Keeping it all without being buried alive: Understanding productretention tendency☆
Kelly L. Haws a,⁎, Rebecca Walker Naylor b, Robin A. Coulter c, William O. Bearden d
a Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, 4112 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USAb Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, 2100 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
c School of Business, University of Connecticut, 2100 Hillside Road, Storrs, CT 06268, USAd Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, 1705 College Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
Received 9 August 2010; received in revised form 9 May 2011; accepted 16 May 2011Available online 17 June 2011
Meet Greg, he keeps everything. He cannot make his wayfrom room to room in his house because he has years ofnewspapers cluttering the hallways, and his car is parked in thedriveway because his garage is jammed with his broken downtruck and old farm equipment. In his kitchen, rotten apple coresand banana peels sit on the kitchen counter because Greg cannotbring himself to throw them away. His relatives no longer visit;they are concerned about his obsessive–compulsive behaviorsrelated to acquiring and keeping things and about his safetybecause his house is so cluttered. Now, meet Steve. His friendschide him about his reluctance to discard things. Steve thinksthat throwing away goods that have some residual value is
☆ The authors thank Linda Price, Terry Shimp, Rick Netemeyer, SubhashSharma, Yuliya Komarova, and Yuliya Strizhakova for their helpful comments onthis research.⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.L. Haws),
wasteful. He believes that getting rid of his old sofa, nowcarefully stored in the attic, would be frivolous, and he keeps abroken bike in the garage because he might need the chains torepair another bike or the gears to make a motorized scooter.Despite Steve's tendency to keep his possessions, his house isnot overly cluttered, nor is his daily life adversely affected byhis retention.
Greg and Steve are similar in that they both retainpossessions. They are different, however, in that Greg'sdifficulty discarding possessions is extreme, and he (unlikeSteve) also engages in excessive acquisition and lives amongextreme clutter. In the psychology literature, Greg's behaviorshave been referred to as clinical compulsive hoarding, anobsessive–compulsive psychological spectrum disorder (Frost,Steketee, Williams, & Warren, 2000; Grisham & Barlow,2005). More specifically, Frost and Gross (1993, 367) definecompulsive hoarding as “the acquisition of and failure todiscard possessions that appear to be of limited or uselessvalue.” An important manifestation of compulsive hoarding isthe accumulation of possessions resulting in cluttered living
225K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
spaces that present extreme challenges to the normal dailyroutines of compulsive hoarders (de Silva & Rachman, 1999;Frost & Hartl, 1996; Frost, Steketee, & Grisham, 2004).Compulsive hoarding has recently received increased attentionin the popular press (Webley, 2010), and popular televisionshows such as A&E's “Hoarders” and TLC's “Hoarding:Buried Alive,” document the life-destroying consequences ofhoarding for people like Greg.
In contrast to Greg, Steve is not encumbered by apathological disorder; his retention behaviors are not extremelike those of compulsive hoarders, and he does not exhibitexcessive acquisition behaviors or accumulate extreme levels ofclutter in his home. A limited amount of research in marketinghas investigated a tendency to retain one's possessions that issimilar to Steve's behavior. For example, in an exploratorystudy using depth interviews, Coulter and Ligas (2003) reportedon the behaviors of consumers they refer to as “packrats,”noting that these individuals have an affinity for keeping things,are interested in using old products in new ways, and aretypified as being frugal. Other research in marketing hasfocused on product retention, but in the context of the disposalphase of consumption, including how individuals might extendthe life of their possessions through resale, regifting, ordonations or by identifying the most appropriate recipients fortheir things (Jacoby, Berning, & Dietvorst, 1977; Price,Arnould, & Curasi, 2000; Young & Wallendorf, 1989).
In the present research, we formally introduce the concept ofproduct retention tendency, which we define as a consumerlifestyle trait that reflects an individual's general propensity toretain consumption-related possessions. In conceptualizingproduct retention tendency and compulsive hoarding, weacknowledge that they are similar (in that both involve keepingone's possessions), but we characterize the two constructs asqualitatively different, in that product retention tendency is a non-clinical form of keeping behavior, whereas compulsive hoardingis an extreme, pathological form of keeping (e.g., even used band-aids because they “are a part of me because they contain myblood” Grisham & Barlow, 2005, 48), which is also marked bycompulsive acquisition and resultant cluttered living space (Frostet al., 2004). Theoretically, we posit that product retentiontendency is more closely associated with the waste avoidancetendencies of frugality, creative reuse, and environmentalconcern, whereas compulsive hoarding is more closely associatedwith the emotionally-charged product attachment tendencies ofpossession attachment and materialism. We report on thedevelopment of a measure of product retention tendency (PRT)and establish discriminant validity between our measure and awell-established measure of clinical compulsive hoarding (Frostet al., 2004 Savings Inventory—Revised scale). We follow withtwo studies that examine product retention tendency and clinicalcompulsive hoarding as related to waste avoidance and productattachment tendencies. Finally, we present three experimentalstudies that examine the relationship between product retentiontendency and the decision to retain different types of consump-tion-related possessions (i.e., physical goods that are in theindividual's possession), including used and in-need-of-repairdurables, as well as perishable possessions.
Theoretical framework
In this section, we develop hypotheses that (1) link productretention tendency and compulsive hoarding to both wasteavoidance and product attachment tendencies and (2) examinethe strength of the relationships between product retentiontendency versus compulsive hoarding with regard to thesetendencies.
Keeping possessions and waste avoidance
One theoretical perspective related to keeping behaviorsconcerns waste aversion, such that individuals who keep thingshave (1) a desire to be careful with economic resources (i.e.,frugality), (2) a tendency to think about new or different ways touse products (i.e., creative reuse), and (3) a general concern forthe environment. In this section, we elaborate on each of thesetendencies and provide the theoretical bases for our hypotheses.
Over seventy years ago, Murray (1938) conceptually linkedkeeping possessions to waste avoidance via frugality, suggestingthat individuals retain rather than discard goods because offinancial consciousness. More recently, Lastovicka, Bettencourt,Hughner, and Kuntze (1999, 88) explicated consumer frugality as“restrain[t] in acquiring and in resourcefully using economicgoods and services to achieve long-term goals,” again implicitlymaking the association between keeping things and frugality.Further, Coulter and Ligas' (2003) self-identified packrats aretypified as frugal, in that they are conscientious about acquiringpossessions and are wary of being wasteful. These individualskeep things because they want to get “the maximum bang for thebuck” (42) from their possessions. As reported by Coulter andLigas (2003, 40), packrats are clear in expressing thesesentiments, “I spent money on these items; throwing them outwould be wasting,” and “It would be like wasting money [if Idiscarded the item], especially if the product was not at the end ofits life.” Thus, there appears to be a strong theoretical basis forproposing that product retention tendency is associated withfrugality.
Second, research in marketing has theoretically linked anindividual's creative reuse of products to keeping objects andusing them for other purposes, thus avoiding being wasteful.Specifically, Price and Ridgeway (1983) suggested thatindividuals vary on the extent to which they think about newways to use existing products, and Lastovicka et al. (1999)affirmed that resourceful use and reuse of products is associatedwith frugality. Coulter and Ligas (2003) report that packratsthink of themselves as being clever and imaginative in devisingnew ways to extend the lives of their possessions, repairing oldand/or broken products or keeping product parts for use in otherprojects. One self-identified packrat reported, “I am creative,and I try to find more uses for my things. I am more ingenious,and [how I use my possessions] is less black-and-white” (40),and another noted, “I always think I'll be able to use somethingagain…I am resourceful” (39). Thus, we propose that consumerswith a strong product retention tendency are creative in the waysthey use and reuse their possessions.
