Advances in Consumer Research Volume 16, 1989
"THESE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVORITE THINGS"
TOWARD AN EXPLICATION OF ATTACHMENT AS A CONSUMER BEHAVIOR CONSTRUCT
Susan E. Schultz, Arizona State University
Robert E. Kleine, III, Arizona State University
Jerome B. Kernan, George Mason University
It is no revelation that consumers possess objects to which
they are strongly and weakly attached. However, what attachment
is and where it comes from is incompletely understood. This
paper presents an initial effort to formalize attachment as
a consumer behavior construct. We combine insights from the
self-development literature and recent studies about possession
attachment to advance a working definition of attachment. The
results of an exploratory study are presented. The findings
support the proposed definition and dimensions -- integration,
individuation, and temporal orientation -- of attachment.
Most of us are familiar with Rodger's and Hammerstein's 1959
collaboration on The Sound of Music, in which the effervescent
Maria proclaims to her von Trapp charges:
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens,
Bright-copper kettles and warm woolen mittens;
Brown paper packages tied up in strings,
These are a few of my favorite things.
Maria was extolling the virtues of those simple yet ethereal
associations that make life joyous, that give meaning to her
existence far beyond the conventional boundaries. And each of
us -- albeit in less poetic ways -- has his/her own set of favorite
things. To an observer these may appear banausic, even venal;
but we cling to them because they have great and deep meaning
for us. We keep and care for certain material possessions in
special ways, sometimes long after their instrumental value
has passed. These "most cherished" possessions represent
things which are important for one reason or another; things
which we would be loath to give up; things which would be difficult
to replace -- in short, things to which we have become strongly
We surround ourselves with valued material possessions as a
matter of our lives taking course. A sense of linkage to the
concrete and observable world external to ourselves permits
us to obtain a sense of stability and continuity in an otherwise
less stable existence. Material objects can help us establish
self-not self boundaries (e.g., Belk 1987; Prelinger 1959) and
a sense of control over our environment (e.g., Vinsel, Brown,
Altman, and Foss 1981).
As remembrances of valued other persons or events, certain
material possessions help us look back upon past selves which
we wish to cultivate, i.e., material possessions are used as
symbols of what we are, what we have been, and what we are attempting
to become. Possessions are used as symbols in a self-developmental
process of becoming a unique identity while at the same time
connecting with others and participating in one's culture through
shared meaning. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981)
refer to such self-developmental processes as "self-cultivation".
There is little argument that attachments to material possessions
reflect self-cultivation processes; i.e., agreement exists as
to why we form attachments. In spite of the fact that attaching
is a universal human process that is carried out through the
entire life cycle, relatively little is understood about precisely
what this thing we call attachment is. That attachment is a
common human experience is clear. What is not well understood
is what attachment is and where it comes from.
To explicate these questions it is useful to construe attachment
as a person-material possession association; i.e., a property
which reflects the self-cultivation tasks which certain material
objects facilitate. We explore this notion herein by discussing
pertinent insights from previous studies, by presenting a working
definition of attachment (which suggests certain properties
it might possess), and by considering the results of an exploratory
study. We conclude with some implications for continued investigation
of attachment as a consumer behavior construct worthy of further
Several previous studies provide a base from which to draw
ideas about attachment as a property of person-material object
associations. As noted above, there is agreement that some of
an individual's material possessions represent an extension
of the self into the external material world. Belk (1987), for
example, has demonstrated that individuals identify more or
less with things, i.e., we feel more connected to certain items
and less so to others. In studies where subjects have been asked
to identify favorite or most cherished material possessions
(e.g., Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Myers 1985;
Olson 1985; Prentice 1987; Wallendorf and Arnould 1988), the
assumption is made that such items are more a part of the self
than items which are not listed by the subjects. Thus, it is
reasonable to suggest that persons possess some items to which
they are more attached and others to which they are less attached.
An individual typically possesses both strong and weak attachments.
Attachment seems to reflect both social structure and individual
processes. Within a culture, for example, certain material objects
may be repeatedly identified as valued possessions. Wallendorf
and Arnould (1988) demonstrated this in a cross-cultural study
in which favorite possessions of Southwestern American subjects
were compared to those of Nigerians. Social structure in the
form of gender roles also appears to be influencing the cherished
household possessions of the Chicago residents in the study
reported by Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981). The
authors observed that adult females expressed their gender role
in household possessions far more than did male subjects.
Attachments also reflect developmental progression of the individual.
