjectives overall, not just the ones
with relevance to the self (Rogers et al. 1977, 680). This re-
call effect is likely explained by the role the self-concept
plays in processing information about others (Dunning and
Hayes 1996).
However, we wanted to go beyond these findings to ex-
plore what role the variability of the self may play in the
effect. Would we see this effect more strongly for some
features or for some people? When would the effect attenu-
ate? To better understand the psychological process and to
advance theory, we go on to study boundary conditions.
These boundary conditions suggest ways that marketers
could refine and add precision to their targeting (as demon-
strated in studies 6 and 7). It is important to note, though,
that the overall effect shown in studies 1–3, and at an aver-
age level of each moderator in studies 4–7, suggests the po-
tential for applications that are broader and easier to
implement. We next introduce three factors that should
moderate the effect only if, as our theory holds, egocentric
processing drives the effect.
First, while person-related features can be expected to
benefit from egocentric processing overall, we would not
expect all person-related features to benefit equally. If we
use the self to process information about in-self items, fea-
tures that we process faster when judging the self should
be processed faster when judging in-self items. Since fre-
quent processing of information increases processing speed
(Higgins 1996), we would expect that egocentric process-
ing will benefit the set of features we frequently use to
judge ourselves, including self-features we care about
(Bargh and Pratto 1986) and features we often use to judge
others where the self is used as a comparison standard
(Mussweiler and Bodenhausen 2002). If we see that judg-
ments about in-self (vs. out-self) items are faster for fea-
tures that are processed faster in self-judgment, then this
will show that this advantage is driven by the use of the
self to process information about in-self items (hypothesis
3a).
298
Second, while the results of studies 1–3 indicate that
people generally classify items with an in-self cue as being
inside the category of self, some people may not use the
self as the focal organizing category and, instead, classify
items (even ones with an in-self cue) based on other rele-
vant categories (e.g., the category of smartphones for an
iPhone). Prior research finds that people’s chronic or situa-
tional tendency to focus on themselves increases the use of
the self as a focal category for what we call in-self items
across what we call different self-cues (brand: Dagogo-
Jack and Forehand 2018; ownership: Weiss and Johar
2013). When self-focus is low, people’s attention is di-
rected outwards, away from the self (Duval and Wicklund
1972; Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss 1975). Outward fo-
cused people are thus less likely to use the self (vs. other
categories) as an organizing class for objects. If we see that
our effect is stronger for self-focused people, then this will
show that the effect is driven by the use of the self as a cat-
egory for in-self items (hypothesis 3b).
Third, different self-cues or circumstances that can fos-
ter a link between a product and the consumer’s self (own-
ership, brand) may be more or less essential to how
different consumers define their selves (Belk 1988;
Ferraro, Escalas, and Bettman 2011). When these self-cues
are more self-defining, they unambiguously mark the
boundaries of the self for a consumer, and they clearly
guide classification of an item as being inside or outside of
the self (Burris and Branscombe 2005) and a consumer’s
subsequent response to the item. For example, while con-
sumers were found to be generally more likely to recycle
rather than trash items that our framework defines as in-
self (vs. out-self) (e.g., a Coke vs. Pepsi can for Coke
drinkers, a cup with the US vs. UK flag image for
Americans), the effect of self-cues (i.e., brand, flag image)
was stronger for people who found the focal self-cue self-
defining (i.e., those who strongly identified themselves as
Coke drinkers or as Americans) (Trudel, Argo, and Meng
2016). A similar effect has been shown with an ownership
self-cue based on individual differences about whether
people perceive what they own (“mine”) as defining who
they are (“me”) (Weiss and Johar 2013). People who do
not perceive “mine” as “me” do not use ownership to clas-
sify an item as being inside or outside of the self and in-
stead assign to owned and unowned items the same levels
of “me-ness.” If we see that decisions about in-self (vs.
out-self) items following an ownership self-cue have a
stronger effect on people who use ownership to define the
boundary of the self (than on people who do not), then this
will show that the effect is driven by the classification of
in-self items as being inside the category of self (hypothe-
sis 3c).
These predicted boundary conditions lead to the follow-
ing hypothesis:
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
H3:The advantages of person-related features for in-self (vs.
out-self) items will be bigger when (a) similar advantages
are present in self-judgment, (b) consumers are self-focused,
and (c) the self-categorization cue is self-defining. These
advantages will appear overall, for an average level of each
moderator, and be smaller or even absent when these moder-
ators are low.
Next, we present the results of study 4, which used real
behavior (i.e., response time) to test for a processing ad-
vantage in consumer decisions about in-self (vs. out-self)
items (hypothesis 1) and for moderation by whether a simi-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
lar advantage exists in self-judgment (hypothesis 3a).
Study 5 used free feature listing to test for a consideration
advantage (hypothesis 1) and for moderation by self-focus
(hypothesis 3b). Studies 6 and 7 further tested for an im-
portance advantage (hypothesis 1; shown also in studies 1–
3) and for moderation by whether the self-cue is self-
defining (hypothesis 3c).
Study 4: Processing Advantage in Judging a
Mug—Moderated by Advantage in Self-
Judgment
Study 4 had two main goals. First, we tested the predic-
tion that person-related (but not product-related or neutral)
features gain a processing advantage in decisions about in-
self (vs. out-self) products (hypothesis 1). The processing
advantage was captured using response time to judge a
traveling mug on 27 different features. Second, we tested
the prediction that the processing advantage of in-self (vs.
out-self) items is moderated by whether a similar advan-
tage also exists in self-judgment (hypothesis 3a). If egocen-
tric processing drives the effect of self-cue, the effect can
be expected to be bigger for those features that have a
processing advantage in self-judgment, but smaller or even
absent for features that do not have a processing advantage
in self-judgment.
Method. One hundred and eighty-eight students in an
introductory marketing class in a large midwestern univer-
