valuing things
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
1/19
Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of PossessionsAuthor(s): Marsha L. RichinsSource: The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Dec., 1994), pp. 504-521Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489689
Accessed: 09/01/2009 17:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Consumer Research.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489689?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2489689?origin=JSTOR-pdf -
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
2/19
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
3/19
PUBLIC
AND
PRIVATE
MEANINGS
505
The "possession"
here is not so
much
the photograph
but
rather
memories
and
experiences that
cannot
be
bought
at
any price.
To
ask this
individual
how much
he would pay for the photograph
goes so far
into the
realm of the hypothetical
that an answer would
be
meaningless. Indeed, in pretests conducted for this
study,
many respondents
refused o put a price
on their
valued
possessions.
Related o thisissue is
the fact that many owned
pos-
sessions
are
not
fungible
and thus
are
not
subject
to
normal economic rules. Belk
notes that "While
some
personal
objects may
be exchanged
as
economic
com-
modities,
the
meaning
that
adheres
n
these
objects
is
generally nalienable.
For this reason we
are very un-
likely
to swap pets, wedding
rings, or children,
even
when the alternative
offered s demonstrably
superior
to
our own"
(1987,
p. 153).
Finally, for some
people money is
not their medium
of value; hey
simply
do
not evaluate
worth
n
economic
terms. Thus,someonemaytakea lesser-payingob be-
cause
it
is
more
interesting
than
a
higher-payingone;
if offereda choice
between two watches
as a gift, some
individualswould
not choose
the
more
expensivewatch
but
rather he one
they
liked more.
For such
consumers,
economic
value
s
not
the most
important
orm
of
value.
Scholars
since the
time of
Aristotle
have
recognized
that
market value
does
not
necessarilyrepresent
otal
value by
makinga distinctionbetween
value in use and
value
in exchange.Although
economists generallycon-
sider an
object's
utilitarian purposes
when describing
value
in
use,
the distinction between
value
in
use and
value
n exchange an also
be applied
o
a tattered
eddy
bear
or
some
chipped
china
plates,
which
are
temsthat
mayhavelow exchangevaluebut high(nonutilitarian)
value
in
use to
their
possessors.
Forthe
purposes
of
this
article,possession
value
refers
to
value in
use
rather than to economic value
and
is
defined as the extent
to
which
an owner holds
a
pos-
session to be dear, independent
of
exchange opportu-
nities.
This is consistent
with Holbrook's 1994) claim,
based
on
the philosophical
analysis
of
value,
that
an
object's
value
pertains
o the
consumption experiences
associated
with that
object (see
also Holbrook and
Hirschman 1982).
Furthermore,
t
is proposed
hat a possession'svalue
derives rom
ts
meaning.
This
approach
has
been
taken
by
several theorists
(Baudrillard
1981;
Bloch and Ri-
chins 1983; Csikszentmihalyiand Rochberg-Halton
1981;Douglas
and Isherwood
1979),
and several ex-
planations
make
this
position
a
tenable
one.
The
first ustification
for
productmeaning as
an im-
portantsource of
value comes
from the inherent com-
municative
power
of possessions.
Douglas
and Isher-
wood
(1979), for instance,
have emphasized the role
that
possessions
play
in
communicating information
about their
possessors
and about social
relationships.
They
view
possessions
as part of an elaborate
social
communication
system
that makes visible and stable
the
categoriesof culture;
consumers are active
partici-
pants n this
communication system,choosing
and val-
uing possessions
for their meaning
within the cultural
system.
A
second
basis for relating
meaning to value is the
literature
on personal dentity,
which describes
he im-
portant
role
possessions
play
in
forming
and reflecting
the
self
(Belk
1988;Grubb
and Grathwohl1967;Wick-
lund and Gollwitzer
1982). Possessions
(and their
meanings)seem especially
mportant orpersonal den-
tity
in
Western cultures,
and McCracken 1986) pro-
vides
insightinto why
this is so.
In
North
America, he
notes, "cultural
categories of person
are markedby
a
persistent
and
striking
lack of clarity .
. .
, possess
an
apparent
elective'
quality,"
and "are
subject
o constant
and rapid change"
(p. 72). Given
the amorphous
and
fluid quality
of
identity,
individualswill
"satisfy
the
freedom and fulfill the responsibility
of self-definition
.
through
the
systematic appropriation
of the
mean-
ingfulpropertiesof goods" (p. 80).