A consistent theme across studies is that valued possessions
are associated with two basic self-development tasks -- the
differentiation of self from others and the integration of self
with others, i.e., individuation and integration. Since valued
objects reflect self-cultivation, it makes sense that the fundamental
processes of individuation and integration would be reflected
in attachments to material possessions. That this is so has
been suggested by a number of favorite possession studies (e.g.,
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Myers 1985; Olson
1985; Wallendorf and Arnould 1988).
Myers (1985) draws upon Erikson's theorizing about the autonomy
needs of the adolescent which she felt were reflected in her
subjects' retrospections about favorite possessions from that
period in their lives. Olson's (1985) categorization scheme
for classifying artifacts in the homes of couples suggests that
the "relational" and/or "integrative" orientations
of persons can be reflected in valued household possessions.
The classification scheme suggests a person's desire to cultivate
relationships or connections with others ("ancestral"
and "fraternal" artifacts) as well as the remembrance
of important events or stages ("historical" or "developmental"
artifacts). Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) directly
identify differentiation and integration as a fundamental dialectic
process which they observed to be reflected in valued household
possessions. Therefore, there is substantial evidence that individuation
and integration are reflected in certain possessions with which
persons closely associate themselves, i.e., with objects of
Integration represents implementation of the "social self'
(Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981). This relational
side of an individual is the self which needs to be connected,
joined, held, kept, associated, paired, and/or involved with
others; also the self which fears being isolated, separated,
remote or abandoned (Kegan 1982). This is the self that is reflected
in strong attachments to things which remind an individual of
a valued association with another in the past (e.g., letters
from an old friend) or facilitate the anticipation of an important
relationship planned for the future (e.g., an engagement ring).
Conversely, the individuating or "idiotic" self (Csikszentmihalyi
and Rochberg-Halton 1981) is the self which desires to be differentiated,
autonomous, separate, unique, self-contained, self-sufficient,
self-determinant, knowledgeable of its own value, likes and
dislikes, essentially in touch with the self-control and self-chosenness
of its present and future; also the self which fears being completely
taken over (Kegan 1982). This is the self which is reflected
in strong attachments to things that remind an individual of
past achievements (e.g., high school athletic trophies) or that
facilitate working toward future accomplishments (e.g., leather
Persons are regularly negotiating both life tasks to some degree.
The well adjusted adult has the ability to connect with or open
the self up to others while at the same time maintaining self-containment
and autonomy (e.g., Hogan, Jones and Cheek 1985; Kegan 1982;
Vinsel, et al. 1981). The dialectic produces a constant psychic
tension which results in motivation toward self-related goals
Another theme across studies relates to the continuity establishing
function of self-cultivation, i.e., the carrying of past selves
into the present, the maintenance of present selves, or the
anticipation of future selves. What we have labeled a temporal
orientation is reflected in the study reported by Csikszentmihalyi
and Rochberg-Halton. They suggest that older adult subjects
tended to be looking back to a lifetime of experiences (e.g.,
their children growing up and family events). Olson found that
younger married couples used valued possessions to help them
establish a history that had not yet been formed and to anticipate
their future-together. He also suggests that attachment possessions
of unmarried couples reflect less of a future orientation than
the artifacts of married couples.
The self is literally changing from situation to situation.
Thus, concrete objects help us make those transitions by permitting
us to carry past selves into the present, to maintain present
selves or to make the transition into the future. Thus, we expect
that strong attachment, as a property of association to favorite
possessions, will reflect these three dimensions of self-cultivation:
individuation, integration and a temporal orientation.
WHAT IS ATTACHMENT?
We propose the following working definition of attachment.
Attachment is a multidimensional property of material object
possession which represents the degree of linkage perceived
by an individual between him/her self and a particular object.
This perceived linkage is reflected in the three orthogonal
dimensions of individuation, integration, and temporal orientation.
Attachment is not a property of either the individual or the
object, per se, but rather represents an intersection or joining
of the two
Attachment has relative strength. An attachment to a specific
object can be relatively strong or weak. Stronger attachments
are associated with objects which are perceived as more a part
of the extended self. These are the objects into which an individual
is likely to invest a greater degree of psychic or emotional
energy (Belk 1987).
Attachment is defined as perceived by the individual in question.
The degree of attachment is reflected in thoughts, feelings
and behaviors toward a particular object. Differences in these
thoughts, feelings and behaviors should be evident between strong
and weak attachments. We would expect, for example, that the
person's thoughts about a strong attachment object would reflect
its self-cultivation faculty while thoughts of a weak attachment
object would more often reflect its utilitarian value. We might
also hypothesize that the person would experience different
feelings toward an object of strong attachment (e.g., happiness,
sentimentality, pride) than an object of weak attachment (e.g.,
anger, frustration, or nothing at all).