226 K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
Third, we speculate that consumers who keep things have agreater concern for the environment and a stronger likelihood ofengaging in environmentally responsible consumption behaviors.Indeed, research in marketing has documented that consumers whoengage in environmentally responsible behaviors, such as recyclingand donating for reuse, often engage in waste avoidance practices(Balderjahn, 1988). At a broader level, consumers who are sociallyresponsible and environmentally aware are generally moreconcerned about not just the purchase and use of their products,but also their disposal (Webb,Mohr, &Harris, 2008). Consider, forexample, consumerswho practice voluntary simplicity; they are notonly more likely to engage in such environmentally-friendlypractices as recycling and composting, but also to engage inpractices that can extend the life of a possession, such as repairingbroken possessions rather than buying new ones (Leonard-Barton,1981). Thus, we expect that consumerswith a stronger (vs. weaker)product retention tendency aremore concerned for the environmentand therefore more likely to engage in “green” behaviors.Collectively, we predict:
H1. Product retention tendency is positively associated with thewaste avoidance tendencies of frugality (H1a), creative reuse(H1b), and concern for the environment (H1c).
Research on clinical compulsive hoarders documents theseindividuals as exhibiting “excessive” behaviors, and as havinglittle control over their decision making and hoarding behaviors(Coles, Frost, Heimberg, & Steketee, 2003). Thus, in general, weanticipate that compulsive hoarding will have a negativeassociation with the cognitively-focused waste avoidancetendencies of frugality, creative reuse, and concern for theenvironment. Work by Frost and his colleagues lends support tothis contention. Specifically, as related to spending patterns andfrugality, research documents that compulsive hoarders haveuncontrolled or poorly controlled acquisition habits and oftenengage in compulsive buying (Frost, Tolin, Steketee, Fitch, &Selbo-Bruns, 2009; Frost, Steketee, & Williams, 2002). Withregard to creative reuse, Frost and Gross (1993, 367) note thatcompulsive hoarders keep truly “useless” items, and hence wespeculate that they are less likely to intend to or to actually seekout alternative uses for the products they retain. In two studiesdesigned specifically to examine clinical compulsive hoarders'concern for the environment, Frost, Hartl, Christian, andWilliams(1995) reported no relationship in one study andweak evidence inthe other. Based on our theoretical perspectives, we expect:
H2. The associations between product retention tendency andthe waste avoidance tendencies of frugality (H2a), creativereuse (H2b), and concern for the environment (H2c) andbetween clinical compulsive hoarding and these tendencies aresignificantly different, such that product retention tendency hasa positive association and clinical compulsive hoarding has anegative association with each waste avoidance tendency.
Keeping possessions and product attachment
A second theoretical perspective on keeping one's posses-sions relates to an individual's general emotional attachment to
objects, which we refer to as product attachment. In ourdiscussion of product attachment, we consider both possessionattachment and materialism. Within consumer research, a streamof literature has examined attachment to and relinquishing ofspecific objects. For example, Price et al. (2000) detail theattachments that individuals have to their prized possessions andthe need to find others to keep such possessions if they divestthem, and Lastovicka and Fernandez (2005) examine consumers'divestment of goods at garage sales to people whom they feel willtake care of the possessions they are relinquishing. Ferraro,Escalas, and Bettman (2011) argue that the possession–self linkdetermines whether a possession elicits grief if lost. The work ofCoulter and Ligas (2003) on packrats suggests that consumerswith a strong product retention tendency find personal andsymbolic meaning in their possessions in that their possessionshold vivid memories and link them to specific times or people intheir lives (Ball & Tasaki, 1992; Belk, 1988; Csikszentmihalyi &Rochberg-Halton, 1987). In the psychology literature, Frost et al.(1995, p. 899) have discussed the “tendency to derive emotionalsolace and comfort frompossessions,” (rather than attachment to aspecific object) as possession attachment. Based on this pastliterature, we propose that individuals with a stronger productretention tendency will exhibit stronger possession attachment(i.e., to their possessions in general, not only to specific “special”possessions).
Possession attachment has also been considered in consumerresearch in the context of materialism. Specifically, Belk (1985,p. 267) characterized possessiveness, a dimension of material-ism, as the “tendency to retain control or ownership over one'spossessions.” Further, Richins and Dawson (1992) argued thatmaterialistic individuals place undue value on materialpossessions, and Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Wong (2009)associated having and retaining possessions with deriving asense of security from one's possessions. Because we believepossessions are central to their lives, we expect individuals witha stronger (vs. weaker) product retention tendency to be morematerialistic. Thus, we hypothesize:
H3. Product retention tendency is positively associated with theproduct attachment tendencies of possession attachment (H3a)and materialism (H3b).
When considering attachment in relation to compulsivehoarding, prior research has documented the elevated level ofemotional attachment to objects exhibited by compulsivehoarders (Frost et al., 1995; Frost & Gross, 1993). Indeed,some work reports that clinical compulsive hoarders are morestrongly attached to objects than to people (Fromm, 1947).Other work indicates that they tend to anthropomorphize theirpossessions (Frost et al., 1995), which can lead to a reluctanceto discard objects (Chandler & Schwarz, 2010), and to see eventheir most mundane possessions as extensions of themselves(Steketee, Frost, & Kyrios, 2003). Recently, Grisham et al.(2009) note that compulsive hoarders' strong emotionalattachment to objects occurs immediately on sight, rather thandeveloping with experience over time, as might be expected in anon-clinical population.
227K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
As we have noted, compulsive hoarding is, in part, definedby compulsive acquisition, and, perhaps not surprisingly, Frost,Kyrios, McCarthy, and Matthews (2007) find that compulsivehoarding is significantly related to materialism, includingacquisition centrality, acquisition as the pursuit of happiness,and possession-defined success (Richins & Dawson, 1992).Additionally, materialism has been linked with insecurities inpersonal and social domains (Chaplin & John, 2007; Schroeder& Dugal, 1995) that are consistent with characteristics ofclinical compulsive hoarders (Frost et al., 2007). Thus, althoughwe have proposed that consumers with strong product retentiontendencies are attached to consumption-related possessions, weexpect that clinical compulsive hoarders will exhibit a stronger,more extreme degree of attachment. Therefore, we posit:
H4. The associations between product retention tendency andthe product attachment tendencies of possession attachment(H4a) and materialism (H4b) and between clinical compulsivehoarding and these tendencies are significantly different, suchthat clinical compulsive hoarding (versus product retentiontendency) has a significantly stronger positive association witheach possession attachment tendency.
Overview of research
Our research consists of three focused efforts. First, wereport on four studies used to (1) develop a parsimoniousmeasure of product retention tendency and (2) establish itsdiscriminant validity related to the well-accepted measure ofclinical compulsive hoarding, the Savings Inventory—Revised(SI-R, Frost et al., 2004). Second, we report two studies
Table 1Studies 1–4: product retention tendency scale development and measurement result
Study 1
PRT items and factor loadings from CFAGetting rid of stuff is difficult for me. .81I tend to hold onto my possessions. .82Unless I have a really good reason tothrow something away, I keep it.