sity participated in a short lab study for course credit.
Three participants failed an attention check and were ex-
cluded from further analysis, resulting in a sample size of
185 participants. Study 4 used three feature types: person-
related, product-related, and neutral (appendix). We in-
cluded neutral features (those that were rated as similarly
appropriate for describing people and products) in order to
account for the full spectrum of features. This resulted in a
2 (cue: in-self vs. out-self, between-subject)  3 (feature
type: person-related vs. neutral vs. product-related, within-
subject) mixed design. On each lab table, we placed a trav-
eling mug that we asked participants to evaluate. Self-cue
was manipulated using ownership: participants in the in-
self condition learned that they get to keep the mug they
evaluate; participants in the out-self condition learned that
WEISS
they get to keep a different mug that they will receive at
the end of the study (and thus did not own the mug they
were to evaluate). After verifying that participants under-
stood whether they owned the focal mug and guiding them
through its inspection, we asked them to place the mug on
the table.
Participants were then told that they will be presented
with several short general descriptions. They were asked to
press “s” on a keyboard if the description reflects the mug
and “o” if not, and to do so as quickly as possible to reflect
their actual evaluation of the mug. Participants first prac-
ticed the task on five objective mug attributes (e.g., black,
metallic) and then moved on to respond to the focal set of
words. This focal set of words (web appendix F), presented
in randomized order, was composed of nine person-related
features (e.g., creative, resilient), nine neutral features
(e.g., stylish, reliable), and nine product-related features
(e.g., smooth, compact), all selected from the list of pre-
tested features in the appendix. The time (in ms) it took
each participant to respond to each word served as the de-
pendent variable.
Participants then repeated the same task of responding at
maximal speed to the same features using the same keys
with the self as the target of judgment (i.e., indicated for
every feature whether it reflects them). The time (in ms) it
took each participant to respond to each word with regard
to themselves served as the predicted moderator.
Participants then provided their demographic information,
received either the mug they evaluated or a different mug
(based on the experimental condition), and were debriefed
and thanked.
Results. We reorganized the data to include 27 rows
per participant, one for each feature. Response time (in ms)
to a feature when rating the mug (or RTmug) (winsorized at
5% and 95%, square root transformed) was entered to a lin-
ear mixed-effects model (using proc mixed in SAS 9.4).
The model included two (cue: in-self vs. out-self, between
subject), feature-types (person-related vs. neutral vs.
product-related, within subject), feature response time
when rating the self (or RTself, winsorized at 5% and 95%,
square root transformed, within subject), and all their two-
way and three-way interactions. Note that the data contain
two random factors, subject and feature, that are crossed
with each other. Since RTself is continuous and varies both
within subject and within feature, it was adaptively cen-
tered (Pier et al. 2018). To account for nonindependence in
the data (Brauer and Curtin 2018), we included the appro-
priate random effects, specifically a by-participant random
effect with an intercept and slopes for feature-type, RTself,
and their interaction, as well as a by-attribute random ef-
fect with an intercept and slopes for self-cue, RTself, and
their interaction, plus all possible covariances.
Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the
degrees of freedom (Brauer and Curtin 2018). Since the
299
full model did not converge, following Brauer and Curtin
(2018, 404), we removed the by-attribute RTself random
slope and all covariances among random effects to obtain
convergence.
We first report the omnibus (three feature-types) analy-
sis and then test our hypotheses based on contrasts with the
two focal types, person-related and product-related. RTself
(F(1, 40.7) ¼ 8.16, p ¼ .007) was a significant predictor.
Self-cue (F(1, 178) ¼ .24, p ¼ .62), the omnibus effect of
feature-type (F(2, 24.1) ¼ 1.46, p ¼ .25), and their interac-
tion (F(2, 24) ¼ 2.04, p ¼ .15) as well as the omnibus inter-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
action of feature-type with RTself (F(2, 44.3) ¼ 1.28,
p ¼ .29) and the interaction of self-cue with RTself (F(1,
41) ¼ .58, p ¼ .45) were not significant. The omnibus
three-way interaction (F(2, 44.6) ¼ 3.12, p ¼ .054) was
marginally significant.
Importantly, consistent with overall support for hypothe-
sis 1, the interaction contrast between self-cue and the two
focal feature-types was negative and marginally significant
(b ¼ .86, SE ¼ .43, t (24.1) ¼ 2.01, p ¼ .056). In line
with hypothesis 3a, this two-way interaction contrast was
qualified by RTself, resulting in a significant three-way in-
teraction contrast (b ¼ .17, SE ¼ .07, t (42.3) ¼ 2.37,
p ¼ .023; for untransformed means see figure 4).
We used spotlight analysis (Fitzsimons 2008) to inter-
pret this three-way interaction contrast. The interaction be-
tween self-cue and the two focal feature-types was
negative and significant at fast RTself (i.e., at 1 SD below
the mean of RTself, b ¼ 1.76, SE ¼ .57, t (55.1) ¼ 3.08,
p ¼ .0032; the interaction remains significant at p ¼ .05 for
RTself as slow as .025 SDs below the mean). Planned con-
trasts showed that participants in the in-self (vs. out-self)
mug condition responded faster to the mug’s person-
related features (Min-self ¼ 1,124 vs. Mout-self ¼ 1,227, t
(205) ¼ 2.1, p ¼ .037), but not to its product-related fea-
tures (Min-self ¼ 1,263 vs. Mout-self ¼ 1,229, t(178) ¼ .67,
p ¼ .51) at fast RTself. Moreover, in line with hypothesis
3a, a similar analysis showed no effect at slow RTself (i.e.,
at 1 SD above the mean of RTself; ps > .51).
Alternative Explanations. One might ask whether the
results reflect a general fluency effect, whereby feature flu-
ency expedited judgment of all targets, but this was not the
case. We found that the observed advantage (i) is specific
to in-self (but not out-self) items and (ii) appears only for
person-related (but not product-related) features. These
findings are inconsistent with a mere fluency account and
consistent with our egocentric processing account.
Discussion. Using real behavior and a wide array of
features, the results of study 4 supported the predicted
processing advantage of person-related (but not product-
related) features in decisions about in-self (vs. out-self)
items (hypothesis 1). The results also supported the predic-
tion that the processing advantage for in-self items is big-
ger (smaller or even absent) when it exists (does not exist)
300 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 4