Degree of attachment to a specific object can change over time
(Myers 1985). Throughout a person's life, s/he will develop
new attachments and dispose of old ones as the self develops.
Increasing attachment strength may reflect a becoming self while
decreasing strength may reflect detachment from an old, unwanted
or unneeded, self.
Attachment is a multidimensional concept. It reflects the three
fundamental dimensions: individuation, integration and temporal
orientation. Together, these dimensions represent basic self-definitional,
maintenance, and stability purposes.
Attachment formation is not deliberate. Although it is reasonable
to assume that we seek to form attachments, in general individuals
do not deliberately seek to form an attachment to a particular
object. Rather, attachment arises from association with a consumption
experience (defined broadly) which has meaning for the individuating
or integrating self cultivation processes. Once it is formed,
however, a strong attachment is something which a person seeks
to maintain, at least for a time. This should be reflected in
the person's manner of keeping and caring for the object and
intention to keep the object for a long time or "forever".
Attachments serve self-presentational functions. Self- presentation,
the reader will note, can refer to symbolic display to others
or to the self in an intrapsychic process of self-reflection
or self-enjoyment. Therefore, it is likely that strong attachments
would be kept in a fashion such that the object can be displayed
to others (e.g., an athletic trophy on the shelf) or to the
self (e.g., photographs kept in a drawer for easy access when
Attachment is associated with an individual's valence toward
the specific object to which s/he is strongly or weakly attached.
We would expect that strong attachment would be associated with
a sense of liking while weaker attachment would be associated
with a sense of dislike or neutral feelings. It may be that
weaker attachments reflect either objects which are strictly
utilitarian (and thus not strongly liked or disliked) or objects
which are associated with disliked old selves and consumption
experiences (and thus negatively evaluated). Attachment is correlated
with, but logically precedes attitude.
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
Prior studies exploring person-object attachments have employed
post hoc procedures to distill order from their data. The preceding
conceptual development provides a foundation from which the
following a priori hypotheses are derived.
We proposed Individuation, Integration, and Temporal Orientation
as three orthogonal dimensions of attachment. If these indeed
are dimensions of attachment, then one would expect them to
be evidenced more frequently for possessions with which individuals
have strong attachment than for weak-attachment possessions.
We propose Hypothesis
H1 The integration and individuation dimensions will be manifested
more frequently, jointly or independently, for possessions with
which individuals' have strong rather than weak attachment.
The proposed Temporal Orientation dimension of attachment suggests
that objects to which individuals are strongly attached provide
a linkage with the past, present, and/or anticipated future.
We advance this hypothesis:
H2 Evidence of maintaining a linkage with the past,- the present,
and/or future will be evidenced more frequently for possessions
with which individuals have strong rather than weak attachment.
In our discussion of attachment properties we suggested that
strong attachment possessions will be more positively valenced
than weak attachment possessions. Thus, H3:
H3 Strong attachment possessions will be more positively valenced
than weak attachment possessions.
We also suggest that the possession related emotions (e.g.,
joy, sadness) individuals experience for strong attachment possessions
will differ from those emotions experienced for weak attachment
possessions. Hypothesis 4 is advanced:
H4 Individuals' possession related emotions for strong attachment
possessions will differ from those experienced for weak attachment
How an individual behaves toward a possession should differ
according to the strength of his/her attachment to the object.
We advance the following hypotheses:
H5a Strong attachment possessions are more frequently kept
in a protected or safe place or are taken care of in order that
they are not lost, stolen, or damaged in some way more frequently
than weak attachment possessions.
H5b Strong attachment possessions are more frequently purposefully
kept where they can be seen by others than weak attachment possessions.
H5c Strong attachment possessions are more frequently purposefully
kept where the individual can see them or can get to them readily
when s/he wants them than are weak attachment possessions.
H5d Weak attachment possessions receive special caring or display
less frequently than strong attachment possessions.
Finally, because receiving an object as a gift may serve to
connect the recipient to the giver, we expect that strong attachment
possessions are received as gifts more often. Thus:
H6 Strong attachment possessions will have been received as
a gift more often than weak attachment possessions.