.77
I do not like to dispose of possessions. .77CFA fit statistics
Comparative fit index (CFI) 1.00Normed fit index (NFI) .99Standardized root meanresidual (SRMR)
.02
χ2, 4 df 8.10PRT mean (standard deviation)a 4.40 (1.47)SI-R mean (standard deviation)b 21.10 (13.05)PRT alpha .88SI-R alpha .93Correlation of PRT with SI-R .45⁎⁎⁎
a 4-item PRT, 1–7 range, mean and standard deviation reported.b 23-item SR-I, 0–4 range (0–92 total), mean sum and standard deviation reporte
⁎ pb .05.⁎⁎ pb .01.⁎⁎⁎ pb .001.
designed to test our hypotheses linking product retentiontendency and clinical compulsive hoarding to the wasteavoidance and product attachment tendencies. Third, we detailthree experimental studies used to examine the relationshipbetween product retention tendency and the decision to retaindifferent types of consumption-related possessions, includingused and in-need-of-repair durables, as well as perishablepossessions.
Measuring product retention tendency
Studies 1 and 2: scale development and discriminant validity
To begin scale development, we developed a set of 20 itemsmeasured on a one (“strongly disagree”) to seven (“stronglyagree”) scale that focused specifically on retaining consump-tion-related possessions. We intentionally did not include anyrationale (e.g., because of a concern for the environment) forkeeping goods in these items, as our goal was to assess a generaltendency to retain consumption-related possessions and ourexpectations that these rationales would facilitate conceptualdistinction with clinical compulsive hoarding. These 20 items,along with the 23-item SI-R measure of clinical compulsivehoarding (Frost et al., 2004) and demographic measures, wereincluded in two online surveys administered to different adultsamples (study 1: n=178, 95 females, Mage=45; study 2:n=246, 131 females, Mage=42) recruited by undergraduatestudents in exchange for course credit.
Exploratory factor analyses on the 20 items in these twosamples yielded very similar three-factor solutions. In study 1,
1 We also used the Fornell and Larcker (1981) procedure to compare PRT tothe SI-R difficulty discarding dimension. The results demonstrated an empiricaldistinction; for example, in study 1, the AVE estimates for PRT (.65) anddifficulty discarding (.63) exceeded the square of the phi-coefficient of .53.Results were similar in study 2.
228 K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
the variance explained by the factors was 51.2%, 8.0%, and5.7%; in study 2 the variance explained was 49.8%, 9.2%, and7.6%. In both samples, factors 2 and 3 lacked a simple structure,with nine of the 20 items having high (N.3) cross loadings. Afterremoving the nine items with high cross loadings, we conductedexploratory factor analyses on the two samples. Both analysesyielded a one-factor solution, explaining 63.2% and 61.6% ofthe variance, respectively, and the range on the factor loadingswas .72–.89 and .72–.86, respectively. We then examined theinter-item correlations among the 11 items and identified fouritems (shown in Table 1) that represented a mix of retention-focused behavioral items (“I tend to hold onto my possessions”)and affect-related items (“I do not like to dispose ofpossessions”) that exhibited internal consistency, but were notoverly redundant with α=.88 and .86 in studies 1 and 2,respectively (Clark & Watson, 1995). Corresponding meanscores (standard deviations) were 4.40 (1.47) and 4.32 (1.40),close to the mid-point of the seven point scale. The factorloadings and fit statistics from follow-up confirmatory factoranalyses support the four-item PRT measure (see Table 1).Further, construct reliability (and average variance extracted)estimates were .88 (.63) and .87 (.59) for studies 1 and 2,respectively.
Assessing convergent and discriminant validity betweenproduct retention tendency and compulsive hoarding
In the psychology literature, compulsive hoarding is treatedas a multi-dimensional construct and has been measured by the23-item SI-R (Frost et al., 2004; item responses range from zeroto four). SI-R taps the three aspects of the clinical pathologicalnature of the disorder: difficulty discarding (seven items, e.g.,“How much control do you have over your urges to savepossessions?” “How distressing do you find the task ofthrowing things away?”), excessive acquisition (seven items,e.g., “How strong is your urge to buy or acquire free things forwhich you have no immediate use?”), and excessive clutter(nine items, e.g., “How much does the clutter in your homeinterfere with your social, work, or everyday functioning?”).Thus, the items in the PRT and SI-R scales reflect thedifferences in our conceptualizations of product retentiontendency and clinical compulsive hoarding, with the PRTscale assessing an individual's tendency to retain consumption-related possessions and the SI-R scale assessing compulsiveretention and acquisition tendencies, as well as extreme clutterin one's living space.
In studies 1 and 2, respectively, the alphas for SI-R adjustedfor dimensionality were .93 and .94 (Nunnally 1978), and themean sums (standard deviations) were 21.10 (13.05) and 21.70(13.60). As expected, we found a significant correlationbetween PRT and SI-R in studies 1 and 2 (r1= .45, pb .001;r2= .53, pb .001). To assess the discriminant validity betweenthe two measures (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gerbing &Anderson, 1988), we estimated a model including all 27 items(i.e., four PRT and 23 SI-R items) with the correlation betweenthe factors set to one and a model where the PRT and SI-Rmeasures were allowed to freely correlate. Our findings
indicated significant chi-square fit statistic differences forboth studies (i.e., Δχ2 =863.08 and 778.86 for studies 1 and2, respectively, 1 df, pb .01). Further, we compared the squareof the phi-coefficient of each sample [phi coefficient= .50 (.52),square= .25 (.27)] from the unconstrained correlated model withthe average variance extracted estimates (study 1: PRT=.63,SI-R= .39; study 2: PRT=.59, SI-R= .43) and found that, inboth cases, the AVE's exceeded the square of the phi-estimates(Fornell & Larcker, 1981).1 Collectively, these results demon-strate discriminant validity for the PRT and SI-R measures.
Next, we examined the relative strength of the correlationsbetween PRT and each of the three SI-R dimensions usingCohen and Cohen's (1983, 56–57) recommended test ofdifferences in dependent correlations. This approach usesthree correlations to test the relative strength of the relationshipswithin one sample: (1) rxy, (2) ryz, and (3) rxz; where x=PRT,y=SI-R difficulty of discarding dimension, and z=SI-Rexcessive acquisition (or extreme clutter) dimension. In study1, the correlation between PRT and the SI-R difficultydiscarding dimension (r=.66, pb .001) was stronger than thecorrelation between PRT and the SI-R excessive acquisitiondimension (r=.05, pN .05; t=12.88, pb .001). The correlationbetween PRT and the SI-R difficulty discarding dimension wasalso stronger than the relationship between PRT and the SI-Rexcessive clutter dimension (r=.29, pb .001; t=9.90, pb .001).We found similar results in Study 2. The correlation betweenPRT and the SI-R difficulty discarding dimension (r=.67,pb .001) was stronger than the correlation between PRT and theSI-R excessive acquisition dimension (r=.35, pb .001, t=8.19,pb .001) and the correlation between PRT and the SI-Rexcessive clutter dimension (r= .37, pb .001; t= 8.16,pb .001). These results are consistent with our conceptualiza-tion that product retention tendency and compulsive hoardingare more similar in their tendency to keep (have difficultydiscarding) physical possessions than in their acquisitiontendencies or the clutter in their living space.
Study 3: assessing discriminant and predictive validity of thePRT measure
In study 3, our purpose was to again assess the discriminantvalidity of the PRT measure versus the SI-R measure usinganother adult sample (n=240, females=133, Mage=44; datawere collected online and participants were recruited byundergraduate students), and to assess the predictive validityof PRT relative to a variety of consumption-related possessions.Participants first responded to the four PRT items (M=3.85,s.d.=1.71) and the 23 SI-R items (M=21.76, s.d.=13.24) andthen engaged in several unrelated filler tasks. Next, participants
229K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
reported their likelihood (1=“not at all likely”; 7=“very likely”)of keeping 22 physical goods (e.g., an old clock radio, yourreport cards from grade school, a suitcase with a broken zipper)which we summed to create a product retention index (for asimilar approach, see Lastovicka & Joachimsthaler, 1988).
