22 | Journal of Marketing, April 1977 Jacob Jacoby, Carol K. Berning and Thomas F. Dietvorst What About Disposition? What do consumers do with products once they have outlived their usefulness, and how does this relate to the purchase of replacement products? }ONSUMER behavior can be defined as the “acquisition, consumption, and disposition of ‘goods, services, time and ideas by decision making units." As described elsewhere,? different disci- plines typically focus on different portions of this behavioral process. For example, marketers and ad- vertisers tend to focus attention on acquisition (par- ticularly that form of acquisition called purchasing), whereas home economists and nutritionists are typ- ically more concerned with actual usage or con- sumption (e.g., in the preparation and consump- tion of foods). Examination of the published literature across those behavioral science oriented disciplines study- ing micro-consumer behavior reveals that, except for a handful of papers dealing with packaging and solid waste disposal, virtually no conceptual or em- pirical work has been addressed to the general issue of disposition by consumers.* Accordingly, the present investigation was undertaken in the spirit of exploratory research. We started by developing a conceptual taxonomy to accommodate what we believed to be the major disposition behaviors engaged in by in- dividual consumers. Using the taxonomy as our guide, we next developed an interview schedule designed to probe consumer disposition decisions and behavior vis-a-vis six commonly owned dura- ble products. After pretesting on one sample (n = 60), this questionnaire was administered to a sec- About the Author JACOB JACOBY Js Professor of Psychological Sci- ences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, CAROL K. BERNING is affiliated with the Procter and Gamble Co., Cincinnati, OH THOMAS F. DIETVORST is associated with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. ond sample of 134 consumers. The primary purpose of this preliminary study was to determine whether the taxonomy was indeed comprehensive. These developments are described below and are followed by a concluding section in which the findings are discussed, additional issues raised, and directions for future research briefly outlined. A Taxon for Describing Consumer isposition Behavior When a consumer contemplates the disposition of a product, there appear to be three general choices available to him: 1. Keep the product. 2, Permanently dispose of i 3. Temporarily dispose of If he decides to keep the product, he may either: a. Continue to use it for its original purpose. b. Convert it to serve another purpose. . Store it, perhaps for later use. If he decides to get rid of it permanently, he can’ a. Throw it away or abandon it. b. Give it away. . Sell it. d. Trade it. Finally, if he decides to dispose of it only temporar- ily, he can: a. Loan it, b. Rent it to someone else. ‘These nine specific alternatives are depicted in Ex- hibit 1. This basic taxonomy can be articulated fur- ther. For example, the give it away, trade it, and sell it options for “get rid of it permanently” can all be subdivided according to what will happen to the product once this course of action is taken. Will it be used by or be [re-Jsold by the recipientWhat About Disposition? / 23 EXHIBIT 1 Disposition Decision Taxonomy ‘PRODUCT GET RID OF IT GET Ap OF IT KEEP IT PERMANENTLY ‘TEMPORARILY C1 ct Use it to] [Convert it to lserve original] | serve anew || Store it Font it Loan it purpose | | purpose LL Trade it settit To be To be Direct to | | Through To (resold used Consumer | | Middleman | | Middleman or, in what is hopefully a more frequently occur- ring option, will it be recycled? Especially where the “sell it” option is concerned, one can ask whether this is directly to another consumer, to a middleman (as when selling a used car to a used car lot), or through a middleman (as when using a realtor to sell one’s home). Not withstanding the potential that such speculative articulating has for enriching the taxonomy, it was thought that such conceptual ex- tensions should await at least a preliminary em- pirical assessment of the basic taxonomy. Accord- ingly, we now turn to the description of an inves- tigation carried out for this purpose Empirically Exploring the Disposition Taxonomy Methodology DP Subjects. The subjects were 134 residents (8% male and 62% female) of the Lafayette/West Lafayette, Indiana metropoli- tan area. Only one was less that 20 years of age and 17 were older than 60; thus, 88% were between the ages of 20 and 60. Further, 78% were currently married, 13% single, 5% widowed, and 3% divorced. Although the Lafayette area includes a college community, only 5% indicated they, or their spouses, were college students; of those surveyed, 95% indicated they were from Lafayette and the surrounding area, father than the West Lafayette College community. > Products examined. The products examined were selected to be representative of com- monly purchased durable