Our methodology differs from that of previous attachment studies
in two significant ways. First, we employed a self-administered
questionnaire. Prior studies have collected data through personal
interviews. Second, as our interest is in attachment, per se,
our subjects were asked to identify possessions with which they
have strong attachment and possessions with which they have
weak attachment. Prior studies have focused exclusively on "favorite"
or "most cherished" possessions -- i.e., on strong
The ten-page questionnaire, which subjects were encouraged
to complete at home, contained several tasks. Subjects first
read general orienting instructions ("Think about the things
you possess. Think about your favorite possessions -- the items
you cherish the most -- and about your least favorite possessions
-- the items you wouldn't mind parting with") and then
indicated their gender. They were then asked to generate a list
(length unspecified) of strong attachment possessions. Strong
attachment was operationalized with this statement: "List
the material objects you have which would be EXTREMELY HARD
TO PART WITH, if for some reason you had to." They were
given twenty blank lines and instructed to list only one item
per line. Subjects then repeated the task listing "objects
which you would find EXTREMELY EASY TO PART WITH" (i.e.,
low attachment possessions).
The third task was different. We asked subjects to refer back
to their list of things which would be extremely hard to part
with and to copy item #1 from that list on a line provided them.
Subjects were then asked to indicate these six things: 1) Why
would you find the item so hard to part with?; 2) How did you
come to have the object? (self purchased; received it as a gift
and if so, from whom; other); 3) How long have you possessed
and how long do you intend to keep the object?; 4) Where do
you keep the object and why?; 5) What feelings do you experience
when thinking about the object?; and finally 6) How is the object
related to who you are?
On the next five pages of the questionnaire, subjects were
asked to respond to the same questions for five other objects
-- the second and third possessions on their strong attachment
list and the first three possessions on their weak attachment
list. All together, they responded for each of six objects.
Subjects then responded to five seven-point semantic differential
scales for each of the six objects. The five bipolar adjectives
scales were: good-bad, negative-positive, admirable-deplorable,
unpleasant-pleasant, and worthless-valuable. The composite of
these scales forms our valence measure. (Note: Lower values
indicated more positive attitudes.)
Because the study- is exploratory, with the emphasis on construct
development, questionnaires were distributed to a convenience
sample of 105 students at a Midwestern university. Ninety five
usable questionnaires were obtained (63 females, 32 males).
Two protocols were selected from each subject's questionnaire
for analysis: the protocols for the first possession on the
"hard-to part with" and "easy to part with"
lists. Two trained judges, naive to the study's purpose and
hypotheses, coded each protocol as described in this section.
(A third judge's coding efforts were discarded as he failed
to follow directions.)
The judges were provided definitions of individuation and integration
and instructed to code each protocol, based on its Gestalt,
into one of four mutually exclusive categories: 1) integration
evidenced; 2) individuation evidenced; 3) both integration and
individuation evidenced; or 4) no evidence of either integration
or individuation. Agreement between the two judges was 70.0%
across the 189 decisions. Disagreements were settled through
discussion with two of the authors.
The judges then coded each protocol into one of seven categories
which reflected our proposed temporal orientation dimension.
The seven mutually exclusive categories included:
1. A Past/Has Been Self. A past self which has been or is being
let go; a self which is no longer needed, wanted, or desired;
a part of a person's past which s/he wants to forget or be rid
2. A Past/Present (Kept) Self. A past self which is being held
on to or maintained; a self being carried on into the present;
a desirable or necessary self; a part of a person's past which
s/he wants to keep; events or persons to be remembered.
3. A Past/Present/Future Self. A past self being held on to
but also being explicitly carried on into the future; a past
self being part of future aspirations or plans.
4. A Present Self. A current self; who I am now, what I am.
5. A Present/Future Self. A present self deliberately being
carried into the future; what I intend to keep being; a self
which is desirable which I do not wish to let go.
6. A Future Self. An aspired to self; a wanted self; a self
I intend/plan wish to be.
7. None of the above. Little or no reflection of past, present,
or future selves; not related to the self
Interjudge agreement on this task was a disappointing 44.0%.
Discussion with the judges revealed that the disagreement centered
around a single problem in which one of the judges sometimes
read beyond the information given by the respondent -- i.e.,
coding based upon a priori assumptions about the object rather
than what the subject expressly stated about the object. Two
of the authors resolved the discrepancies accordingly.
Finally, each protocol was coded according to the subject's
response to the question about where the object was kept and
why it was kept there. Four nonmutually exclusive categories
1. Evidence that the object is kept in a safe place or protected
in some way;
2. Evidence that the object is purposefully kept where others
can see it;
3. Evidence that the object is purposefully kept where the
subject can see it or can get to it easily when desired;
4. None of the above; little or no evidence of special caring
Inter-coder agreement on this task was 78%.