The important
role of possessions
n communication
and identity
suggests
that a
possession's
meaning
is
central
to
its
value. The remainder of this article
ex-
ploresthe
nature
of
possession
meaning. Its focus is
not
on measuring
"how
much" value
a
possession
has
but
ratheron the nature and
sourcesof that
value.
THE NATURE
OF MEANING
Semiotics
has been
particularly
concerned
with the
nature of meaning, but
even a modest
review of this
work s beyond
the scopeof this
article interested
ead-
ers
are
referred
o
Fiske
[1990],
Mick
[1986],
and
N6th
[1990]).
To
simplify,
in
the terminology
of
semiotics,
visible possessionsaresigns that are interpretedby ob-
servers
n a
given
context
by
means of
an
interpretive
code.
The
result of
the
interpretation
process
is mean-
ing.
The term
"connotation"
or
"connotative
meaning"
is
sometimes
used to refer
o the
subjectivemeaning
an
interpreter
ttaches
o
a
sign
n
light
of his or her cultural
values (see, e.g.,
Barthes
1968).
This
sense
of meaning
is
similar
o
"psychological
meaning,"
which
Szalay
and
Deese
(1978, p.
2)
characterize s "a
person's ubjective
perception
and
affective reactions" to
an
object.
The
view
of
possession
meaning
advanced
here is consis-
tent
with the connotative
and
psychological
sense of
meaning.
Semiotics
has been
greatly
concerned
with
the com-
munication propertiesof signs and their shared, or
public,
meanings.
In
consumerbehaviorresearch,
Hol-
man
(1976,
1981)
and others
have also emphasized
he
role
of
public perceptions,
or audiencereaction,
n un-
derstandingproduct
meaning. However,
"products
are
consumed
both for
their social
[public]
meaning
.
.
.
and
for
their
private
meaning" Solomon
1983, p.
324).
Public Meanings
Public
meanings
are the
subjective
meaningsassigned
to
an
object by
outside
observers
(nonowners)
of
the
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
4/19
506
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
object, that is, by
members
of
society
at
large. Although
outside observers
are likely to differ in some
of the
meanings they ascribe
to
objects,
members of the gen-
eral population or of social subgroups are likely to
agree
on some aspects
of an object's meaning. These
agreed-
upon elements
of
meaning
constitute the object's shared
public meanings.
The origin and nature of shared
public meanings have
been described by
social construction theorists. Con-
sistent with the
ideas advanced by semioticians (see
Fiske 1990), social construction theorists suggest
that
perceptions
of the world emerge through socialization
and participation
in shared activities. The
meanings
of
cultural symbols
are shaped and reinforced
in
social
interchanges, and individuals with similar enculturation
experiences
tend
to
have
considerable similarity
in the
meanings they
attach to these symbols. Within
a culture
"the ascribed meanings
of
many symbols possess
a high
degree
of consensual validation" (Solomon 1983, p.
321). Exploratory research has found at least moderate
degrees
of
shared meaning
and
stereotypes
for a variety
of consumer goods (see, e.g., Hirschman
1980;
Munson
and Spivey 1981; see also Belk, Bahn, and Mayer
1982).
Although the public meanings
of some goods may be
stable over
time, the meanings of others are dynamic,
reflecting changes in popular
perceptions and culture.
Possessions
may take on new meanings when they
are
associated
with
a
popular
television
character,
a
ce-
lebrity (McCracken
1989), or a highly visible
social
subgroup. Advertising
and the fashion
system actively
attempt
to influence
the
meanings
of some
goods
(McCracken 1986).
The
public
meanings
of
consumption objects
have
generally been studied in a communications context.
Researchers,
for
instance,
have
examined whether and
how observers attribute characteristics to others
on
the
basis
of
their
clothing
choices
(Holman
1976), preferred
possessions (Burroughs,
Drews,
and Hallman 1991),
or
consumption
elements
of their
lifestyle (Dittmar
1992b).
In
the context of possession value,
Prentice
(1987) used multidimensional
scaling to examine the
dimensions
along
which individuals evaluate
objects.
These dimensions reflect
the shared rather than the
idiosyncratic object perceptions
of subjects and thus
can be inferred to
represent public
meaning.