FASTER TO JUDGE THE PERSON-RELATED FEATURES OF AN IN-SELF (VS. OUT-SELF) MUG WHEN FAST TO JUDGE THE SELF,
STUDY 4

RT mug (ms)
1500
Out-Self In-Self

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022

1200

900
Person- Neutral Product- Person- Neutral Product- Person- Neutral Product-
Related Features Related Related Features Related Related Features Related
Features Features Features Features Features Features
Fast Avg. Slow
RT Self

NOTE.– Fast/Avg./Slow RTself represents (1 SD below the mean/the mean/1 SD above the mean) time to judge the self.

in self-judgment (hypothesis 3a). Finding a bigger (smaller
or even no) processing advantage for in-self (vs. out-self)
items for the features on which a person is faster (slower)
to judge the self supports our theory that this advantage is
driven by egocentric processing (hypothesis 2). Finding a
marginally significant two-way interaction between self-
cue and the two feature-types (i.e., person- and product-
related) in addition to a three-way interaction with RTself
supports our prediction that although the presence of an ad-
vantage in self-judgment is a moderator, it is not a neces-
sary condition for the advantages of person-related features
(see also studies 1–3).
Study 5: Consideration Advantage in
Headphones Choice—Moderated by Self-Focus
Study 5 had three goals. First, we tested the predicted
consideration advantage of person-related features in deci-
sions about in-self (vs. out-self) items (hypothesis 1) by
comparing the person-relatedness of the factors listed as
important in choice between owned versus choice between
unowned headphones. Second, we further examined
whether egocentric processing drives the advantage of
person-related features (hypothesis 2) by testing whether
the predicted consideration advantage of person-related
features is mediated by item inclusion in the category of
self. Third, we tested the prediction that the effect of self-
cue is moderated by self-focus (hypothesis 3b). If egocen-
tric processing drives the effect, then the effect can be
expected to be bigger (smaller or even absent) when self-
focus is high (low).
Method. Three hundred and sixty-two students in an
introductory marketing class in a large midwestern univer-
sity participated in a short study for class credit. Seven
failed an attention check and were excluded from further
analysis, leading to a sample size of 355 participants. The
study employed a cue (in-self vs. out-self) by self-focus
(measured) between-subjects design. Self-cue was manipu-
lated between subjects using ownership by asking partici-
pants to imagine making a choice between two headphones
either before or after owning them. Those in the in-self
(out-self) headphones condition read: “Imagine that you
are in the market for a high-quality set of headphones.
After narrowing down the options based on price, quality,
and brand, you eventually buy (consider) two sets of head-
phones, with the intent to keep (buy) and use only one of
them.” We informed participants that the two items were
selected based on price, quality, and brand in order to limit
any difference in the inferences that participants could
have made in each self-cue condition about the criteria for
the initial item selection. This follows previous research
(Chernev 2001; Kardes et al. 1993) that looks at a later
stage of the purchasing decision, after consumers have al-
ready narrowed down the choice-set based on initial crite-
ria like price and quality.
All participants were then asked to list four features
(other than price, quality, and brand) that are important to
them in choosing between the headphones. Then, as a de-
pendent variable, participants were asked to rate the extent
to which each feature they listed is applicable to people
(1 ¼ “Not at all” and 5 ¼ “Very much so”). Among the fea-
tures participants listed, features such as design,
WEISS
portability, and durability were rated as less person-related,
whereas features such as style, appearance, and reliability
were rated as more person-related. Next, participants an-
swered questions to test alternative explanations (regarding
the applicability of pre-selected features to people and fea-
ture intangibility and abstractness). We then measured the
predicted mediator—headphones inclusion in the category
of self—using the items from study 2 (r ¼ .62, M ¼ 2.55,
SD ¼ 1.43). Participants then answered more questions to
test alternative explanations (about anthropomorphism).
Following Carver and Scheier (1978) we next used the
self-consciousness scale (Fenigstein et al. 1975) to capture
participants’ degree of self-focus (1 ¼ “extremely
uncharacteristic” and 5 ¼ “extremely characteristic”;
a ¼ .61, M ¼ 3.58, SD ¼ .48). Participants then responded
to the manipulation check from study 3 of the focal self-
cue, ownership (r ¼ .9). Results were consistent with a suc-
cessful manipulation (owned: M ¼ 4.12, SD ¼ 1.87 vs.
unowned: M ¼ 2.66, SD ¼ 1.59, t (353) ¼ 7.97, p < .0001).
The participants provided demographic information and
were debriefed and thanked.
Results. The person-relatedness of the free-listed fea-
tures was summed into a person-relatedness index (min-
¼ 4, max ¼ 20, M ¼ 8.39, SD ¼ 3.64) and regressed on cue
(out-self ¼ 1, in-self ¼ 1), self-consciousness (standard-
ized), and their interaction. In line with overall support for
hypothesis 1, the results showed that person-relatedness of
features was higher for in-self (vs. out-self) items (b ¼ .63,
SE ¼ .19, t (351) ¼ 3.34, p ¼ .0009). Self-consciousness
was a significantly positive predictor (b ¼ .38, SE ¼ .19, t
(351) ¼ 2.03, p ¼ .043). In line with hypothesis 3b, the in-
teraction with self-consciousness was positive and signifi-
cant (b ¼ .56, SE ¼ .19, t (351) ¼ 2.97, p ¼ .0032; figure 5).
The interaction between self-cue and self-consciousness
was analyzed using the Johnson–Neyman floodlight tech-
nique (Spiller et al. 2013). In line with hypothesis 3b, the
results revealed significantly higher feature person-
relatedness (z ¼ 1.96, p ¼ .05) for the in-self (vs. out-self)
items for levels of self-consciousness as low as 3.38 (.41
SDs below the mean of 3.58).
Mediation. The results supported the prediction that
egocentric processing drives the advantages of person-
related features in decisions about in-self (vs. out-self)
items (hypothesis 2) by showing that headphones inclusion
in the category of self-mediated the effect of cue (in-self
vs. out-self) on the person-relatedness of the features peo-
ple spontaneously considered important for headphones
choice. A bootstrapping analysis with 10,000 samples
(PROCESS model 4; Hayes 2013) confirmed the mediation
effect (.1180, 95% CI [.0314, .2695]). The results of a re-
gression analysis for headphones inclusion in the self are
shown in table 4.
301
FIGURE 5
HIGHER PERSON-RELATEDNESS OF SPONTANEOUSLY
CONSIDERED FEATURES FOR IN-SELF (VS. OUT-SELF)
HEADPHONES WHEN SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS IS HIGH,
STUDY 5
Person-
relatedness of
spontaneously
considered
features
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
20
In-Self
Out-Self
12
4
2 3 4 5
Self-Consciousness
NOTE.– Feature person-relatedness for in- (vs. out-) self headphones is signifi-
cantly higher when self-consciousness is 3.38 or above.
Discussion. Using free-listed features, the results of
study 5 supported the predicted consideration advantage of
person-related features in decisions about in-self (vs. out-
self) items (hypothesis 1). Using moderation by an individ-
ual difference on self-focus (hypothesis 3b) and statistical
mediation by inclusion of the item in the category of self,
study 5’s results also supported the prediction that the ob-
served effect of cue (in-self vs. out-self) is driven by ego-
centric processing (hypothesis 2). Finding a significant
main effect of self-cue in addition to an interaction with
self-consciousness supports our prediction that although
self-focus is a moderator, it is not a necessary condition for
the advantage of person-related features (see also studies
1–4). See web appendix G for analyses that rule out the
possibility that the results reflect a change in the mere rat-
ing of (vs. actual) person-relatedness of the listed features
or in feature abstractness/intangibility. Further analyses
rule out the perception of the products as people or friends
(vs. egocentric processing) as process (see the results of re-
gression analyses for these alternative accounts in table 4).
Study 6: Importance Advantage in the Context of
Add-Ons—Moderated by the Extent to Which
Self-Cue Is Self-Defining
Study 6 further tested the predicted importance advan-
tage of person-related features (hypothesis 1) in the context
of the sale of add-ons (Bertini, Ofek, and Ariely 2009).
Since add-ons provide benefit only if used with a matching
302
TABLE 4
REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR COMPETING MEDIATORS, STUDY 5
Headphones in self
b t
Self-cue .22* 3.01
Self-consciousness .22* 2.90
Self-cue  Self- .08 1.04