goods. Among the selection criteria employed were price and product turn-over. The six products selected were: stereo amplifier, wrist watch, tooth- brush, phonograph record, bicycle, and re- frigerator. D Interview schedule. Because of its complex- ity, the questionnaire was designed as an interview schedule (containing approxi-24 | Journal of Marketing, April 1977 Exhibit 2 Ownership and Disposition Decision Information for the Six Test Products* Phono- Stereo Wrist ‘raph ‘Amplifier Watch Toothbrush Record ‘A. Currently own, but have not ‘owned betore 8 w ° 2 28 20 B. Owned another before most ent acquisition 41._ Still using product acquired first tor original purpose 5 20 6 25 5 8 2. No longer using product for original purpose a et tar 54 33 83 . Owned product at one time Dut not now 13 ° " 26 2 D. Number of disposition decisions for product category (lines (81, B2, 2c above) 6 108 133 128 6 93 * Rows A, B, and C represent respondents; Row D represents decisions. ® Respondents were able to provide more than one desposition decision for Phonograph Records. Thus, the 79 respondentsin Row B provided 114 disposition decisions, mately 20 questions per product) and was administered by a trained interviewer. For each product, the core items on the schedule asked the respondent if he now owned the item; and, if yes, whether he had owned an- other one previously. If the reply to this sec- ‘ond question was also yes, the schedule then explored the disposition decision made with respect to the earlier purchased item. That is, did the respondent convert the earlier pur- chased item to serve another purpose, did he store it, throw it away, give it away, trade it, sell it, rent it or loan it to someone? In the event that this item was still being used by the respondent to serve its original function, the respondent was asked what he thought he would do with it once he decided to no longer use it for this purpose. Procedure. A pretest was conducted using an independent group of 60 respondents, with a larger proportion of these being associated with the university community. After mod- ifications were made, the main survey was conducted in the downtown business center of Lafayette and in a Lafayette city park dur- ing July and August of 1974. Results Ownership information for the 134 respondents, across the six test products is shown in Exhibit 2 The number of disposition decisions provided by these respondents ranged from a low of 61 for stereo amplifiers to a high of 133 for toothbrushes (lt is of interest to note that one 62 year old re- spondent reported never having owned a tooth- brush.) Rows A, B, and C of Exhibit 2 represent numbers of respondents in each category. Row D. represents numbers of disposition decisions. It should be noted that Row B repondents were able to provide data regarding 1 or 2 disposition decisions for the phonograph record category and MA disposition decisions were obtained from these 79 subjects. ‘As indicated in line B-1. of Exhibit 2, a small proportion of respondents in each category were still using an earlier acquired product for its orig- inal purpose even though they had acquired an- other one of these products more recently. To a certain extent, this represents the frequency of oc- currence of the “decides to use it to serve the original function” disposition option. These re- spondents were next asked what they thought they would most likely do once they were ready to no longer use this item to satisfy this purpose, and the responses to this question were tallied as, disposition decisions, Thus, by collecting “disposition intentions” data from the respondents actually in the “cur- rently using item to satisfy original function” cat- egory and adding these responses to those from respondents who had already made a decision toWhat About Disposition? / 25 dispose, the original nine specific disposition op- tions were reduced to eight. ‘Combined across all products, the interviews yielded 584 disposition decisions. These are summarized in Exhibit 3. The “other” category includes those items for which the disposition de- cision was forgotten. For each disposition deci- sion, the subjects were asked whether any other disposition decision was considered. In approxi- mately 80% of the cases, no other disposition was contemplated before the final decision was made. Given our earlier remarks regarding the in- creasing necessity to move toward a. conser- vationist ethic, it is noteworthy that the option to discard the item, while only one of the remain- ing eight alternative means of disposition, is the single most frequent option taken—nearly 40% of the time. Even large and relatively expensive items which most likely have usable parts (e.g., refrigerators and bicycles) are thrown away ap- proximately 1 out of 5 times. It is also obvious that, while there are some consistencies, the patterns of disposition differ, considerably across the different products. The major consistency across all six products is the relative absence of rental and loan decisions, ‘Temporary