Private Meanings
The
private
or personal meanings
of an
object
are
the sum of the
subjective
meanings
that
object
holds
for
a
particular
individual. Such
meanings may
include
elements
of the
object's public
meanings,
but the own-
er's
personal history
in
relation
to the
object
also
plays
an
important
role.
Thus,
a
pair
of diamond
earrings
might
be
valued by
their
possessor
because they
were
a
gift from her husband as they celebrated their
first wed-
ding anniversary
in
the Caribbean.
The
symbolic
value
of these
earrings
for this woman
may
contain elements
of shared meaning
(such as the recognition
that dia-
mond
jewelry is expensive), but
it
also contains
mean-
ings
that are not available to
others unless the owner
chooses to disclose
the
relevant
information.
Rochberg-
Halton (1979; Csikszentmihalyi
and Rochberg-Halton
1981,
chap. 7) has described how meaning,
and hence
value,
derives from repeated
interaction (or
transac-
tions)
with a
possession.
In the
case
of the diamond
earrings,
the meaning
of
the possession
stems from far
more than just its status as
an important gift. Additional
meaning derives from the
possessor's memories
of the
occasions
on which the earrings
were worn, the com-
pliments she
received, and
moments
of
intimacy over
the
years
in
which she
may
have
expressed
her
appre-
ciation
of the
gift
to her
husband. As
Rochberg-Halton
(1979) notes, the value
and meaning of an
object is
"cultivated" over
time and emanates from the psychic
energy
invested
in it and
experiences relating
to
it. For
these
reasons, private
meanings
are
likely
to
be
most
developed when an individual possesses the object in
question.
The
private
meanings of possessions
have
generally
been studied by
means of
content analysis
(see,
e.g., Furby 1978a, 1978b;
Kamptner 1991),
al-
though
more
interpretive approaches
also have
been
used
(see,
e.g., Myers 1985).
The
foregoing
discussions
suggest
several differences
between public
and
private
meanings. First,
because
the
use of
an
object
after
acquisition
tends to be idio-
syncratic,
the
private
meanings
associated
with
that
ob-
ject
are
likely
to contain
idiosyncratic
elements (Belk
1987);
thus, the private
meanings of individuals
who
own
similar
objects
are
likely
to
show some
variation.
However,
because
private
meanings
are
based
in
part
on shared meanings, it is likely that some similarities
will exist among
the
private
meanings
ascribed to an
object
by
different
possessors.
Some similarity
is
also
likely
between
private
meanings
and
public
meanings.
Public
and
private
meanings
are
also likely
to differ
in their
spheres
of influence. Because
of the consensual
nature
of
public meanings,
they
influence the kinds of
possessions
that
people
choose
to
communicate
aspects
of
themselves
to others. Public
meanings
are
also
likely
to have
an
important
influence
in
shaping desire,
in
determining
the
types
of
things people hope
to
acquire.
Private
meanings,
on
the
other hand, are
more
impor-
tant
in
determining
consumers'
feelings
about
the
things
they already possess.
THE
SOURCES
OF MEANING
As argued earlier,
a
possession's
public
and
private
meanings
are
what
give
it
value. These
public
and
pri-
vate meanings
arise from a number
of
sources; hence,
meaning
is
multiply
determined
and multidimensional.
The multidimensionality
of
meaning has been recog-
nized
by
writers
in
several disciplines (see, e.g.,
Barthes
1968; Kernan,
Dommermuth,
and
Sommers 1970;
Levy
1959;
Sahlins
1976).
Noth (1988) argues
for at
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
5/19
PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE
MEANINGS
507
least three "frames" or dimensions of meaning for
commodities
(utilitarian, commercial/economic,
and
sociocultural)
and two
additionaldimensions for non-
commercial objects
such as
possessions (aesthetic and
sacred).