Next, the five-item valence measure was subjected to preliminary
scale analysis. Factor analysis supported the assumption of
unidimensionality. However, the "worthless-valuable"
scale was eliminated because of its non-significant factor loading.
Coefficient alpha for the remaining four items was a = 0.95.
The remaining four items were summed to produce our possession
The questionnaire item which asked subjects how they came to
have the object provided three possible "yes-no" responses.
These were coded as: 1) bought myself; 2) received as a gift;
and 3) other. The "other" category was typically used
for objects for which the question had no relevance such as
photographs or found objects.
Finally, the emotions subjects reported experiencing when they
thought about the possession were aggregated into a master list.
With H1 we proposed that evidence of our proposed individuation
and integration dimensions would occur more frequently in strong
attachment 0 possession protocols than in weak attachment possession
protocols. Both inspection of Table 1 and our significant chi-square
test (x2(3)=143.12, p=0.000) indicate support for H1 . Post-hoc
one-sample chi-square tests confirm that evidence of the individuation
(x2(1)=25.0, p=0.000), integration (X2(1)=19.93, p=0.000), and
the two in combination (X2(1)=22, p=0.000) occurs more frequently
for strong than for weak attachment possessions. The finding
of both individuation and integration within the same protocol
provides support for their orthogonality. Finally, whereas 97.9%
of the strong attachment possession protocols evidenced these
proposed dimensions, 87.2% of the weak attachment possession
protocols evidenced neither dimension. Thus, H1 is supported
-- we have evidence for our proposed integration and individuation
dimensions of attachment.
Hypothesis H2 predicted that strong attachment possession protocols
would evidence our proposed temporal orientation dimension more
frequently than the weak attachment protocols. An overall chi-square
test for the independence of frequency of aspects of the temporal
orientation dimension between strong and weak attachment protocols
was conducted. As the data in Table 2 reveal, several cells
had expected frequencies less than five. Thus, the chi-square
test was conducted with categories 1,5,6, and 7 collapsed. The
significant chi-square (x2(3)=117.65, p=0.000) supports H2.
Post hoc one-sample chi-square tests revealed that high attachment
possessions more frequently evidenced linkage with the past/present
(x2(1)=29.64, p=0.000), past/present/future (X2(1)=17.739 p=0.000),
and present (x2(1)=12.02, p=0.000) than low attachment protocols.
Finally, 77.4% of the weak attachment protocols reflected no
evidence of our proposed temporal orientation dimension whereas
only 5.2% of the strong attachment protocols reflected no evidence
of this dimension. Thus, we have encouraging evidence for our
proposed temporal orientation dimension.
Our third hypothesis proposed that strong attachment possessions
would be more positively valenced than weak attachment possessions.
The significant t-statistic for the difference between the valence
of the strong (X= 5.0, s= 1.99) and weak (X = 16.4, s = 5.87)
attachment possessions (t = 17.51, p<0.001; Note: t for unequal
variances) strongly supports H3.
To analyze the difference between subjects' feelings about
strong and weak attachments we simply composed a list of all
emotions listed by the subjects. Our hypothesis was that the
strong attachment and weak attachment lists would not overlap.
Indeed, examination of the abbreviated lists presented in Table
3 support this assumption. A total of 83 different emotions
was reported by our subjects for strong attachment possessions.
Sixty-five different emotions were reported, in total, for low
attachment possessions. Only six emotions -- good, memories,
sad, warmth, comfort, and past experiences -- appeared on both
the strong and weak possession attachment lists. Although we
cannot offer a statistical test of this hypothesis, we submit
that the small amount of overlap provides strong support for
OF INDIVIDUATION AND INTERGRATION IN PROTOCOLS
The reader will also note that strong attachment feelings were
generally positive with the exception of the "sadness"
response. Clearly negative feeling reactions were associated
with many of the weak attachments. About 35% of the sample reported
they felt "nothing" about the weak attachment possession.
A reading of the protocols revealed that these weak attachments
tended to be items regarded by the subject as purely utilitarian
in purpose. The balance of the "weak" attachment responses
were clearly negative. Many represented a dislike of present
circumstances (e.g., school books, or frustrating old car) or
old selves that were no longer liked (e.g., disgust "that
I ever liked the music on those old records").
The next series of hypotheses predicted how individuals behave
toward possessions with which they have strong or weak attachment.