disposition appears to be a rarely con- sidered option, Perhaps more interesting, al- though not unexpected, is the divergence in dis- position patterns across products. For example, the single most used option for stereo amplifiers was to sell the item (42.6%). This option was never employed with toothbrushes, where the single most employed decision was to throw the old toothbrush away (79.7%). Considered by themselves, these data are fairly dull and uninteresting. However, the impli- cations emanating from them and the questions raised are not. After a brief description of the “highlight” findings regarding each individual product, we will return to elaborate upon what we believe are the noteworthy implications of these data, D> Stereo amplifiers. Of those people who now own a stereo amplifier and also owned one earlier, 10 (20.8%) kept their old amplifiers. Interestingly, eight of the 10 amplifiers kept by the owners when they acquired a new ‘one were still in working order. The most frequently cited reason for acquiring a new amplifier when the old one was still func- tioning satisfactorily was the desire for an amplifier of better quality. > Wrist watches. Of those who currently own a wrist watch and also owned another one earlier, 70 (66%) kept their old watches. Of these, 36 (52.2%) were in working order. The reason most often cited for having more than ‘one watch that functions properly is that the other watches were received as gifts. Of all products surveyed, wrist watches were most likely to be stored: 48 of the 70 watches (59.7%) are so stored. > Toothbrushes. Although toothbrushes were the most likely of all products to be thrown away, they were also the product most likely to be used for another purpose, such as a cleaning tool. Despite the fact that they were the least expensive product studied, alterna- tives to the final disposition decision were more likely to be considered for tooth- brushes than any other product. > Phonograph records. If a phonograph record is not thrown away, it is likely that it will be stored—even though the owner very often claims he will probably never play it again. As many as 33% (42) of the disposition deci- sions for phonograph records were to store a record that the owner would no longer use. ‘Those phonograph records which the owner becomes tired of are more likely to be stored than those that are scratched. DP Bicycles. Of all disposition decisions, those for bicycles were most likely to be forgotten. Although directly relevant data were not col- lected, we speculate that this memory loss re- sulted from having made the bicycle disposi- tion decision a long time ago, relative to the other products. Of those consumers who pres- ently do not own a bicycle but at one time did, 9 (33.3%) could not recall the disposition deci- sion made. > Refrigerators. Of all the products studied, disposition decisions for refrigerators were ‘most likely to result in re-sale of the product. Refrigerator was the only product category in which the disposition decision was more likely to involve a store rather than family or friends. Consumers were least likely to keep this item when a new one was obtained. Discussion ‘As noted above, the present investigation is con- sidered a highly preliminary exploration of rela- tively unknown terrain. Its primary goals have been: to acquire some familiarity with the phenom- enon, to achieve some insight, and to develop hy- potheses.26 / Journal of Marketing, April 1977 EXHIBIT 3 Disposition Decisions for the Six Test Products. ny Stereo Phonograph Producte — Ampiior Tootitrush "Record Bicycle Retigertor 1 % tf % ] t % t % t % 1 % t * Converted «7 | 1 16| 2 1 | @ wal 2 o6| i a5| 7 75 Stored m ar[— si ar] — “| a we] 2 at} Thrown away we | 7 ws | Bo we | i mr | me Ge] 3 | we Sven away fo it | 19 Sy | 33 21 | i “83 | a2 | ie 98 Sraded 1 ‘sa | '3 “49 | “6 “se | — + "3 | 2 “Se | ie aoa So & os | a as| 6 be | — J flat wo] me me Rentea aerate = Tyt EY) fe Sana 2 3/2 =/- 2/5 = ria ali % Omer was | sos) @ o7| 4 a1] 3 so] eo |[—- * =| se 100 | 61 100 | 100 100 | 100 100 | 125 100 | 100 | 9 100 One of the more interesting set of findings concerns data relevant to the question of why people acquire new products when the old ones they possess are still performing satisfactorily. Common responses supplied to this question in- clude either receiving the new product as a gift, or purchasing the new product for oneself, because: © Ithad features which the old one did not (e.g... the date or second hand on wrist watches). © It didn’t fit in with the changing environment (eg., the old refrigerator was the wrong style and color for the new home). © tno longer corresponded to one’s preferences or self-image. Consumers also reported that they sometimes used the malfunctioning of a small and repairable aspect of a product as an “excuse” to purchase an entirely new product (e.g., scratches on the lens of a watch occasionally provided sufficient cause for the purchase of a new watch). Identifying reasons like these and noting their relative incidence