First, our confirmatory factor analysis on the four PRT itemsprovide additional support for our measurement model (α=.92,AVE=.73, strong factor loadings and good fit statistics).Second, the PRT scale and the SI-R scale (α=.93) were againsignificantly correlated (r=.50, pb .001). Further, a chi-squaredifference test and comparison of AVE estimates with theconstruct correlation between the two scales provided additionalevidence of discriminant validity. Finally, we found that,although PRT and SI-R were both positively and significantlyassociated with the product retention index (rPRT= .41, pb .001;rSI-R= .24, pb .001), Cohen and Cohen's (1983) test ofdifference in the strength of the correlations revealed thatproduct retention tendency was more strongly associated withkeeping these 22 possessions (t=2.86, pb .01).
Study 4: assessing construct validity of PRT and social desirability
In study 4, we again assessed the PRT measure in relation tothe SI-R measure and tested for social desirability effects. Thisadult sample (n=213, females=83, Mage=49), recruited from anational online panel, responded to an online survey thatincluded the PRT (M=4.83, s.d.=1.60) and SI-R items(M=24.81, s.d.=16.15), as well as an abbreviated version ofPaulhus' (1998) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding(BIDR) measure, including six items each to measureimpression management and self-deceptive enhancement. Inthis study, we counterbalanced the order of administering thePRT and SI-R scales and found no evidence of order effects.
Again, the confirmatory factor analysis on the four PRTitems supports our measurement model (α=.92, AVE=.75,strong factor loadings, and good fit statistics). Further, the PRTand SI-R (α=.96) measures were positively correlated (r=.35,pb .001). Finally, our results indicate that product retentiontendency is not associated with the desire to be seen as sociallyacceptable, as measured by the BIDR impression managementsubscale (r=−.06, pN .05) and the BIDR self-deceptiveenhancement subscale (r=.002, pN .05). We also note thatSI-R was uncorrelated with both impression management(r=−.11, pN .05) and self-deceptive enhancement (r= .02,pN .05).
Summary of measurement studies
Table 1 provides a summary of the results of studies 1–4,including confirmatory factor analyses statistics and factorloadings for the four PRT items, the means, standard deviationsand alphas for PRT and SI-R, as well as the correlationsbetween PRT and SI-R. Results from the four studies provideevidence of convergent and discriminant validity with regard toPRT and SI-R as measures of product retention tendency andcompulsive hoarding, respectively. Finally, the studies demon-
strate the predictive validity of PRT and establish that it is notassociated with measures of socially desirable responding.
Hypothesis testing
We now turn to the hypothesized relationships betweenproduct retention tendency and the waste avoidance and productattachment tendencies and the strength of these relationships visà vis compulsive hoarding. Study 5 served to test ourexpectation that product retention tendency would be positivelyrelated to the waste avoidance tendencies (H1) and that therelationship between product retention tendency and the wasteavoidance tendencies would be positive, whereas the relation-ship between clinical compulsive hoarding and the wasteavoidance tendencies would be negative (H2). Study 6 served totest our expectation that product retention tendency would bepositively related to the product attachment tendencies (H3),and that the relationship between product retention tendencyand the product attachment tendencies would be weaker thanthe relationship between clinical compulsive hoarding and thesetendencies (H4).
Study 5: product retention tendency, compulsive hoarding, andwaste avoidance
MethodA total of 313 adult respondents (159 females, Mage=39)
were recruited from a national panel to respond to an onlinesurvey. They first completed the PRT scale (α= .93, M=4.25,s.d.=1.64) and the clinical compulsive hoarding SI-R measure(α=.92, M=24.29, s.d.=12.66). After completing unrelatedfiller tasks, participants completed a measure of frugality(Lastovicka et al., 1999, α=.89) and a 13-item scale based onPrice and Ridgeway's (1983) creative reuse subscale (α=.88).Next, we measured participants' concern for the environment byasking about “green” attitudes and behaviors: “I regularly reusemy used glass and plastic containers,” “I am very concerned aboutwasting the valuable, limited resources of our planet,” “I don'tmind expending extra effort to make sure my possessions areproperly discarded in a way to minimize damage to theenvironment,” and “I try to buy products that do not use excesspackaging” (α=.84). As expected, the correlations between thescales used to measure the waste avoidance tendencies weresignificant: frugality and creative reuse (r=.36, pb .001), frugalityand concern for the environment (r=.34, pb .001), and creativereuse and concern for the environment (r=.40, pb .001).
ResultsStudy 5 again finds a significant relationship between the PRT
and SI-R measures (r=.41, pb .001) and, consistent with H1a,H1b, and H1c, indicates that consumers with a stronger productretention tendency have stronger waste avoidance tendencies.Specifically, PRT is significantly related to frugality (r=.22,pb .001), creative reuse (r=.29, pb .001), and concern for theenvironment (r=.16, pb .01). In relation to H2, we tested thestrength of the relationships between product retention tendency(vs. clinical compulsive hoarding) and the waste avoidance
230 K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
tendencies using Cohen and Cohen's (1983) test of differences independent correlations. Consistent withH2a, we find a significantdifference between the correlation between PRT and frugality andthe correlation between SI-R and frugality (t=8.01, pb .001), withthe former having a significant positive correlation (r=.22,pb .001) and the latter a significant negative correlation (r=−.23,pb .001). As predicted in H2b, our results document a significantdifference between the correlation between PRT and creativereuse (r=.29, pb .001) and the correlation between SI-R andcreative reuse (t=1.69, pb .05); however, SI-R was positivelyrelated to creative reuse (r=.19, pb .001). Finally and consistentwith H2c, we find a significant difference between the relation-ships between PRT and concern for the environment and SI-R andconcern for the environment (t=4.52, pb .001), with PRT havinga significant positive association (r=.16, pb .01), and SI-R havinga significant negative association (r=−.11, pb .05). Results aresummarized in Table 2.
Study 6: product retention tendency, compulsive hoarding, andproduct attachment
MethodA total of 186 undergraduates (86 females, Mage=21)
completed this online study for course extra credit. Participantsfirst responded to the PRT scale (α=.91, M=4.47, s.d.=1.40).After a series of unrelated filler tasks, participants thencompleted the SI-R measure (α=.93, M=26.28, s.d.=12.91),as well as a measure of possession attachment (Frost et al., 199518-item scale; α=.93) and a measure of materialism (Richins2004 six-item scale; α=.90).
ResultsConsistent with the previous studies, we found a significant
positive relationship between the PRT and SI-R measures(r=.49; pb .001). Further, consistent with H3a and H3b,respectively, PRT was positively related to both possessionattachment (r=.27, pb .001) and materialism (r=.21, pb .01),indicating that consumers with a stronger (vs. weaker) productretention tendency are more attached to their possessions. Next,we tested the relative predictions of H4, using Cohen andCohen's (1983) test of differences in dependent correlations.Consistent with H4a, we found the correlation between SI-R
Table 2Studies 5 and 6: hypotheses testing results.
Study Correlation with PRT(H1 and H3)
Waste avoidanceFrugality 5 .22 ⁎⁎⁎
Creative reuse 5 .29 ⁎⁎⁎
Concern for the environment 5 .16 ⁎
Product attachmentPossession attachment 6 .27 ⁎⁎⁎
Materialism 6 .21 ⁎⁎
⁎ pb .05.⁎⁎ pb .01.