consciousness
*p <.005.
base product (Guiltinan 1987), the features of an add-on
(e.g., a cellphone case) can be described in reference to ei-
ther the add-on itself (e.g., the case’s own visual appeal) or
its matching product (e.g., the visual appeal of the cell-
phone when using the case). This allowed us to manipulate
self-cue using long-standing ownership (vs. newly formed
ownership as in studies 3–5). If person-related features
gain advantages in decisions about in-self (vs. out-self)
items (hypothesis 1; as studies 1–5 show), then relating the
add-on features to the already owned (in-self) matching
product, rather than to the (out-self) add-on can be
expected to increase the importance of person-related fea-
tures in decisions about the add-on.
Study 6 also tested the prediction that the effect of self-
cue is moderated by whether people view the self-cue as
self-defining (hypothesis 3c). If item self-categorization
drives the effect, we can expect that the effect will be big-
ger (smaller or even absent) for people who see (do not
see) the focal self-cue as central to the way they define
themselves. Perception of the focal self-cue, ownership, as
self-defining was measured using a “Mine-Me” scale
adapted from prior measures (Weiss and Johar 2013, 2016)
to capture how much participants consider owned items
part of themselves.
Method. Three hundred and seventy-nine MTurk work-
ers participated in a short study for a nominal fee. Six
failed an attention check and were excluded from further
analysis, leading to a sample size of 373 participants. The
study used a 2 (cue: in-self vs. out-self)  2 (feature type:
person-related vs. product-related)  Mine-Me scale
between-subject design. All participants were asked to
imagine looking online for a cell phone case and finding
one that seems like a good fit. Self-cue and feature type
were both manipulated by modifying the caption that de-
scribed the case. Participants in the out-self (in-self) item
condition who received the person-related features descrip-
tion read: “A case that is (makes your phone) not only re-
silient but also beautiful.” For participants who received
the corresponding product-related features description, the
features were replaced with “durable” and “aesthetically
pleasing.” As the dependent variable, participants were
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Headphones as person Headphones as friend
b t b t
.03 .42 .01 0.16
.00 .01 .11 1.49
.05 .70 .09 1.11
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
then asked to enter the maximum dollar amount they would
pay to purchase this case using an open-ended response
box (as in study 2). Four Mine-Me scale items then mea-
sured participants’ tendency to perceive the self-cue of
ownership as self-defining (1 ¼ “strongly disagree” and
7 ¼ “strongly agree”) (a ¼ .91, M ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.55). The
items were: “I feel that objects I own are part of my self;”
“When I own a product, I see it as part of me;” “Once I get
to own something, I feel that it is more part of myself;” “If
I think of the self as a category, things that I own are part
of this category, while things that I don’t own are external
to it.” Participants were then debriefed and thanked.
Results and Discussion. WTP (winsorized at 1%, 99%)
was regressed untransformed (skewness ¼ 1.77 < 1.96) on
cue (in-self ¼ 1 vs. out-self ¼ 1), feature type (person
related ¼ 1 vs. product related ¼ 1), Mine-Me scale
(standardized), and their interactions. The results showed a
positive and significant effect of self-cue (b ¼ 1.7,
SE ¼ .74, t (365) ¼ 2.3, p ¼ .02) and a negative and signifi-
cant effect of feature type (b ¼ 1.51, SE ¼ .74, t
(365) ¼ 2.04, p ¼ .04). Mine-Me level was a positive and
significant predictor (b ¼ 2.23, SE ¼ .74, t (365) ¼ 3.02,
p ¼ .003); its interaction with self-cue was positive and
marginally significant (b ¼ 1.42, SE ¼ .74, t (365) ¼ 1.92,
p ¼ .055) and its interaction with feature type was not sig-
nificant (b ¼ .96, SE ¼ .74, t (365) ¼ 1.29, p ¼ .2).
Consistent with overall support for hypothesis 1, the inter-
action between self-cue and feature type was positive and
marginally significant (b ¼ 1.39, SE ¼ .74, t (365) ¼ 1.88,
p ¼ .06). In line with hypothesis 3c, this two-way interac-
tion was qualified by Mine-Me level, resulting in a signifi-
cant three-way interaction (b ¼ 1.92, SE ¼ .74, t
(365) ¼ 2.6, p ¼ .0097; figure 6).
Spotlight analysis showed that the interaction between
self-cue and feature type was positive and significant at
high levels of Mine-Me (i.e., at 1 SD above the mean,
b ¼ 13.25, SE ¼ 4.18, t (365) ¼ 3.17, p ¼ .0017; the interac-
tion remains significant at p ¼ .05 for participants with lev-
els of Mine-Me as low as 4, or .03 SDs above the mean of
3.95). Planned contrasts showed that focusing the decision
on an in-self (vs. out-self) item increased WTP when the
WEISS
HIGHER WTP FOR A CASE DESCRIBED USING PERSON-RELATED FEATURES WHEN THE FEATURES REFER TO AN IN-SELF (VS.
OUT-SELF) ITEM AND MINE-ME IS HIGH, STUDY 6
WTP for
cellphone case
$40
$20
$0
Person- Product-
related related
Low
Mine-Me
NOTE.– Low/Avg./High Mine-Me reflects (1 SD below the mean/the mean/1 SD above the mean) of the Mine-Me scale.
features were person-related (in-self: M ¼ $29.63,
SE ¼ 2.22 vs. out-self: M ¼ $16.77, SE ¼ 2.01, b ¼ 12.86,
SE ¼ 2.99, t (365) ¼ 4.29, p < .0001), but not when the fea-
tures were product-related (in-self: M ¼ $24.11, SE ¼ 2.01
vs. out-self: M ¼ $24.5, SE ¼ 2.12, b ¼ .39, SE ¼ 2.92, t
(365) ¼ .13, p ¼ .89) at high Mine-Me levels. In line with
hypothesis 3c, a similar analysis showed no effect at low
Mine-Me levels (i.e., at 1 SD below the mean; ps > .58).
Using a different product category and long-standing in-
stead of newly formed ownership as the in-self cue, the
results of study 6 further supported the importance advan-
tage of person-related features in decisions about in-self
(vs. out-self) items (hypothesis 1). The results of study 6
also supported the prediction that the effect of self-cue is
moderated by whether the focal self-cue is self-defining
(hypothesis 3c). Finding that the effect of self-cue is bigger
(smaller or absent) among people for whom ownership is
(is not) self-defining (i.e., those high [low] on the Mine-
Me scale) supports our theory that this effect is driven by
egocentric processing (hypothesis 2).
The results of study 6 suggest that marketers can use
long-standing product ownership to create advantages for
person-related features and, in doing so, expand the cir-
cumstances in which using person-related features creates
advantages. These results also offer novel theoretical and
practical insights specifically to the sales of add-ons, a do-
main with practical importance that has been understudied
in the field of marketing (Bertini et al. 2009). Finding a
303
FIGURE 6
Out-self In-self
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
Person- Product- Person- Product-
related related related related
Avg. High
marginally significant interaction between self-cue and
feature-type in addition to a three-way interaction with
Mine-Me level supports our prediction that although the
degree to which the self-cue is self-defining is a moderator,
it is not a necessary condition for the effect (see also stud-
ies 1–5).
Study 7: Importance Advantage in the Context of
Product Naming—Moderated by the Extent to
Which Self-Cue Is Self-Defining
Study 7 further tested the predicted importance advan-
tage of person-related features (hypothesis 1) and the mod-
erating effect of whether the self-cue is self-defining
(hypothesis 3c) in the context of a second marketing appli-
cation: product naming. Marketers sometimes give prod-
ucts an informative name to convey a differentiating
feature (e.g., Adidas ZX Flux Smooth, Sketchers Burst
Daring). Hypothesis 1 suggests that a product name that
includes a person-related feature would increase the appeal
of in-self (vs. out-self) products. We tested this prediction
in an incentive-compatible study that offered participants a
consequential choice between two real flash drives. To
keep feature relevance high, the actual drives included a
person-related or a product-related feature (based on pre-
testing; appendix) in their names: the “Intelligent Stick”
and the “Compact Attache.” (To reduce unnecessary varia-
tion in product name and curb participants’ ability to look
304
up the products online, the second word of both names was
modified to “Drive.”)
Method. Two hundred and eight students in an intro-
ductory marketing class in a large midwestern university
participated in a short online study for course credit. Two
participants failed an attention check and were excluded
from further analysis, leading to a sample size of 206 par-
ticipants. Participants were presented with an Amazon-
style online shopping-cart that included two real flash drive
products with slightly modified names: the “Intelligent
Drive” and the “Compact Drive.” To mimic naturalistic