in a product-by-product basis should provide market- ing and advertising managers with information useful in developing promotional strategies ‘The basic question, however, remains: What factors influence the disposition choice the con- sumer makes? Consideration of the many varied responses to the interview schedule suggests that these factors can be grouped into three categories: 1. Psychological characteristics of the decision maker: personality, attitudes, emotions, per- ception, learning, creativity, intelligence, s0- cial class, level of risk tolerance, peer pressure, social conscience, ete. 2, Factors intrinsic to the product: condition, age, size, style, value, color, and power source of the product, technological innova- tions, adaptability, reliability, durability, ini- tial cost, replacement cost, ete. 3. Situational factors extrinsic to the product: finances, storage space, urgency, fashion changes, circumstances of acquisition (gift vs. purchase), functional use, economics (demand and supply), legal considerations (giving to avoid taxes), etc. The description of these three categories is not meant to imply that they are discrete and non-overlapping, nor does it imply that there is an absence of interaction among them. However, it does assist us in speculating about disposition decisions and behavior; and it does provide us with a framework for developing and structuring hypotheses—the third function of this exploratory study. For example, given the decision alternatives and the various influence factors, it becomes in- teresting to speculate about various possibilities. Consider a wrist watch which still runs but is no longer stylish. The consumer is faced with a first level decision: keep it, get rid of it permanently, or get rid of it temporarily. Assume he decides to keep it because of his thriftiness (psychological characteristic). He could have also decided to keep it because, although it was not stylish, it was still very reliable (product characteristic) or because he had no money for another one (situational factor). At some later point in time, the old watch is again brought to mind. He may decide to get rid of it permanently this time because his status needs are no longer met by the watch (psycholog-ical characteristic), the band is worn (product characteristic), andlor he has too many old watches in his dresser drawer (situational factor). At the second level, he may decide to give it away to a charitable institution so that he can claim a tax deduction. The result of such speculations has been the development and collection of a large number of testable hypotheses. For purposes of illustration, several of these are noted here. Characteristics of the decision maker can be expected to affect product disposition in several ways: high need for achievement will be more strongly related to decisions to convert the prod- uct into something else; highly creative persons will be most likely to convert a product, and least likely to throw it away; persons highly involved (in a sentimental or emotional sense) with a product will be more likely to keep it than will other people; persons high in self-esteem will be more likely to convert a product or to sell it di- rectly than will other people. > — Product-related factors will affect the disposal decisions in several ways: high value products will be more often sold than disposed of in any other way; products in good condition will be least likely to be thrown away; products in poor condition will be least likely to be sold. > Situational factors will affect disposal deci- sions: when time is valuable or limited, a product will more often be given away or thrown away. If t is sold, a middleman will be involved. > When the individual is concerned with the financial aspect of the disposal, the item will be sold, more often to another customer than to or through an agent. > As the amount of available storage space in- creases, the probability that an item will be kept will increase, and the probability that it will be thrown away will decrease. Given the exploratory nature of this investiga- tion, we believe it appropriate that the data col- lected be considered simply descriptive and not be employed to “test” hypotheses in any strict or for- mal sense of the term. However, it is possible to illustrate some of the potential of the approach by returning to the data to informally examine some of these hypotheses. Consider the following hypotheses: higher value products will be more often sold than dis- posed of in any other way. The data show that the range of disposition decisions chosen increases as What About Disposition? / 27 function of product value. The more expensive the product, the greater variety in disposition decisions made. However, the decision to give a high value product away was more popular than the decision to sell it. It would thus appear that not all of the findings likely to come from disposition research are straightforward and to be expected. Where Do We Go From Here? ‘The present investigation has obviously