IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i8p3321-d347698.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effective Type of Information Categorization in Online Curation Service Depending on Psychological Ownership

Author

Listed:
  • Bong-Goon Seo

    (Graduate School of Business IT, Kookmin University, Seoul 02707, Korea)

  • Do-Hyung Park

    (School of Management Information System/Graduate School of Business IT, Kookmin University, Seoul 02707, Korea)

Abstract

With the development of the Internet, consumers can acquire a variety of information; however, as the amount of information continuously increases, it becomes difficult for consumers to make decisions. In this era of information overload, online curation services are emerging to help consumers choose the information they want. In these online services, information is grouped and classified according to certain criteria and presented to consumers. In this context, there are typical goal-derived and taxonomic categories in the method of structuring information. This study investigated the effect of category types on the categorization attitude of consumers according to their psychological ownership of online services. To this end, this study confirmed the interaction effect of category types (goal-derived vs. taxonomic) and the degree of psychological ownership (higher vs. lower). As a result, users with higher (as opposed to lower) psychological ownership of online curation services revealed a more effective attitude toward categorization in the goal-derived (as opposed to taxonomic) type. The results of this study suggest implications on how to structure information in consideration of the psychological state of consumers in an online context and are expected to be useful guidelines for practitioners such as service providers, marketers, and UX(User Experience)/UI(User Interface) designers.

Suggested Citation

  • Bong-Goon Seo & Do-Hyung Park, 2020. "The Effective Type of Information Categorization in Online Curation Service Depending on Psychological Ownership," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3321-:d:347698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3321/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3321/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moreau, C Page & Markman, Arthur B & Lehmann, Donald R, 2001. ""What Is It?" Categorization Flexibility and Consumers' Responses to Really New Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(4), pages 489-498, March.
    2. Sujan, Mita & Dekleva, Christine, 1987. "Product Categorization and Inference Making: Some Implications for Comparative Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(3), pages 372-378, December.
    3. Ozgun Atasoy & Carey K Morewedge & Vicki MorwitzEditor & Kristin DiehlAssociate Editor, 2018. "Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(6), pages 1343-1357.
    4. Meyers-Levy, Joan & Tybout, Alice M, 1989. "Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(1), pages 39-54, June.
    5. Park, C Whan & Milberg, Sandra & Lawson, Robert, 1991. "Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(2), pages 185-193, September.
    6. Colleen P Kirk & Joann Peck & Scott D Swain & Darren DahlEditor & Jennifer ArgoAssociate Editor, 2018. "Property Lines in the Mind: Consumers’ Psychological Ownership and Their Territorial Responses," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 148-168.
    7. Bong-Goon Seo & Do-Hyung Park, 2020. "Did You Invest Less Than Me? The Effect of Other’s Share of Investment on Psychological Ownership of Crowdfunding Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-13, March.
    8. Sinclair, Gary & Tinson, Julie, 2017. "Psychological ownership and music streaming consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Kirk, Colleen P., 2019. "Dogs have masters, cats have staff: Consumers' psychological ownership and their economic valuation of pets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 306-318.
    10. Joann Peck & Suzanne B. Shu, 2009. "The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 434-447.
    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. Do-Hyung Park, 2021. "Consumer Adoption of Consumer-Created vs. Expert-Created Information: Moderating Role of Prior Product Attitude," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Do-Hyung Park & Sungwook Lee, 2021. "UGC Sharing Motives and Their Effects on UGC Sharing Intention from Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives: Focusing on Content Creators in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-13, August.

    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. D’Souza, Clare & Apaolaza, Vanessa & Hartmann, Patrick & Nguyen, Ninh, 2023. "The consequence of possessions: Self-identity, extended self, psychological ownership and probabilities of purchase for pet’s fashion clothing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    2. Kumar, Jitender, 2024. "Psychological mechanisms behind access-based luxury brand consumption: Empirical investigation from the lens of new ownership paradigm," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Kim, Hyunsu & Li, Jing & So, Kevin Kam Fung, 2024. "Psychological ownership research in business: A bibliometric overview and future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Leah Warfield Smith & Randall Lee Rose & Alex R. Zablah & Heath McCullough & Mohammad “Mike” Saljoughian, 2023. "Examining post-purchase consumer responses to product automation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 530-550, May.
    5. Zhao, Taiyang & Lu, Yan & Lynette Wang, Valerie & Wu, Banggang & Chen, Zhi & Song, Wei & Zhou, Liying, 2023. "Shared but unhappy? Detrimental effects of using shared products on psychological ownership and consumer happiness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    6. Hingston, Sean T. & Whelan, Jodie, 2024. "What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours: Contamination concerns enhance psychological ownership," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    7. Nesij Huvaj, M. & Darmody, Aron & Smith, Robert S., 2023. "Psychological ownership and disownership in reward-based crowdfunding," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    8. Paul Rogers, 2021. "Rented But MINE! Application of Psychological Ownership Theory to Access-Based Consumption and the Circular Economy," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 719-744, September.
    9. Sabrina V. Helm & Victoria Ligon & Tony Stovall & Silvia Riper, 2018. "Consumer interpretations of digital ownership in the book market," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 28(2), pages 177-189, May.
    10. Kirk, Colleen P., 2019. "Dogs have masters, cats have staff: Consumers' psychological ownership and their economic valuation of pets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 306-318.
    11. Kim, Chung K. & Lavack, Anne M. & Smith, Margo, 2001. "Consumer evaluation of vertical brand extensions and core brands," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 211-222, June.
    12. Talke, Katrin & Müller, Sebastian & Wieringa, Jaap E., 2017. "A matter of perspective: Design newness and its performance effects," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 399-413.
    13. Deng, Qian (Claire) & Messinger, Paul R., 2022. "Dimensions of brand-extension fit," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 764-787.
    14. Sheng, Shibin & Pan, Yue, 2009. "Bundling as a new product introduction strategy: The role of brand image and bundle features," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 367-376.
    15. Sandra J. Milberg, 2001. "Positive Feedback Effects Of Brand Extensions: Expanding Brand Meaning And The Range Of Extendibility," Abante, Escuela de Administracion. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 4(1), pages 3-35.
    16. Ralf van der Lans & Bram Van den Bergh & Evelien Dieleman, 2014. "Partner Selection in Brand Alliances: An Empirical Investigation of the Drivers of Brand Fit," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 551-566, July.
    17. Errajaa, Karim & Daucé, Bruno & Legohérel, Patrick, 2020. "Consumer reactions to olfactory congruence with brand image," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    18. Hilary Wason & Nathalie Charlton, 2015. "How positioning strategies affect co-branding outcomes," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1092192-109, December.
    19. Hamilton, Rebecca W. & Puntoni, Stefano & Tavassoli, Nader T., 2010. "Categorization by groups and individuals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 70-81, May.
    20. Smith, Robert W. & Keller, Kevin Lane, 2021. "If all their products seem the same, all the parts within a product seem the same too: How brand homogeneity polarizes product experiences," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 698-714.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3321-:d:347698. 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.