⁎⁎⁎ pb .001.
and possession attachment (r=.46, pb .001) to be significantlystronger than the correlation between PRT and possessionattachment (r=.27, pb .001; t=2.85, pb .01). Similarly andconsistent with H4b, SI-R had a stronger positive associationwith materialism (r= .34, pb .001) than did PRT withmaterialism (r= .21, pb .01; t=1.85, pb .05). Results aresummarized in Table 2.
Summary of hypothesis testing studies
Studies 5 and 6 demonstrate that product retention tendency ispositively associated with both waste avoidance and productattachment tendencies. Further, these studies underscore impor-tant differences between product retention tendency and clinicalcompulsive hoarding. Specifically, in contrast to productretention tendency, clinical compulsive hoarding has a negativeassociation with frugality and concern for the environment, aweaker positive association with creative reuse, and a strongerpositive association with possession attachment and materialism.
Product retention tendency and consumption-relatedpossessions
Next, we consider the effects of product retention tendencyon decisions related to retaining or relinquishing consumption-related possessions across three experimental studies. Specifi-cally in studies 7 and 8, we investigate the effect of productretention tendency on the decision to retain versus discard aperishable good (food leftovers) and a product in disrepair (asuitcase with a broken zipper), respectively. Then in study 9, weexamine the effect of product retention tendency on not only thedecision to retain versus discard a used durable good (i.e., an oldblanket), but we also consider alternative means of divestingone's consumption-related possessions (e.g., selling, donating).
Study 7: product retention tendency and retaining versusdiscarding a perishable good
In study 7, we consider the relationship between productretention tendency and the decision to keep versus discard apossession that has an inherently short life. Given that productretention tendency represents a general tendency to retain
Predicted and observedrelationship
Correlationwith SI-R
Tests of relative correlationstrength (H2 and H4)
N −.23 ⁎⁎⁎ 8.01 ⁎⁎⁎
N .19 ⁎⁎⁎ 1.69 ⁎
N −.11 ⁎ 4.52 ⁎⁎⁎
b .46 ⁎⁎⁎ 2.85 ⁎⁎
b .34 ⁎⁎⁎ 1.85 ⁎
231K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
consumption-related possessions, we expect that consumerswith stronger (vs. weaker) product retention tendencies will bereluctant to waste a perishable good, in this case, food ordered(but not consumed) in a restaurant. We therefore expectparticipants with a stronger product retention tendency to bemore likely to: (1) take home leftovers from a restaurant mealthey did not finish and (2) consume these leftovers afterbringing them home. We also consider whether meal price is afactor in taking home the leftovers. Specifically, we expectproduct retention tendency to interact with meal cost, such that,at the lower meal price, consumers with a stronger (vs. weaker)product retention tendency (because of their frugality) will bemore likely to take home leftovers, and, at the higher price, boththose with a stronger and weaker product retention tendencywill be interested in taking home their leftovers.
Fig. 1. Study 7: likelihood of taking home leftovers by PRT score and meal cost.This figure was created from analyses using continuous scores on the PRTmeasure. PRT scores were graphed at one standard deviation above the mean torepresent high scores on the PRT measure and one standard deviation below themean to represent low scores on the PRT measure.
MethodA total of 167 undergraduate students (86 females;Mage=21)
participated in this study in exchange for course extra credit. Allparticipants first completed the four-item PRT scale (α=.86,M=4.82, s.d.=1.23) as part of an ostensibly separate study.After a series of unrelated filler tasks, participants wererandomly assigned to one of the two following scenarios,which varied the amount ($25 vs. $10) consumers paid for arestaurant meal:
Please imagine that you and a friend have gone out to a nicedinner at your favorite restaurant that costs approximately$25 each [$10 each]. The food is delicious as always, butthe portions are large, and you are unable to finish yourentrée. In fact, a significant portion of your food remainsuntouched. Before bringing your bill, the waitress asks youif you would like for her to box the remainder of your mealto take home with you.
After reading the scenario, participants were asked howlikely [“not at all likely” (1) to “very likely” (7)], they were totake home the leftovers for later consumption, and how likelythey were to eat the leftovers assuming that they did in fact takethem home.
Results and discussionRegression analysis using participants' scores on the PRT
scale as a continuous measure and the meal price condition aspredictors of likelihood of taking home the leftovers revealedtwo significant main effects. Specifically, and as expected,participants with higher (vs. lower) PRT scores were morelikely to take home leftovers (F(1, 163)=9.07, pb .01). We alsofound that participants were more likely to take home leftoversfrom the more (vs. less) expensive meal (F(1, 163)=4.84,pb .05). In addition, we found a significant interaction betweenproduct retention tendency and meal price (F(1, 163)=10.49,pb .01; see Fig. 1). A follow-up spotlight analysis (Irwin &McClelland, 2001, 106), which illustrates the slopes of thecontinuous independent variable (i.e., PRT) across the twolevels of the discrete independent variable (i.e., high and lowmeal cost), revealed that individuals with stronger and weaker
product retention tendency were equally likely to take homeleftovers from the higher price ($25) meal (F(1, 163)= .03,pN .05), but that participants with higher (vs. lower) PRT scoreswere significantly more likely to take home the leftovers fromthe lower priced ($10) meal (F(1, 163)=18.86, pb .001). Inother words, individuals with stronger (vs. weaker) productretention tendencies were more concerned about the potentialwaste of even an inexpensive meal.
As might be expected, intention to eat the leftovers was highlycorrelated with likelihood of taking the leftovers home (r=.69,pb .001), and consistent with our expectation, a regressionanalysis again using meal price condition and product retentiontendency as the predictor variables revealed only a significantmain effect of product retention tendency. Specifically, partici-pants with stronger (vs. weaker) product retention tendencieswere more likely to eat the leftovers (and thus avoid wastingthem) after taking them home (F(1, 163)=4.73, pb .05).
Study 8: product retention tendency and retaining versusdiscarding a possession in disrepair
In study 8, we focus on the decision to keep or discard aconsumption-related possession in need of repair, in this case asuitcase with a broken zipper, and examine the potentialmediation effects of waste avoidance and attachment tendencieson the relationship between product retention tendency and thedecision to retain or discard the suitcase.
MethodDuring the week prior to Thanksgiving break (to increase
realism of the study), a total of 211 undergraduate students (88females; Mage=21) completed this study for course extra credit.All participants were asked to consider the following situation:
Imagine that as you are pulling out your luggage to go on atrip, you notice that the zipper on the main compartment of
232 K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
your luggage is broken! You won't be able to use theluggage without getting the zipper fixed.
Participants were then told to assume that they decided to buy anew piece of luggage so that they can go on their trip. Next, theywere asked how likely they were to: (1) “get the old luggagefixed” and (2) “throw the old luggage away” (using a seven-pointscale with “very unlikely” and “very likely” as the endpoints). Toassess waste avoidance and attachment tendencies, participantswere also asked “Howwasteful do you think it would be to throwaway the [old] suitcase?” and “How attached do you think you feltto the [old] suitcase before it broke?” using a seven-point scaleanchored by “not at all” and “very.” After completing filler tasks,participants then completed the PRT scale (α=.93, M=4.24,s.d.=1.53) as part of an ostensibly separate study.
