IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v7y2018i4p52-d138425.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Secret of Self-Made: The Potential of Different Types of Consumer Participation for Product Attachment and Commercial Value

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Diefenbach

    (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Department of Psychology, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802 Munich, Germany)

  • Svetlana Jung

    (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Department of Psychology, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802 Munich, Germany)

  • Thomas Diller

    (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Department of Psychology, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802 Munich, Germany)

  • Christina Franze

    (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Department of Psychology, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802 Munich, Germany)

  • Stina Maciejczyk

    (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Department of Psychology, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802 Munich, Germany)

Abstract

Consumer participation in the product production process offers chances for consumers and marketers alike, promising a better fit to consumer needs, a more fulfilling product relationship, and a higher willingness to pay (WTP). To exploit this potential, a key question is as to what type of participation evokes the most positive effects with respect to product attachment and commercial value. Two experimental studies in different product domains (cloth bag design and smartphone customization) explore the specific effects of self-creation versus self-design (study 1, N = 106) and functional versus cosmetic customization (study 2, N = 272). Study 1 highlighted the role of product attachment as a mediator of WTP and the role of experienced effort related to consumer participation as one chance to create such attachment. The specific type of consumer participation appeared to be less decisive, i.e., self-design and self-creation appeared to be equally successful for creating product attachment. Study 2 revealed cosmetic customization to be more related to product attachment, functional customization to be more related to WTP, and both in combination as most effective. In addition to a number of theoretical and practical contributions to the psychological understanding and successful design of consumer participation, the present study highlights several aspects for future exploration such as potential backfire effects of customization.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Diefenbach & Svetlana Jung & Thomas Diller & Christina Franze & Stina Maciejczyk, 2018. "The Secret of Self-Made: The Potential of Different Types of Consumer Participation for Product Attachment and Commercial Value," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:52-:d:138425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/52/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/52/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Belk, Russell W, 1988. "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 139-168, September.
    2. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    3. Nikolaus Franke & Martin Schreier, 2008. "Product uniqueness as a driver of customer utility in mass customization," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 93-107, June.
    4. John L. Lastovicka & Nancy J. Sirianni, 2011. "Truly, Madly, Deeply: Consumers in the Throes of Material Possession Love," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 323-342.
    5. Gernot Grabher & Oliver Ibert & Saskia Flohr, 2008. "The Neglected King: The Customer in the New Knowledge Ecology of Innovation," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 84(3), pages 253-280, July.
    6. Aaron C. Ahuvia, 2005. "Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers' Identity Narratives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(1), pages 171-184, June.
    7. Jonah Berger & Chip Heath, 2007. "Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(2), pages 121-134, June.
    8. Nikolaus Franke & Martin Schreier & Ulrike Kaiser, 2010. "The "I Designed It Myself" Effect in Mass Customization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 125-140, January.
    9. Mochon, Daniel & Norton, Michael I. & Ariely, Dan, 2012. "Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 363-369.
    10. Niladri Syam & Partha Krishnamurthy & James D. Hess, 2008. "What I Thought I Wanted? Miswanting and Regret for a Standard Good in a Mass-Customized World," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 379-397, 05-06.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Japutra, Arnold & Septianto, Felix & Can, Ali Selcuk, 2022. "Feeling grateful versus happy? The effects of emotional appeals in advertisements on self-made products," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reed, Americus & Forehand, Mark R. & Puntoni, Stefano & Warlop, Luk, 2012. "Identity-based consumer behavior," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 310-321.
    2. Daniel Villanova, 2019. "The extended self, product valuation, and the endowment effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(3), pages 357-371, December.
    3. Annika Wiecek & Daniel Wentzel & Aras Erkin, 2020. "Just print it! The effects of self-printing a product on consumers’ product evaluations and perceived ownership," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 795-811, July.
    4. Atakan, S. Sinem & Bagozzi, Richard P. & Yoon, Carolyn, 2014. "Consumer participation in the design and realization stages of production: How self-production shapes consumer evaluations and relationships to products," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 395-408.
    5. Mochon, Daniel & Norton, Michael I. & Ariely, Dan, 2012. "Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 363-369.
    6. Charis X. Li & Xiao-xiao Liu & Jun Ye & Siyu Zheng & Songyin Cai, 2024. "Ethical Pursuit or Personal Nirvana? Unpacking the Practice of Danshari in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 191(4), pages 675-695, May.
    7. Maria Antonietta Raimondo & Gaetano Nino Miceli & Stefania Farace, 2013. "Self o mass branding? La relazione tra personalizzazione e marca," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(4), pages 149-171.
    8. Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2019. "The consumer production journey: marketing to consumers as co-producers in the sharing economy," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 238-254, March.
    9. Christian Hildebrand & Gerald Häubl & Andreas Herrmann & Jan R. Landwehr, 2013. "When Social Media Can Be Bad for You: Community Feedback Stifles Consumer Creativity and Reduces Satisfaction with Self-Designed Products," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 14-29, March.
    10. Ferreira, Marcia Christina & Scaraboto, Daiane, 2016. "“My plastic dreams”: Towards an extended understanding of materiality and the shaping of consumer identities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 191-207.
    11. de Bellis, Emanuel & Sprott, David E. & Herrmann, Andreas & Bierhoff, Hans-Werner & Rohmann, Elke, 2016. "The Influence of Trait and State Narcissism on the Uniqueness of Mass-Customized Products," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 162-172.
    12. Miceli, Gaetano “Nino” & Raimondo, Maria Antonietta & Farace, Stefania, 2013. "Customer Attitude and Dispositions Towards Customized Products: The Interaction Between Customization Model and Brand," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 209-225.
    13. Karanika, Katerina & Hogg, Margaret K., 2020. "Self–object relationships in consumers’ spontaneous metaphors of anthropomorphism, zoomorphism, and dehumanization," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 15-25.
    14. Qin, Yao & Wang, Xuehua, 2023. "Power distance belief and the desire for uniqueness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    15. Sassonko, Benjamin, 2020. "The Reciprocal Connection Between Identity and Consumption: A Literature Review," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 5(2), pages 246-261.
    16. Ingrid Moons & Patrick De Pelsmacker, 2015. "Self-Brand Personality Differences and Attitudes towards Electric Cars," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-18, September.
    17. Strong, Carolyn A. & Martin, Brett A.S. & Jin, Hyun Seung & Greer, Dominique & O'Connor, Peter, 2019. "Why do consumers research their ancestry? Do self-uncertainty and the need for closure influence consumer's involvement in ancestral products?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 332-337.
    18. Voyer, Benjamin G. & Kastanakis, Minas N. & Rhode, Ann Kristin, 2017. "Co-creating stakeholder and brand identities: A cross-cultural consumer perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 399-410.
    19. Andrew E. Wilson & Michael D. Giebelhausen & Michael K. Brady, 2017. "Negative word of mouth can be a positive for consumers connected to the brand," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 534-547, July.
    20. Jennifer K D’Angelo & Kristin Diehl & Lisa A Cavanaugh, 2019. "Lead by Example? Custom-Made Examples Created by Close Others Lead Consumers to Make Dissimilar Choices," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 46(4), pages 750-773.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:52-:d:138425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.