shopping cart settings, participants received the name of
each product and the same three pieces of information
about each product (color picture, capacity, and shipping
provider), counterbalanced across products.
The study employed a cue (in-self vs. out-self) by Mine-
Me level between-subject design. Self-cue was manipu-
lated between subjects using ownership by asking partici-
pants to imagine making a choice between the two
products either before (out-self) or after (in-self) purchase
(as in study 3). In addition to using study 3’s wording, self-
cue was also manipulated by varying the top banner of the
cart: participants in the out-self (in-self) items condition
saw a standard (modified) top banner that stated “shopping
cart” (“owned items cart”) and, right below, “items to buy
now” (“items you already acquired”).
Participants were then informed that “by responding to
this survey, you have been entered into a lottery. We will
randomly select one tenth of participants in this study, and
these winners will receive their chosen flash drive.” This
rendered their choice incentive compatible. Participants
then chose the flash drive they wanted to buy (keep). This
choice served as the study’s dependent variable.
Participants then responded to the same Mine-Me scale
from study 6 to measure the extent to which the self-cue of
ownership was self-defining (a ¼ .79, M ¼ 4.5, SD ¼ 1.08)
and to the ownership manipulation check from study 2
(r ¼ .73). Results were consistent with a successful owner-
ship manipulation (owned: M ¼ 4.59, SD ¼ 1.17 vs.
unowned: M ¼ 2.75, SD ¼ .79, t (204) ¼ 13.1, p < .0001).
Participants were then debriefed and thanked. Twenty-one
of them were subsequently selected at random and given
the flash drive they had chosen.
Results and Discussion. Participants’ chosen flash
drive (intelligent drive ¼ 1, compact drive ¼ 0) was entered
into a logistic regression with cue (out-self ¼ 1, in-self-
¼ 1), Mine-Me level (standardized), and their two-way in-
teraction as predictors. Mine-Me level was not a
statistically significant predictor (b ¼ .07, v2 ¼ .18, p ¼ .7).
Consistent with overall support for hypothesis 1, an in-self
(out-self) cue significantly increased choice of the intelli-
gent drive (b ¼ .36, v2 ¼ 6.01, p ¼ .014). Moreover, in line
with hypothesis 3c, the interaction effect with Mine-Me
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 7
CHOOSING AN ITEM WITH A PERSON-RELATED NAME FROM
IN-SELF (VS. OUT-SELF) ITEMS WHEN MINE-ME LEVEL IS
HIGH, STUDY 7
Choice
probability of
item with
person-related
name
0.9
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
0.5
In-Self Out-Self
0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mine-Me Level (measured)
NOTE.– Johnson–Neyman region of significance when Mine-Me level is
greater than 4.27.
level was also positive and significant (b ¼ .32, v2 ¼ 4.43,
p ¼ .035; figure 7).
The interaction between the self-cue and Mine-Me level
was analyzed using the Johnson–Neyman floodlight tech-
nique. In line with hypothesis 3c, results revealed a signifi-
cantly greater choice probability of the item with person-
related name (z ¼ 1.96, p ¼ .05) for the in-self (vs. out-self)
items for participants with levels of Mine-Me as low as
4.27 (.21 SDs below the mean of 4.5).
Using a real (i.e., consequential) choice of actual prod-
ucts, a different product category, a familiar choice inter-
face, and an implicit indication for the product’s features
based on the product’s name, the results of study 7 further
supported the importance advantage of person-related fea-
tures in decisions about in-self (vs. out-self) items (hypoth-
esis 1). The results of study 7 also further supported the
prediction that the effect of self-cue is moderated by
whether the self-cue is self-defining (hypothesis 3c).
Finding that the effect of self-cue is bigger (smaller or ab-
sent) among people for whom ownership is (is not) self-
defining (i.e., people who are high [low] on the Mine-Me
scale) supports our theory that this effect is driven by ego-
centric processing (hypothesis 2). Finding that participants
were more likely to choose the product with a person-
related feature in its name when the choice was between
in-self (vs. between out-self) items in a real (i.e., conse-
quential) choice between real products further supports the
generalizability and robustness of our effects. Finding a
significant main effect of self-cue in addition to an interac-
tion with Mine-Me levels suggests that whether the self-
cue is self-defining is a moderator but not a necessary con-
dition for the effect (see also studies 1–6).
WEISS
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This article departs from prior research by showing that
the way consumers classify an item relative to themselves
can create advantages for a subset of the item’s features.
We test and support the prediction that egocentric process-
ing drives the advantages of person-related features in
decisions about in-self (vs. out-self) items. In egocentric
processing, people use self-cues such as ownership and
brand to classify items as being inside or outside of the cat-
egory of self; they then use this category, to which person-
related features neatly apply, to process information about
in-self items. Person-related features thus gain advantages
in consideration, processing, and importance in decisions
about in-self (vs. out-self) items. The advantages are bigger
when similar advantages exist in self-judgment, when con-
sumers are self-focused, and when the self-cue is self-
defining; the advantages are present at an average level of
each moderator and are smaller or even absent when these
moderators are low.
Main Findings
The results obtained from seven studies are in line with
the hypothesis that person-related features gain advantages
in decisions about in-self (vs. out-self) items (hypothesis
1). The results were replicated across experimental para-
digms, different advantages, multiple advantage measures,
diverse product categories, and two self-cues. Within the
studies employing branding as a self-cue, the results held
across different operationalizations of connection to a
brand. Within the studies employing ownership as self-cue,
the results held across different ownership manipulations.
The results were robust across different levels of interac-
tion with the target item.
Process measures and theory-driven moderators sup-
ported our theorized process. We provided two lines of evi-
dence to support our prediction that the greater advantages
of person-related features for in-self (vs. out-self) items are
driven by egocentric processing (hypothesis 2): (i) item in-
clusion in the category of self and (ii) use of self as the fo-
cal category for objects. Item inclusion in the category of
self was evident from finding that an in-self (vs. out-self)
cue does not favor person-related features among people
who do not perceive the focal self-cue as self-defining (and
thus are unlikely to categorize items with an in-self cue in
the self; studies 6 and 7). Further, mediation analysis
showed that an in-self (vs. out-self) cue increases item in-
clusion in the category of self which, in-turn, increases
both WTP for a product that is described using person-
related features (study 2) and the person-relatedness of the
features considered important in item choice (study 5). Use
of self as a category for objects was evident from finding
that (i) faster response to person-related features when
judging an in-self (vs. out-self) item was predicted by
305
faster response to the same features when judging the self
(study 4) and that (ii) an in-self (vs. out-self) cue does not
favor person-related features for less self-focused people
(who are less likely to use the self as a category for objects;
study 5). Mediation analysis showed that making decisions
about in-self (vs. out-self) items increases use of the self as
a category for objects which, in-turn, predicts more choice
of items with better rated person-related features (study 3).
Various steps ruled out feature relevance to the product
category or feature familiarity as confounding factors in
the observed effects (web appendix F).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
Contributions
This article integrates insights from a variety of bodies
of research on the relationships between consumers and
products. We build on and further substantiate prior work
on egocentric categorization, and specifically its central as-
sertion that people use the self as an organizing category
for objects (Weiss and Johar 2013, 2016). In line with prior
research (Dagogo-Jack and Forehand 2018; Weiss and
Johar 2013), we implicate the underlying role of the self by
using established or adapted mediators (item inclusion in
the category of self, studies 2 and 5; use of self as an orga-
nizing category for objects, study 3) and moderators (self-
focus, study 5; Mine-Me, studies 6 and 7). We also identify
egocentric processing as a distinct component of egocen-