The significant chi-square (X2(1)=7.36, p<O I 11 ) supports
H5a -strong attachment possessions are more frequently kept
in a protected or safe place than are weak attachment possessions
(see Table 4). Because of expected cell frequencies smaller
than five, neither H5b nor H5c could be tested. We are unable
statistically to support our claim in H5d that weak attachment-possessions
receive special caring or display less frequently than strong
attachment possessions (x2(1)=1.80, p<0.15), however the
data are directionally consistent.
Finally, H6, which predicts the greater incidence of strong
attachment possessions as gifts, was tested in two steps. First,
an overall chi-square test of difference between strong and
weak attachments was conducted (X2(2)=27.8, p<0.000). Then,
an individual test of difference between the number of strong
and weak attachment possessions which had been received as gifts
revealed support for H6 (x2(1)=13.16, p=0.000). This finding
is in accordance with previous findings about gift-giving.
The results of our exploratory study encourage us that attachment
can be treated as a construct which is definable and measurable.
We found that subjects' thoughts about strong attachment possessions,
as opposed to weak attachment possessions, more frequently manifested
the proposed dimensions of integration, individuation and temporal
orientation. Strong attachment objects were associated with
different (and more positive) emotions and were more likely
to be specially cared for and/or displayed than weak attachment
objects. Thus, we are encouraged to pursue the idea of attachment
as a consumer behavior construct.
DISPLAYING OF POSSESSION
The formalization of attachment as a consumer behavior construct
is the first step toward the development of a measure of attachment.
We recognize the potential disadvantages of attempting to quantify
such a thing as attachment (e.g., a certain degree of information
loss), however, we feel this is offset by the generalizable
insights to be gained through exploration of the relationships
between attachment and traditional consumer behavior constructs
(e.g., attitude or involvement).
For example, we believe attachment is conceptually distinct
from involvement on at least four accounts. First, attachment,
as opposed to involvement, is directly associated with fundamental
self-developmental processes that span the entire life cycle.
Second, attachment's temporal element has no counterpart in
involvement. Attachments often have to do with memories and
previous self-definitional experiences as well as current or
anticipated ones. Involvement concerns the present only. Third,
attachment concerns the usage phase of consumption. Involvement
is more relevant to acquisition activities. Finally, an individual's
affect regarding an attachment object can range from very positive
to very negative. Negative valence (a sense of avoidance) is
associated with weak attachment objects associated with past
undesired selves. Low involvement is not logically associated
with negative valence.
There are other ways in which involvement and attachment might
differ. However, our point here is that since involvement has
been conceptualized and measured in a more traditional fashion
(as in Zaichkowsky 1985), explication of attachment as a construct
would permit theoretically interesting cross-construct comparisons.
We have also found support for the use of self-administered
questionnaires in this context. These permit data collection
with larger samples than are possible with the personal interview
method used in prior explorations of valued possessions.
We have raised more questions about attachment than we have
attempted to answer. Perhaps some day, if we are sufficiently
lucky, we will have a comprehensive understanding of the role
of attachment in consumption behavior.
Belk, Russell (1987), "Identity and the Relevance of Market,
Personal, and Community Objects," in Marketing and Semiotics:
New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale, d. Jean Umiker-Sebeok,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 151-164.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981),
The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hogan, Robert, Warren Jones, and Jonathan Cheek (1985), "Socioanalytic
Theory: An Alternative to Armadillo Psychology," in The
Self and Social Life, ed. B. R. Schlenker, New York: McGraw
Kegan, Robert (1982), The Evolving Self, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Myers, Elizabeth (1985), "Phenomenological Analysis of
the Importance of Special Possessions: An Exploratory Study,"
in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, eds. Elizabeth C.
Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research, 560-565.
Olson, Clark D. (1985), "Materialism in the Home: The
Impact of Artifacts on Dyadic Communication,'' in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 12, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and
Morris B. Holbrook, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
Prelinger, Ernst (1959), "Extensions and Structure of
the Self," The Journal of Psychology, 47 (January), 13-23.
Prentice, Deborah A. (1987), "Psychological Correspondence
of Possessions, Attitudes, and Values," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53 (December), 993-1003.
Vinsel, A., B. Brown, I. Altman, and C. Foss (1981), "Privacy
Regulation, Territorial Displays, and Effectiveness of Individual
Functioning," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric J. Arnould (1988), "'My Favorite
Things': A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into Object Attachment, Possessiveness,
and Social Linkage," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March),
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), "Measuring the Involvement
Construct," Journal of Consumer Research. 12 (December),