just scratched the surface of an enormous iceberg. Its primary objective has been to call attention to con- sumer disposition decisions and behavior in the hope that, by so doing, this subject would begin to receive the serious attention it deserves. In our opinion, the study of consumer disposition deci- sions and behavior merits the status of a major research focus within consumer behavior. To begin, data must be collected regarding the frequency and rates of disposition decision and behavior with respect to a variety of con- sumer products. Such data are necessary both in the sense of establishing benchmarks against which to evaluate possible later changes and also so that cross-product (or product category) gener- alizations can be made (e.g., temporary disposi- tion appears to be an infrequently utilized op- tion). Relatedly, the systematic ways in which de- mographic, psychological, socio-cultural, and eco- nomic differences may relate to disposition deci- sions and behavior should be probed. Important issues here include: © Do different socio-economic segments en- gage in different patterns of disposition be- havior? If so, how do these patterns relate to subsequent acquisition behavior? @ Under what conditions do consumers retain products longer or convert products to an- other function? ¢ How do disposition patterns vary over time? Given that adequate descriptive data have been collected, the next level of understanding re- quires that we begin to provide explanations for “why” certain patterns exist. In particular, why (ie, under what conditions) do consumers dis- pose of something that is still functioning satisfac- torily? Answering this question should also pro- vide better understanding of the acquisition pro- cess. Another element within this category of is- sues is the question: Why do consumers select ‘one type of disposition behavior over another?28 | Journal of Marketing, April 1977 Prediction and change become the primary concern at the next level. How and in what ben- eficial ways can disposition behavior be changed? For example, can the value consumers receive from a product be increased by showing them new ways to use said product once they are no longer using it to satisfy its original function? As one specific illustration, how many consumers know that they can take refrigerators to an auto- mobile body (and paint) shop and have it inex- pensively repainted so that it can be made to “fit in” with new decor? Independent of prolonging the product's value for the individual consumer, can the prod- uct’s value to society at large be increased by ‘educating consumers to dispose of products they no longer want in ways which satisfy the conser- vation ethic rather than by simply destroying or discarding said items? What would the impact be of establishing more recycling centers and making, consumers aware of the significance of these cen- ters for their own well-being? We have here touched upon only a few of the many interesting and important aspects of consumer disposition decisions and behavior. It is an area wide-open for meaningful research and fone which has the potential of providing answers to assist the consumer, the marketer, the govern- ment, and society at large. Hopefully, this article Wi stimulate some of the needed work. ENDNOTES 1. Jacob Jacoby, “Consumer Psychology: An Octen- nium,” in Paul Mussen and Mark Rosenzweig, eds., Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 27 (1976), pp. 331-58. 2. Jacob Jacoby, “Training Consumer Psychologists: ‘The Purdue University Program,” Professional Psychol- agy, Vol. 2 (Summer 1971), pp. 300-302; Jacob Jacoby, Consumer Psychology as a Social Psychological Sphere of Action,” American Psychologist, Vol. 30. (October 1975), pp. 977-87; and Jacob Jacoby, "Consumer and Industral Psychology: Prospects for Theory Corrobora- tion and Mutual Contribution,” in Marvin D. Dunnette, ed., The Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psy- chology (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976), in press 3. Arsen J. Damay, Jr, “Throwaway Packages—A Mixed Blessing,” in’ David A. Aaker and George 5. Day, eds.,. Consumerism: Search for the Consumer Interest, 2nd’ ed. (New York: Free Press, 1974), pp. 402-14; Raymond A. Marquardt, Anthony F. McGann, and James C. Makens, “Consumer Responses to the Prob- lem of Disposable Containers,” in Scott Ward and Peter L. Wright, eds., Advances im Consumer Research, Vol. | (Crbana, IL: Association for Consumer Research, 1974), pp. 38-50; and William G. Zikmund and William J Stanton, “Recycling Solid Wastes: A’ Channels-of- Distribution Problem,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3 (uly 1971), pp. 34-3. Marketing Memo Make no little plans “Never be afraid to take on a really tough problem. When you solve it, the benefits will be that much greater.”” Carl Gerstacker, Chairman (Retired) The Dow Chemical Company, Quotation appearing in an Advertisement for McGraw Hill Magazines, Advertising Age, Vol. 47 No. 38, (September 20, 1976), pp. 34-35, at pg. 34