Empirical research has examined the sources of
meaning that give
an
object value, usually by focusing
on the
privatemeanings
of
possessions.Mostfrequently
cited s Csikszentmihalyi nd
Rochberg-Halton's1981)
investigation f "special"householdpossessions.Other
importantempiricalresearch ncludes Furby's
1978a,
1978b) and Kamptner's 1989, 1991;
Kamptner,Kay-
ano,
and
Peterson
1989) developmental tudies
of
trea-
sured
possessions,
Dittmar's
1989, 1991, 1992a)
studies
of
possessions
considered
mportantby
various
age
and
social
class groups,
and Prentice's
(1987) study
of
the
favorite
possessions
of
college students. Work
by
Belk
(1992), Hirschman nd LaBarbera1990),
Shermanand
Newman
(1977-1978),
and Wallendorf and
Arnould
(1988) is also relevant.These studies used a variety of
schemes
to classifythe meanings
of
possessions,so
it
is
not
easy
to
reconcile them. However, most of the
meanings
that create
value,
as described
n
empirical
and conceptual analyses, can be classed into
the cate-
gories describedbelow.
Utilitarian
Value. That commodities have value
because of
their
usefulness s a basic tenet of classical
economic
theory.
An
automobile,a personalcomputer,
or one's
eyeglasses
are
likely
to be valuedforthe
utility
or convenience
they provide.
Utilitarian or
use-based
themes
emerged
n
all the
empirical
tudies
isted above
(except Wallendorfand Arnould's [1988]) and relate
to a
possession's
role
in
providingnecessary
unctions
or
allowing
one to
lead
a
more efficient life
(see, e.g.,
Dittmar
1992a;Noth 1988; Prentice 1987).'
Enjoyment.
A
possession'scapacity
o enable some
enjoyableactivity
or to
otherwise
provide pleasure
has
been described
by several
scholars
see, e.g.,
Bloch
and
Bruce
1984;
Holbrook et
al.
1984)
and
emerged
as a
basis
for
value
in
several
empirical
studies
(see, e.g.,
Csikszentmihalyi
and
Rochberg-Halton
1981; Furby
1978a;
Hirschman and
LaBarbera
1990; Kamptner
1991).
Recreational
equipment
or
other
objects
that
bring sensory pleasure(such
as a
stereo
system) might
be
valued
for
this
reason.
Representations of Interpersonal Ties. Anthro-
pologists
have
long recognized
he
importanceof goods
in
formingandsymbolizingsocial
relationships.
n the
empirical studies
of
possession meaning,
all
authors
identified themes of interpersonalrelatedness n peo-
ple's explanationsof possessionvalue. Kamptner 1991;
Kamptner
et al.
1989)
found this to be the
most
fre-
quently
mentioned source of value
among adults, and
82 percent
of
respondents
in
Csikszentmihalyiand
Rochberg-Halton's 1981) multigenerational tudy val-
ued at least one objectbecauseit reminded them of a
close relative
(p. 86).
Possessions that are
gifts from a
loved one, objects that were made by or previouslybe-
longed to a close friend or relative, and mementos and
photographsare likely to be valued as symbolic repre-
sentations or remindersof
interpersonal
ies.
Identityand Self-Expression. Possessionsalso have
value for their rolein expressing r reinforcing he sense
of self. This motivation is
operative
when
respondents
value a possession for its links with their own past or
personalhistory (Csikszentmihalyi
nd
Rochberg-Hal-
ton
1981;
Dittmar
1992a;
Kamptner1991;see also Belk
1990). It also includes situations in which a possession
is valued because it expresses personal values or reli-
gious beliefs, which is a source of value revealed n sev-
eral
studies
(Belk 1992;
Hirschman
and
LaBarbera
1990;Kamptner 1991), or representsone's ethnic iden-
tity (Mehta and
Belk
1991). Identity and self-notions
also
are
relevant when
possessions represent
one's
competence, mastery,
or achievements
(a
source of
value described
by Furby [1978b], Hirschman
and
LaBarbera 1990],
and
others) or allow the individual
to differentiate
him/herself
from others
(Csikszentmi-
halyi
and
Rochberg-Halton1981; Furby 1978b).2
Two
points
are relevant in
considering the sources
of
meaning
described
above.
First,
a
particular
ource
can influence both
public
and
private meanings.
The
usefulness
of a
chain
saw
is
evident not
just
to the chain
saw's owner but also to most observers.Thus, the util-
itarian value
of
a
chain saw is
likely
to
be
common to
both
public
and
private meanings.
Second,
for
any particularpossession
severalor even
all of the
meaning
dimensions mentioned above
may
influence its value.