tric categorization and uniquely study its implications for
the consideration, processing, and importance of a subset
of product features.
Importantly, the present research also extends the ego-
centric categorization framework, which initially conceptu-
alized ownership as the only criterion for self-
categorization (Johar, Chung, and Weiss 2019; Weiss and
Johar 2013, 2016, 2018). Generalizing across two different
product circumstances that may lead to the classification of
items relative to the self (ownership and brands), we intro-
duce self-cue as an organizing concept for such circum-
stances. This allows us to integrate insights from different
literatures and improves our ability to understand and pre-
dict how people will classify items in relation to them-
selves in a variety of situations. The various self-cues
consumers use and their effects, the ways consumers re-
solve inconsistencies across self-cues (e.g., an unowned
product [out cue] of an in-group brand [in cue]), and other
unexplored implications of self-categorization cues are
worthwhile directions for future research.
There are competing theories about how the endowment
effect works (Morewedge and Giblin 2015;
Nayakankuppam and Mishra 2005), but they all agree that
ownership increases the accessibility of all the positive and
desirable attributes of a product equally. Presenting a more
nuanced theory, we show that the enhancing effect of own-
ership is seen for a specific subset of the item’s features—
its person-related features. This finding advances our
306
ability to predict when the known effects of ownership on
valuation and choice will strengthen (or weaken).
One factor that may explain why our findings differ
from the endowment effect literature is the choice context.
Many researchers have explained the endowment effect by
positing a status quo bias (Thaler 1980), whereby people
try to reaffirm the existing state of being owners
(Morewedge and Giblin 2015) by seeking, attending to,
and remembering data about the positive aspects of an
owned product (Johnson, Haubl, and Keinan 2007). Yet
some of the choices we examine in the present research
have no status quo option: choices about which of two
items one owns to keep or choices about which of two
items one does not own to buy (studies 3, 5, and 7). In con-
trast to endowment choices about whether to own an item,
these choices are about which item to own and therefore
have no status-quo. Unlike the endowment literature, our
egocentric processing framework is well positioned to offer
predictions about such product decisions.
In recent decades, with product return polices becoming
more lenient and the rise of online shopping (Bernard 2010),
product decisions where there is no status-quo option are in-
creasingly relevant, as consumers choose which of two (or
more) products bought online to keep and which to return, for
example. To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first
to compare and contrast choices between owned and between
unowned items. We believe that in the current consumer land-
scape this can be a fruitful direction for future research.
Prior brand research has shown that connection to a brand
(Dommer and Swaminathan 2013) and the specific features
of a brand (Chan, Berger, and Van Boven 2012) both affect
preference for the brand’s products. Our categorization per-
spective allows us to look for the first time at the relation-
ship between these two aspects of branding. Specifically, we
argue that the type of feature used to describe the brand acts
as a moderator for the effect of brand-self link on prefer-
ence. We can thus ask whether the greater preference for an
in-self (vs. out-self) item is seen more when the item is de-
scribed in terms of one type of feature versus another.
Relatedly, while brand personality research views, for exam-
ple, honest and genuine as two facets of the personality di-
mension “sincerity” (Aaker 1997), we show that different
labels for qualitatively similar attributes can have meaning-
ful and systematic implications for product preference.
Implications
Our research suggests various ways that brands and mar-
keters can tailor their message to specific consumer seg-
ments. As discussed earlier, a brand can benefit from using
person-related features to describe its high margin products
to its fans, as Apple did in its iPhone launch and we did in
our Facebook field study. Person-related features can even
increase product appeal to nonfans, for example, by describ-
ing the features in relation to a complementary item that the
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
consumer already owns (e.g., a voice activated speaker that
makes your home smart vs. one that is smart on its own).
Our research also suggests that an on-line retailer can im-
prove the appeal of a high-margin product by describing it
differently to consumers at different stages of their purchase
decision, emphasizing product-related features in the pre-
purchase stage (through product information available on-
line), but emphasizing person-related features in the post-
purchase stage (through product information attached to the
purchased product) so as to appeal specifically to product
owners. Marketers may similarly benefit from highlighting
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
person- (vs. product-)related features when they engage in
marketing practices that induce consumers to feel product
ownership before purchase, such as encouraging customers
to customize or test-drive products prior to purchase (Peck
and Shu 2009). BMW may thus benefit from describing an
8 Series car as “smooth” in ads that encourage people to
visit a dealership for the first time, but as “intuitive” in
materials given to consumers after a test drive.
Notably, future research and market applications of our
typology should keep some limitations and unanswered
questions in mind. The extent to which a feature is perceived
to describe products versus persons is likely dynamic, and
may vary across contexts. To use the distinction between
product- and person-related features effectively, researchers
and marketers should test how features are perceived among
their target population close to the time of use. Our pretests
provide a template for how this might be done. We have not
tested whether the effect we observe generalizes to negative
features, like those used in product testimonials or reviews.
This area for future research will likely be informative, as
greater attention to or slower processing of negative (vs.
positive) information (Unkelbach et al. 2008) may alter or
even eliminate the effect for negative features.
The insights from this research may have more wide-
ranging implications. The decisions about in-self items fol-
lowing ownership in studies 3, 5, and 7 of this article are
characterized by a one-time choice that leads consumers to
keep their selected option (e.g., one of two sets of head-
phones bought online) but disown (send back) the unse-
lected option. However, the scope of decisions among in-
self items following ownership can be broadened to in-
clude repeated choices among redundant products that the
chooser owns, such as which of the multiple jackets, bags,
or electronic devices a consumer owns to use on a given
day. Such decisions are made repeatedly, often on a daily
basis, and typically are not followed by disowning the un-
selected items. Such repeated decisions are consequential,
as they are likely to affect consumers’ product replacement
choices (Okada 2001). Further, some products, such as
payment devices (e.g., credit cards), often employ per-use
pricing, whereby marketers rely on the device to be repeat-
edly selected over competing devices in order to be profit-
able. Does the increased importance of person-related
features, as identified here in the context of a narrowly
WEISS
defined range of choices among in-self items, also apply to
broadly defined, repeated choices among in-self items?
This and other related questions about the implications of
egocentric processing await further research.
DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION
The author collected data (studies 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7) or
supervised the collection of data (study 4) for all studies.
Data for study 1 were collected on Facebook in the fall of
307
2019. Data for an additional study reported in web appen-
dix C were collected on Facebook in the spring of 2021.
Data for studies 2 (spring 2019), 3 (fall 2017), 4 (fall
2015), 5 (fall 2019), and 7 (spring 2013 and fall 2014)
were collected using a student panel at the University of
Wisconsin–Madison. Data for study 6 were collected using
Amazon Mechanical Turk in the spring of 2019. The au-
thor analyzed the data for all studies. The data are currently
stored in a project directory on the Open Science
Framework.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
308 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