Results and discussionWe first examined the relationship between PRT score and
likelihood of getting the luggage fixed, and likelihood ofthrowing the luggage away, by regressing the PRT score on thetwo likelihood dependent variables (in two separateregressions).2 Consistent with expectations, individuals with astronger (vs. weaker) product retention tendencyweremore likelyto retain the broken luggage to repair it for further use (F(1, 203)=16.66, pb .001) and were less likely to throw away the brokenluggage (F(1, 206)=3.21, p=.07). Additional regression analysesindicated that product retention tendency was associated withbelieving that throwing away the old suitcase would be wasteful(F(1, 206)=17.03, pb .001). To test whether waste avoidancemediated the relationship between product retention tendencyand the two likelihood dependent variables, we included it in thetwo separate regressions, such that both PRT and waste avoidancewere predictors of the two likelihood dependent variables. Ourresults indicate that waste avoidance fullymediated the relationshipbetween PRT and throwing the luggage away (F(1, 205)=1.74,p=.19) and partially mediated the relationship between PRT andgetting the luggage fixed [(F(1, 202)=5.88, pb .05); a Sobel testrevealed that this drop in significance was significant (t=3.49,pb .001)]. Product retention tendency, however, was not signifi-cantly related to feeling attached to the suitcase (F(1, 205)=2.14,p=.14). Thus, waste avoidance tendencies, but not possessionattachment tendencies, serve as an important rationale forconsumers with a strong product retention tendency to keep andnot discard an in-need-of-repair possession.
Study 9: product retention tendency and retaining versusdivesting a durable good
In studies 7 and 8, we focused on product retention tendencyin relation to retain versus discard decisions for two distinctconsumption-related possessions, perishable leftovers and asuitcase in disrepair. In study 9, we contemplate product
2 A separate repeated measures analysis revealed a significant likelihood byPRT score interaction (Wilk's λ=.92, F(1, 203)=18.11, pb .001). Participants'likelihood of throwing the suitcase away and of getting it fixed are predicted bytheir product retention tendency.
retention tendency in relation to a broader array of retention anddivestiture alternatives, specifically as related to a used durablegood (an old blanket). In particular we consider several retention(i.e., keep, store, reuse) and divestment (i.e., discard, sell, donate,give away) practices. Consistent with our conceptualization ofproduct retention tendency, we expect that individuals with astronger (vs. weaker) product retention tendency will prefer toretain their consumption-related positions and will hence indicatethat they aremore likely to reuse, store, and keep their possessionsand less likely to discard them (i.e., to throw them away). Further,we expect that the waste avoidance and product attachmenttendencies of individuals with stronger (vs. weaker) productretention tendencies lead them to seek alternative ways to divestpossessions that do not involve simply throwing them away.
MethodA total of 278 undergraduate students (145 females;
Mage=21) participated in this study for course extra credit.Participants read a scenario that asked them to suppose theywere cleaning out their home/apartment and found a used (butstill useable) blanket that “you might want to get rid of.”Participants were then asked how likely (1=“not at all likely”;9=“very likely”) they were to do each of the following with theused blanket: reuse it in a new way, put it in a paid storage space(i.e., at a storage facility), decide to keep it, give it to a friend orfamily member, try to sell it (e.g., on eBay, Craig's List, agarage sale), donate it (e.g., to Goodwill or other charity), and todiscard it (i.e., to throw it away). After several filler tasks,participants completed the four-item PRT scale (α= .89,M=4.35, s.d.=1.52).
Results and discussionTo determine whether product retention tendency affects
decisions about what one might do with a used possession, weperformed a repeated measures analysis on the likelihoodratings of the seven outcome measures with the PRT score as acontinuous between-subjects variable. Consistent with ourexpectations, participants' likelihood of engaging in thedifferent outcomes is determined by their product retentiontendency, as evidenced by a significant outcome by PRTinteraction (Wilk's λ=.75, F(6, 271)=15.09, pb .001). Specif-ically, follow-up analyses revealed that stronger (vs. weaker)product retention tendency was associated with a higherlikelihood of retaining the blanket by: keeping it (F(1, 276)=50.36, pb .001), reusing it (F(1, 276)=5.20, pb .05), andstoring it (F(1, 276)=5.65, pb .05). Stronger product retentiontendency was also associated with a lower likelihood ofthrowing the blanket away (F(1, 276)=46.34, pb .001). Asrelated to alternative means of relinquishing the blanket,participants with stronger (vs. weaker) product retentiontendencies were more likely to sell (F(1, 276)=4.37, pb .05)and donate (F(1, 276)=3.44, p=.06) the blanket; however,we found no effect of product retention tendency on thelikelihood of giving the blanket to a friend or family member(F(1, 276)= .05, pN .05).
233K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
Discussion, implications, and directions for future research
Recently, there has been increased attention to people whohoard their possessions, both in the news and on reality televisionprograms and by communities and caregivers concerned aboutthe impact of hoarding on hoarders and their families andneighbors. Non-clinical keeping behaviors, on the other hand,have received considerably less attention. Research in consumerbehavior has explored a variety of concepts related to keepingone's possessions, including attachment to special possessions(Curasi, Price, & Arnould, 2004; Price et al., 2000; Wallendorf &Arnould, 1988), keeping of “everyday” possessions (Coulter &Ligas, 2003), the decision to replace durable goods (Chandler &Schwarz, 2010; Okada, 2001; Roster & Richins, 2009),materialism (Belk, 1988; Richins & Dawson, 1992), frugality(Lastovicka & Fernandez, 2005), creative reuse (Lastovicka &Fernandez, 2005; Price & Ridgeway, 1983), and voluntarysimplicity (Leonard-Barton, 1981). We contribute to this diversebody of research by introducing the concept of product retentiontendency and developing a theoretical framework that encom-passes these related concepts explored in past consumer behaviorresearch. We also develop a scale to measure an individual'sgeneral tendency to retain consumption-related possessions andestablish its discriminant validity from the SI-R measure ofclinical compulsive hoarding (Frost et al. 2004).
Our findings demonstrate that product retention tendency ispositively associated with both waste avoidance and productattachment tendencies: individuals with a stronger (vs. weaker)product retention tendency are more frugal, are more likely toengage in creative reuse, have a greater concern for theenvironment, are more attached to their possessions, and aremore materialistic. Further, we demonstrate the importantdifferences between product retention tendency and clinicalcompulsive hoarding with respect to these tendencies. Specif-ically, in contrast to product retention tendency, clinicalcompulsive hoarding has a negative association with frugalityand concern for the environment, a weaker positive associationwith creative reuse, and a stronger positive association withpossession attachment and materialism. We also document thatconsumers with stronger product retention tendencies are morelikely to retain their possessions (e.g., reuse, repair, store) and tofind alternatives to discarding positions via other divestituremethods (e.g., donating and giving away); these generaltendencies seem to hold across a variety of different types ofpossessions, including used and in-need-of-repair durablegoods, as well as perishable goods.
In addition to these contributions, we intend for this researchto serve as a catalyst for future research regarding the importanceof understanding how differences in product retention tendencymay have a broad and pervasive influence on consumer decisionmaking. Next, we detail both the implications of our currentfindings and several areas of potential research.