A
leather
briefcase,
for
example,
might
be valued
by
its
owner
because
it
is
relied on to
transport
documents
n
an
efficient
manner
(utilitarian
value), because
t
was
a graduationpresent
from
an ad-
mired
aunt
(representing
n
interpersonal ie),
and be-
cause its
stylish design:
and
good workmanship help
create
and
project
the
possessor's
desired
mage
of
pol-
ished
efficiency identity
and
self-expression).
A
MULTIPERSPECTIVE APPROACH
TO MEANING
With the
exception
of
Prentice
(1987), empirical
studiesof valued
possessions
have reliedon individuals'
'Belk
(1992) reportedno utilitarian
hemes
n
his study of posses-
sions
described
n
personalaccounts of the Mormon migration. n-
stances of the utilitarianvalue of possessions were present
in the
documents
examined,
but
this
sourceof value
was outsidethe
scope
of studyand was
not included n analysis RussellW. Belk,
personal
communication,1993).
2A few reasons for possession value have been observed hat do
not fit clearly nto one of the categories iscussed bove.For nstance,
respondentsmay mention that an object is valued because of some
quality of
the
product itself, such as its durabilityor high quality
(Dittmar
1
992a; Kamptner1991), or because hey have positivefeel-
ings
for the
possession (Furby 1978a). These statementsalone
are
usually
nsufficient o
understand he meaning
a
possession
has for
a person.
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
6/19
508
JOURNAL OF
CONSUMER
RESEARCH
self-reportsof product meaning or reasons for value.
These studies provide information about the personal
or private meanings
a
possession has
for
its owner.
However, research
on
possession
value has largely ig-
nored the role of public meanings. While the private
meanings of possessionstend to be more complex and
idiosyncratic
han
public meanings,researchconcern-
ing privatemeaningsalmost necessarily
nvolves some
form
of
self-report.
The
limitations
of such data are
well documented (see, e.g., Greenwald
1980). In the
case
at
hand,respondentsmay
not have cognitiveaccess
to
the
true
reasons
for
valuing
a
possession,
and
self-
reports resubject o social desirability nd otherfactors
that
may cause
conscious
or
unconscious editing
of re-
sponses.
By examiningpublicmeaningsas
well
as privateones,
a
researchermay
obtain
a
more complete picture of a
possession'smeaning
and
value,both
to
individualsand
to
society
at
large.
The remainder f this article
describes
threeempiricalstudies thatassessthe meaningsof val-
ued possessions.Unlike
earlier
studies,
the researchre-
ported
here measuresboth
public
and
privatemeanings.
Severalconsiderations
were nvolved
in
choosing
the
methods to measure
meaning.
First, because the goal
of
the research s to assess
meaning
as it relates o
value,
it was
important
o allow individuals o specifythe
val-
ued
possessions
or which
they providedprivate
mean-
ing descriptionsratherthan
limiting the analysis to a
small
number
of
prespecifiedproduct
classes.
Second,
the
methods
used
by
earlier
researchers o measure
meaning
of
valued
possessions
were used here.
Thus,
private meaningswere measuredby means of content
analysis
of
self-reports see, e.g., Csikszentmihalyi
and
Rochberg-Halton1981;Dittmar 1992a; Kamptner et
al.
1989; Sherman and
Newman 1977-1978; Wallen-
dorf and Arnould
1988);public
meanings
were
assessed
by
means
of multidimensional caling(Prentice 1987).
Because he
use
of
differentmethods creates
a
potential
confound
when
comparing
he
two
types
of
meaning,
an
exploratory ollow-up study
was carried
out.
This
study
used
identical
methods to assess
both
public
and
privatemeaningsbutlimitedanalysis o
a
small number
of
possessions.
The
investigations of
meaning describedbelow did
not
attempt
o
capture
all
nuances
of public and private
meaningsbut only those meaningsdirectly
relevant
to
this
particular nvestigation (i.e., meanings
that con-
stituteor providea sourceof value for possessions).
STUDY 1
The
purpose
of
the
first
study
was
to
identify the pri-
vate meaningsof possessionsvaluedby consumers.Data
were
collectedby
a
mail
survey
of 500 randomly elected
households n a
northeastern
ity. Two weeks after the
initial
mailing, a reminder etter and a second copy
of
the
questionnaire
were mailedto all
households.