APPENDIX: FEATURE APPLICABILITY TO PEOPLE VERSUS PRODUCTS

Original Honest*
Steady Sincere*
Unique Cheerful*
Slim Intelligent*
Loud Responsible*
Rugged Friendly*

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022

Authenc Spirited*
Complex Daring*
Stable Creave*
Handy Smart*
Thin Romanc*
Stylish Charming*
Weighty* Imaginave*
Efficient* Genuine*
Dazzling* Intuive*
Effecve* Outdoorsy*
Versale* Glamourous*
Delicate* Pragmac*
Speedy* Resilient*
Praccal* Strong*
Smooth* Beauful*
Useful* Adaptable*
Adjustable* Elegant*
Precise* Quick*
Thick* Slender*
Aesthec* Responsive*
Sturdy* Dependable*
Durable* Innovave
Convenient* Tough*
Compact* Flexible
Programmable* Reliable
Portable* Handy

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Applicable to describe a product Applicable to describe a product

Applicable to describe a person Applicable to describe a person

Note: See web appendix A for details.

*Statistically significant difference between the feature’s applicability to describe people and products (p  .05).
WEISS
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347–56.
Aggarwal, Pankaj and Ann L. McGill (2007), “Is that Car Smiling
at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating
Anthropomorphized Products,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 34 (4), 468–79.
Ahuvia, Aaron C. (2005), “Beyond the Extended Self: Loved
Objects and Consumers’ Identity Narratives,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 32 (1), 171–84.
Ariely, Dan and Itamar Simonson (2003), “Buying, Bidding,
Playing, or Competing? Value Assessment and Decision
Dynamics in Online Auctions,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 (1), 113–23.
Atasoy, Ozgun and Carey K. Morewedge (2018), “Digital Goods
Are Valued Less than Physical Goods,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 44 (6), 1343–57.
Bargh, John A. and Felicia Pratto (1986), “Individual Construct
Accessibility and Perceptual Selection,” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 22 (4), 293–311.
Barton, Michelle E. and Lloyd K. Komatsu (1989), “Defining
Features of Natural Kinds and Artifacts,” Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 18 (5), 433–47.
Beggan, James K. (1992), “On the Social Nature of Nonsocial
Perception—The Mere Ownership Effect,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 229–37.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68.
Bernard, Tara S. (2010), “Naughty and Nice’ Retailer Return
Policies,” The New York Times, December 1.
Bertini, Marco, Elie Ofek, and Dan Ariely (2009), “The Impact of
Add-on Features on Consumer Product Evaluations,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 36 (1), 17–28.
Bodenhausen, Galen V. and Meryl Lichtenstein (1987), “Social
Stereotypes and Information-Processing Strategies: The
Impact of Task Complexity,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52 (5), 871–80.
Brauer, Markus and John J. Curtin (2018), “Linear Mixed-Effects
Models and the Analysis of Nonindependent Data: A Unified
Framework to Analyze Categorical and Continuous
Independent Variables that Vary Within-Subjects and/or
Within-Items,” Psychological Methods, 23 (3), 389–411.
Brewer, Marilynn B. (1991), “The Social Self—On being the
Same and Different at the Same Time,” Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (5), 475–82.
Burris, Christopher T. and Nyla R. Branscombe (2005), “Distorted
Distance Estimation Induced by a Self-Relevant National
Boundary,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41
(3), 305–12.
Carpenter, Gregory S., Rashi Glazer, and Kent Nakamoto (1994),
“Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The
Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 31 (3), 339–50.
Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier (1978), “Self-Focusing
Effects of Dispositional Self-Consciousness, Mirror
Presence, and Audience Presence,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36 (3), 324–32.
Chan, Cindy, Jonah Berger, and Leaf Van Boven (2012),
“Identifiable but Not Identical: Combining Social Identity
309
and Uniqueness Motives in Choice,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 39 (3), 561–73.
Chandler, Jesse and Norbert Schwarz (2010), “Use does not Wear
Ragged the Fabric of Friendship: Thinking of Objects as
Alive Makes People Less Willing to Replace Them,” Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 20 (2), 138–45.
Chernev, Alexander (2001), “The Impact of Common Features on
Consumer Preferences: A Case of Confirmatory Reasoning,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 475–88.
Cunningham, Sheila J., David J. Turk, Lynda M. Macdonald, and
C. Neil Macrae (2008), “Yours or Mine? Ownership and
Memory,” Consciousness and Cognition, 17 (1), 312–18.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
Dagogo-Jack, Sokiente W. and Mark R. Forehand (2018),
“Egocentric Improvement Evaluations: Change in the Self as
an Anchor for Brand Improvement Judgments,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 55 (6), 934–50.
Dommer, Sara L. and Vanitha Swaminathan (2013), “Explaining
the Endowment Effect through Ownership: The Role of
Identity, Gender, and Self-Threat,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 39 (5), 1034–50.
Dunning, David and Andrew F. Hayes (1996), “Evidence for
Egocentric Comparison in Social Judgment,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 213–29.
Duval, T. Shelly and Robert A. Wicklund. (1972), A Theory of
Objective Self-Awareness, New York: Academic Press.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), “You are
What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on
Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 (3), 339–48.
Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier, and Arnold H. Buss (1975),
“Public and Private Self-Consciousness: Assessment and
Theory,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43
(4), 522–27.
Ferraro, Rosellina., Jennifer E. Escalas, and James R. Bettman
(2011), “Our Possessions, Our Selves: Domains of Self-
Worth and the Possession-Self Link,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 21 (2), 169–77.
Fitzsimons, Gavan J. (2008), “Death to Dichotomizing,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 5–8.
Gawronski, bertram, Galen V. Bodenhausen, and Andrew P.
Becker (2007), “I like It, Because I like Myself: Associative
Self-Anchoring and Post-Decisional Change of Implicit
Evaluations,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43
(2), 221–32.
Goffman, Erving (1972), Relations in Public, New York: Harper
and Row.
Grohmann, Bianca (2009), “Gender Dimensions of Brand
Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (1), 105–19.
Guiltinan, Joseph P. (1987), “The Price Bundling of Services: A
Normative Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (2),
74–85.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation,
and Conditional Process Analysis, New York: Guilford.
Higgins, E. Tory (1996), “Knowledge Activation: Accessibility,
Applicability and Salience,” in Social Psychology:
Handbook of Basic Principles, ed. E. Tory Higgins and Arie
W. Kruglanski, New York: Guilford Press, 133–68.
Irvine, Mark (2020), “Facebook Ad Benchmarks for Your
Industry [Data],” https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/
2017/02/28/facebook-advertising-benchmarks.
310
Johar, Gita V., Jaideep Sengupta, and Jennifer L. Aaker (2005),