Product retention tendency and the retain versus divest decision
Our work has linked product retention tendency to wasteavoidance and product attachment tendencies, and yet prompts
additional work on these associations. Interestingly, the strengthof the correlations between product retention tendency and eachof the waste avoidance and product attachment tendencies arerestricted in range (.16 to .29); thus, there are likely to be someinteresting tensions related to these tendencies when individualswith a strong product retention tendency are faced with the needto part with possessions. We explored various divestiturealternatives in study 9 and found that stronger product retentiontendency is associated with keeping, reusing, donating, selling,and not throwing away the product. But future work mightfurther investigate the tradeoffs related to waste avoidance andproduct attachment among these alternatives when individualswith a strong product retention tendency are faced with extrinsicmotivators (e.g., moving, having little space available) thatmight trigger the need to divest their possessions. In addition,characteristics of the possessions themselves might moderatethe relationship between product retention tendency and boththe retain/divest decision and choice of a divestment methodwhen divestment is required. For example, the physical size of apossession will likely affect the retain or divest decision, evenfor consumers with strong product retention tendencies—an oldrefrigerator takes up a great deal of physical space and isdifficult to retain, whereas an antique broach takes up very littlespace and is therefore relatively easy to retain. Further,divestment decisions for functional or utilitarian possessions,such as the suitcase from study 8, are likely to be more heavilyinfluenced by waste avoidance tendencies, whereas divestmentdecisions for possessions such as antique furniture or old china(that have sentimental or symbolic value) are more likely to bedriven by product attachment. Such differences in the purposeof the possession (functional versus symbolic) are also likely toresult in differences in preferred divesture methods. Wespeculate that product attachment tendency might triggerrequests of friends or family to keep or store things, whereaswaste avoidance tendencies may prompt donations to charitiesor selling products on websites or at yard sales. Future researchcan focus specifically on the relationship between productretention tendency and the likelihood of engaging in thesedifferent divestiture methods. Other potential moderators of thisrelationship in addition to the purpose of the possession include:how the possession was obtained, the length of time thepossession has been owned, and the closeness of the owner'ssocial network, both physical and psychological (and theirwillingness to accept the original owner's possessions).
We suggest that those with a stronger product retentiontendency will prefer some divestiture methods over others. Forexample, renting storage space may present an interestingdilemma for individuals with a strong product retentiontendency because it offers the ability to retain a possession,but at a cost which runs counter to their frugality. As such, thisdivesture method itself presents a dilemma. Further, givenCoulter and Ligas' (2003) finding that packrats prefer to knowsomething about the buyer of their offerings, we anticipate thatconsumers with stronger product retention tendencies mayprefer the interpersonal exchange associated with garage sales,for example, compared with the less personalized exchangeassociated with eBay and other online resources. Future research
234 K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
could also build upon thework of Price et al. (2000) and Lastovickaand Fernandez (2005) to better understand how individualdifferences in product retention tendency affect divestiture ofgoods or wealth to family, strangers, and charitable organizations.We suggest that consumers with stronger product retentiontendencies care more and are willing to put more effort into findingthe “proper” disposal methods for their possessions.
It is also important to note that our studies focused onpossessions that were used or partially consumed (i.e., an oldblanket, leftovers from a meal, and a suitcase with a brokenzipper). Additional efforts that focus on “new” possessions,such as gifts, specifically “unwanted” gifts, are warranted. Wespeculate that individuals with a stronger product retentiontendency, because of their frugality, may be more likely to resellor regift these items rather than simply donating them or givingthem away. It may also be appropriate to consider how themonetary value of the object may impact reselling and regifting,as well as the potential for mediation by creative reusetendencies.
Product retention tendency and the role of possessions in thelives of consumers
As we have noted, past research on consumption of objectsand attachment in consumer research has had a primary focus onspecific “valued” or “special” identity-related possessions(Belk, 1988; Curasi et al., 2004; Price et al., 2000; Wallendorf& Arnould, 1988), whereas our work demonstrates thatindividuals with a stronger (vs. weaker) product retentiontendency are attached to “everyday” consumption-relatedpossessions, including mundane, used, and in disrepairpossessions. Considering the importance of attachment, wesuggest that individuals with stronger product retentiontendencies may be more likely to “love” their possessions,displaying passion, intimacy, and commitment in their relation-ships with their possessions (Lastovicka & Sirianni, in press).Further, consumers with stronger product retention tendenciesmay also become more attached to brands (Thompson,MacInnis, & Park 2005), potentially enhancing their propensityto engage in brand loyal behaviors. On a related note,individuals with a stronger product retention tendency may beparticularly interested in activities and products that are relatedto making and keeping memories, such as purchasing Christmasornaments, t-shirts, or baseball caps from travel destinations andother types of memorabilia, or engaging in photography orscrapbooking as hobbies.
Finally, another extension of our researchwould be to examineproduct retention tendency as related to collecting behaviors,defined as strong attachment to a defined product or brandcollectible, for example coins, stamps, Madame Alexander dolls,or Steiff stuffed animals (Belk 1995; Muensterberger 1994). Wespeculate that collections may be linked to family identity and assuch, when individuals with a strong product retention tendencyneed to relinquish their collections, they would be particularlyinterested in ensuring that collections are well-preserved andcared for by family members (Curasi et al., 2004; Epp & Price2008), rather than engaging in other forms of divestiture.
Product retention tendency and product usage
Studying individuals with a strong product retentiontendency might also offer new ideas as to how to get fulluse of products, to understand the ways that consumersensure products are “good to the last drop,” and hence buildon earlier work regarding use innovativeness and creative reuse(Hirschman, 1980; Price & Ridgeway, 1983). For example,consumers with stronger product retention tendencies might bemore careful caretakers of their possessions, ensuring that theyare maintained in a manner that will extend their useful life aslong as possible. Future research might also consider thealternative strategies that individuals with a strong productretention tendency use when considering reuse, perhaps bymaking distinctions between extending the life of their posses-sions, using product components to extend the life of otherproducts, and using the product or components for completelynew and different functions. Such usage distinctions might beinvestigated in conjunction with anticipated cost savings (asrelated to frugality), as well as anticipated environmentalprotection (as related to environmental concerns).
Finally, our work has documented an association betweenproduct retention tendency and environmental concerns, andresearchers would do well to further investigate. Of particularinterest is the tradeoff between the waste avoidance tendenciesof environmental concern and frugality. For example, althoughwe expect that individuals with a stronger product retentiontendency would purchase environmentally friendly goods, theymay be deterred by the typically higher price tags of theseproducts. Further, they might also be reluctant to buy “green”brands where strength of the product is valued (e.g., householdcleaners), because of a belief that they will have to (wastefully)use more of the product to get the same effectiveness providedby a lesser amount of a non-green brand (Luchs, Naylor, Irwin,& Raghunathan, 2010). Further study of product retentiontendency with regard to environmental activism and engaging ina zero footprint lifestyle might offer insights related to recyclingand nature conservation behaviors, as well as concerns forglobal climate change and use of natural resources.
Product retention tendency, family relationships, and the homeenvironment
Our work has focused on product retention tendency at theindividual level, but there are opportunities to extend this line ofresearch to a family/household-level investigation. Recent workin the area of family possessions and identity (Epp & Price,2008; 2010) suggests the need to examine the effects of anindividual's keeping behaviors with regard to family unity,identity, and ownership. Some might speculate that the childrenof individuals with strong product retention tendencies mightactively choose not to retain possessions as a reaction to theirparents' retention behaviors, whereas others might speculatethat product retention tendency would be mimicked, resulting inchildren expressing similar product retention tendencies(Beaglehole, 1932; Muensterberger, 1994). Further study iswarranted to clarify the relationship between product retention
235K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
tendency and intergenerational influence. Within the householdcontext, additional investigation would do well to draw uponliterature in environmental psychology to consider howindividuals with a stronger product retention tendency organizetheir domestic living space, as well as ancillary space such asattics and closets, and how using and sharing this spaceinfluences individual and family retention decisions. Thus, anextension of our work would be to collect dyadic or family datato examine how product retention and the related possessionsare viewed and acted upon by others.