“Two Roads to Updating Brand Personality Impressions:
Trait versus Evaluative Inferencing,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 42 (4), 458–69.
Johar, Gita Venkataramani, Jaeyeon Chung, and Liad Weiss
(2019), “Ownership and Identity: A Cognitive Perspective,”
in Handbook of Research on Identity Theory in Marketing,
ed. Americus Reed and Mark Forehand, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing, 141–57.
Johnson, Eric J., Gerald Haubl, and Anat Keinan (2007), “Aspects
of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction,”
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 33 (3), 461–74.
Kardes, Frank R., Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, Murali
Chandrashekaran, and Ronald J. Dornoff (1993), “Brand
Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer
Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 20 (1), 62–75.
Kirmani, Amna (2009), “The Self and the Brand,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 271–75.
Luhtanen, Riia and Jennifer Crocker (1992), “A Collective Self-
Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One’s Social Identity,”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 (3), 302–18.
McConnell, Allen R., Christina M. Brown, Tonya M. Shoda, Laura E.
Stayton, and Colleen E. Martin (2011), “Friends with Benefits:
On the Positive Consequences of Pet Ownership,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (6), 1239–52.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Valerie S. Folkes (2017), “Humanizing
Brands: When Brands Seem to be like Me, Part of Me, and in
a Relationship with Me,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
27 (3), 355–74.
Medin, Douglas L. (1989), “Concepts and Conceptual Structure,”
The American Psychologist, 44 (12), 1469–81.
Meyvis, Tom and Stijn M. J. Van Osselaer (2018), “Increasing the
Power of Your Study by Increasing the Effect Size,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 44 (5), 1157–73.
Miller, Dale T. and William Turnbull (1986), “Expectancies and
Interpersonal Processes,” Annual Review of Psychology, 37
(1), 233–56.
Mitchell, Jason P., Todd F. Heatherton, and C. Neil Macrae
(2002), “Distinct Neural Systems Subserve Person and
Object Knowledge,” Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 99 (23),
15238–43.
Mitchell, Jason P., C. Neil Macrae, and Mahzarin R. Banaji
(2005), “Forming Impressions of People versus Inanimate
Objects: Social-Cognitive Processing in the Medial
Prefrontal Cortex,” NeuroImage, 26 (1), 251–57.
Morewedge, Carey K. and Colleen E. Giblin (2015),
“Explanations of the Endowment Effect: An Integrative
Review,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19 (6), 339–48.
Mussweiler, Thomas and Galen V. Bodenhausen (2002), “I Know
You Are, but What Am I? Self-Evaluative Consequences of
Judging in-Group and out-Group Members,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (1), 19–32.
Nayakankuppam, Dhananjay and Himanshu Mishra (2005), “The
Endowment Effect: Rose-Tinted and Dark-Tinted Glasses,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 390–95.
Okada, Erica Mina (2001), “Trade-Ins, Mental Accounting, and
Product Replacement Decisions,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 27 (4), 433–46.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, and Joseph Priester (2006),
“Brand Attachment: Constructs, Consequences, and Causes,”
R
Foundations and TrendsV in Marketing, 1 (3), 191–230.
Peck, Joann and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere
Touch on Perceived Ownership,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 36 (3), 434–47.
Pier, Elizabeth L., Markus Brauer, Amarette Filut, Anna Kaatz,
Joshua Raclaw, Mitchell J. Nathan, Cecilia E. Ford, and
Molly Carnes (2018), “Low Agreement among Reviewers
Evaluating the Same Nih Grant Applications,” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 115 (12), 2952–57.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
Pierce, Jon L., Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks (2003), “The
State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending
a Century of Research,” Review of General Psychology, 7
(1), 84–107.
Rochberg-Halton, Eugene (1984), “Object Relations, Role
Models, and Cultivation of the Self,” Environment and
Behavior, 16 (3), 335–68.
Rogers, Timothy B., Nicholas A. Kuiper, and W. S. Kirker (1977),
“Self-Reference and Encoding of Personal Information,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (9),
677–88.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A
Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3),
287–300.
Spiller, Stephen A., Gavan J. Fitzsimons, John G. Lynch, and
Gary H. McClelland (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the
Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated
Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 277–88.
Srull, Thomas K. and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (1979), “Role of
Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information
about Persons—Some Determinants and Implications,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (10),
1660–72.
Strahilevitz, Michal A. and George Loewenstein (1998), “The
Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 276–89.
Symons, Cynthia S. and Blair T. Johnson (1997), “The Self-
Reference Effect in Memory: A Meta-Analysis,”
Psychological Bulletin, 121 (3), 371–94.
Tajfel, Henri (1969), “Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice,” Journal of
Social Issues, 25 (4), 79–97.
Thaler, Richard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer
Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1
(1), 39–60.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2003), “Temporal Construal,”
Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403–21.
Trudel, Remi, Jennifer J. Argo, and Matthew D. Meng (2016),
“The Recycled Self: Consumers’ Disposal Decisions of
Identity-Linked Products,” Journal of Consumer Research,
43 (2), 246–64.
Turk, David J., Kim van Bussel, Gordon D. Waiter, and C. Neil
Macrae (2011), “Mine and Me: Exploring the Neural Basis of
Object Ownership,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23
(11), 3657–68.
Unkelbach, Christian, Klaus Fiedler, Myriam Bayer, Martin
Stegmüller, and Daniel Danner (2008), “Why Positive
Information is Processed Faster: The Density Hypothesis,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (1), 36–49.
WEISS
Weiss, Liad and Gita V. Johar (2013), “Egocentric Categorization
and Product Judgment: Seeing Your Traits in What You Own
(and Their opposite in What You Don’t),” Journal of
Consumer Research, 40 (1), 185–201.
——— (2016), “Products as Self-Evaluation Standards: When
Owned and Unowned Products Have opposite Effects on
Self-Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (6),
915–30.
311
——— (2018), “Psychological Ownership in Egocentric
Categorization Theory,” in Psychological Ownership and
Consumer Behavior, ed. Joann Peck and Suzanne Shu,
Cham: Springer, 33–51.
White, Katherine and Darren W. Dahl (2007), “Are All out-
Groups Created Equal? Consumer Identity and
Dissociative Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research,
34 (4), 525–36.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/49/2/288/6460825 by Jnls Cust Serv on 27 July 2022
© 2022 Journal of Consumer Research Inc. Copyright of Journal of Consumer Research is the
property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.