Conclusion
In response to numerous calls for researchers to lookbeyond acquisition and consumption (Holbrook, 1987;Jacoby, 1978; Wells, 1993), our work on product retentionhas explored the tendency to retain one's consumption-related possessions, specifically in contrast to discarding orfinding alternative means of divesting their possessions. Wedemonstrate that this individual difference variable is distinctfrom the clinical, pathological tendency to retain one'spossessions and affects how consumers retain and divest theirpossessions across a variety of product categories. Our workrepresents the first exploration of the impact of productretention tendency on consumers' possession-related de-cisions, and our hope is that we have laid the groundwork foradditional research to further explicate the concept of productretention tendency in consumer research.
References
Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes aspredictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal ofBusiness Research, 17(1), 51–56.
Ball, A. D., & Tasaki, Lori H. (1992). The role and measurement of attachmentin consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(2), 155–172.
Beaglehole, E. (1932). Property: A study of social psychology. New York, NY:Macmillan.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world.Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 265–280.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15(2), 139–168.
Belk, R. W. (1995). Collecting in a consumer society. London: Routledge.Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear ragged the fabric of
friendship: Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replacethem. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 138–145.
Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2007). Growing up in a material world: Agedifferences in materialism in children and adolescents. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 34(4), 480–493.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in scaledevelopment. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysisfor the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coles, M. E., Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., & Steketee, G. (2003). Hoardingbehaviors in a large college sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy,41(2), 179–194.
Coulter, R. A., & Ligas, M. (2003). To retain or to relinquish: Exploring thedisposition practices of packrats and purgers. Advances in ConsumerResearch, 30, 38–43.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1987). The meaning of things:Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curasi, C. F., Price, L. L., & Arnould, E. J. (2004). How individuals' cherishedpossessions become families' inalienable wealth. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 31(3), 609–622.
de Silva, P., & Rachman, S. (1999). Obsessive–compulsive disorder (2nd ed.).Oxford, OH: Oxford University Press.
Epp, A. M., & Price, L. L. (2008). Family identity: A framework of identityinterplay in consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1),50–70.
Epp, A. M., & Price, L. L. (2010). The storied life of singularized objects: Forcesof agency and network transformation. Journal of Consumer Research,36(5), 820–837.
Ferraro, R., Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2011). Our possessions, our selves:Domains of self-worth and the possession-self link. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 21(2), 169–177.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of MarketingResearch, 18(1), 39–50.
Fromm, E. (1947). Man for himself. New York, NY: Rhinehart.Frost, R. O., & Gross, R. C. (1993). The hoarding of possessions. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 31(4), 367–381.Frost, R. O., & Hartl, T. L. (1996). A cognitive–behavioral model of compulsive
hoarding. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(April), 341–350.Frost, R. O., Hartl, T. L., Christian, R., & Williams, N. (1995). The value of
possessions in compulsive hoarding: Patterns of use and attachment.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(8), 897–902.
Frost, R. O., Kyrios, M., McCarthy, K., & Matthews, Y. (2007). Self-ambivalence and attachment to possessions. Journal of Cognitive Psycho-therapy, 21(3), 232–242.
Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Grisham, J. (2004). Measurement of compulsivehoarding: Saving inventory-revised. Behaviour Research and Therapy,42(10), 1163–1182.
Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Williams, L. (2002). Compulsive buying,compulsive hoarding, and obsessive–compulsive disorder. BehaviorTherapy, 33(2), 201–214.
Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., Williams, L. F., & Warren, R. (2000). Mood,personality disorder symptoms and disability in obsessive compulsivehoarders: A comparison with clinical and nonclinical controls. BehaviourResearch and Therapy, 38(November), 1071–1081.
Frost, R. O., Tolin, D. F., Steketee, G., Fitch, K. E., & Selbo-Bruns, A. (2009).Excessive acquisition in hoarding. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(5), 632–639.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scaledevelopment incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal ofMarketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.
Grisham, J. R., & Barlow, D. H. (2005). Compulsive hoarding: Current research andtheory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(1), 45–52.
Grisham, J. R., Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., Kim, H. J., Tarkoff, A., & Hood, S.(2009). Formation of attachment to possessions in compulsive hoarding.Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(3), 357–361.
Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumercreativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283–295.
Holbrook, M. B. (1987). What is consumer research? Journal of ConsumerResearch, 14(1), 128–132.
Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Misleading heuristics and moderatedmultiple regression models. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 100–109.
Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer research: A state of the art review. Journal ofMarketing, 42(2), 87–96.
Jacoby, J., Berning, C. K., & Dietvorst, T. F. (1977). What about disposition?Journal of Marketing, 41(April), 22–28.
Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S., & Kuntze, R. J. (1999).Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: Theory and measurement. Journal ofConsumer Research, 26(1), 85–98.
Lastovicka, J. L., & Fernandez, K. V. (2005). Three paths to disposition: Themovement of meaningful possessions to strangers. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 31(4), 813–823.
Lastovicka, J. L., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1988). Improving the detection ofpersonality behavior relationships in consumer research. Journal ofConsumer Research, 14(4), 583–587.
236 K.L. Haws et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 224–236
Lastovicka, J. L. & Sirianni, N. (in press). Truly, madly, deeply: Consumers inthe throes of material possession love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2).
Leonard-Barton, D. (1981). Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy-conservation. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3), 243–252.
Luchs, M., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). Thesustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on productpreference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18–31.
Muensterberger, W. (1994). Collecting: An unruly passion. San Diego, CA:Harcourt Brace & Company.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Okada, E. M. (2001). Trade-ins, mental accounting, and product replacement
decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 433–446.Paulhus, D. L. (1998). The Paulhus Deception Scales: BIDR version 7.
Toronto/Buffalo: Multi-Health Systems.Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Curasi, C. F. (2000). Older consumers' disposition
of special possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 179–201.Price, L. L., & Ridgeway, N. M. (1983). Development of a scale to measure use
innovativeness. In Richard P. Bagozzi, & Alice M. Tybout (Eds.), Advancesin consumer research (pp. 679–684). Ann Arbor, MI: Association forConsumer Research.
Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties anddevelopment of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209–219.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation formaterialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation.Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303–316.
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects:Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal ofConsumer Research, 36(1), 1–16.
Roster, C. A., & Richins, M. L. (2009). Ambivalence and attitudes in consumerreplacement decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(1), 48–61.
Schroeder, J. E., & Dugal, S. S. (1995). Psychological correlates of the materialismconstruct. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 243–253.
Steketee, G., Frost, R. O., & Kyrios, M. (2003). Cognitive aspects of compulsivehoarding. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(4), 463–479.
Thompson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind:Measuring the strength of consumers' emotional attachments to brands.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.
Wallendorf, M., & Arnould, E. J. (1988). My favorite things: A cross-culturalinquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journalof Consumer Research, 14(4), 531–547.
Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of sociallyresponsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of BusinessResearch, 61(2), 91–98.
Webley, K. (2010). Hoarding: How collecting stuff can destroy your life. TimeApril 26, accessed at. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1984444,00.html.
Wells, W. D. (1993). Discovery-oriented consumer research. Journal ofConsumer Research, 19(4), 489–504.
Young, M. M., & Wallendorf, M. (1989). Ashes to ashes, dust to dust:Conceptualizing consumer disposition of possessions. In T. Childers (Ed.),Proceedings of the AMA Winter Educator's Conference (pp. 33–39).Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