Usable
surveys
were obtained from
192
respondents,
which
TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHICCHARACTERISTICSOF
RESPONDENTS IN STUDY 1
Characteristic
n
Percentage
Sex:
Male 91 47.4
Female 101 52.6
Maritalstatus:
Married 126 65.6
Not married 49 25.5
Othera
17
8.9
Age (years):
18-24 23 12.0
25-34 39 20.3
35-44 55 28.6
45-54 20 10.4
55-64 31 16.1
65 and
older
24
12.5
Education:
High school 43 22.4
Some college
54
28.1
College degree
62
32.3
Advanced degree
31
16.1
Missing
2
1.0
Income ($):
Under 15,000
20
10.4
15,000-29,999
36
18.8
30,000-44,999
46 24.0
45,000-59,999
32
16.7
60,000-74,999
18
9.4
75,000-89,999
15
7.8
90,000
or
above
19 9.9
Missing
6
3.1
aSelf-designated.
yielded a response rate of 38.4 percent. Demo-
graphiccharacteristics
f the
respondents
are shown
in
Table
1.
Measures
Unstructured
questions
were used
to elicit
private
meanings
and
appeared
at the
beginning
of
the
instru-
ment. Respondents
were first asked to think
about a
possession they
owned that was
important
o
them
and
to
describethat
possession. They
also described how
and
when
they acquired
the
possession
and
explained
why
it
was
important
to
them.3
Analysisand Findings
Valued Possessions. Content analysis
of the valued
possessions
isted
by respondents,guidedby findings
of
earlier studies
(particularlyby
Dittmar
[ 1989,
1991
),
yielded
the
followingpossessioncategories:
entimental
3Respondentswere questioned about "important"possessions
rather han "valued"or "valuable"possessionsbecause pretesting
revealed hat the latterwordings ended o causerespondentso think
in terms of monetaryvalue rather han more generally.
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
7/19
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
MEANINGS
509
objects representing interpersonal ties (e.g., gifts, photo
albums, family heirlooms), assets (e.g., house, property,
money), transportation, practical objects (e.g., tools,
appliances),
recreational
objects (e.g., sporting equip-
ment, musical instruments), personal appearance-re-
lated objects (e.g., clothing, jewelry), extensions of self
(e.g., objects representing accomplishments, ties to per-
sonal
past),
aesthetic
objects (e.g., paintings, antiques),
and other/unclassifiable objects.4 Two coders indepen-
dently categorized
the
valued
possessions. Coders agreed
in the
classification of 98.4 percent
of
the
possessions;
disagreements
were resolved
by
a
third
judge.
Table
2
shows
the
distribution of valued possessions.
Houses (in the asset category) and cars (transportation)
were
mentioned
most
frequently, followed by an as-
sortment of sentimental
objects
and
recreational pos-
sessions.
Private Meanings of Valued Possessions. Content
analysis
of the reasons
for
value
given by respondents
was used
to
explicate private meanings.
The
content
analysis,
which was
guided by previous research, yielded
four
major categories of meaning consistent with those
discussed earlier: utilitarian
value, enjoyment,
inter-
personal ties, and identity/self-expression. Additional
categories relating
to the
financial aspects
of the
pos-
session and
possession appearance
also
emerged (see
Exhibit 1). Two judges independently coded the reasons
for
possession
value.
Judges agreed
on
94.2
percent
of
the
codes
assigned
to
reasons; disagreements
were
re-
solved
by
discussion
and,
when
necessary, by
a third
judge.
Respondents usually provided multiple reasons for
valuing
their
possessions.
The distribution of the 328
reasons
given
is shown
in
Table 3.
Utilitarian and
en-
joyment explanations
were
provided
most
frequently,
followed
by responses
in
the
identity
and
interpersonal
ties
categories.
In
addition to the meaning categories revealed
in
earlier
research, Study
1
identified
two
categories
not
previously
revealed. Consistent with N6th's
(I1988)pre-
diction
that
object meaning
has an economic dimen-
sion,
6.1
percent
of
respondents
mentioned the financial
aspects
of
a
possession
as a source
of
importance.
The
second new meaning category concerns appear-
ance and bears some
relationship
to an aesthetic com-
ponent
of
meaning (see, e.g.,
Hirschman and
LaBarbera
1990; Noth 1988). However, the meaning revealed here
is somewhat more complex than the straightforward
appreciation
of an
object
for
its
beauty
or
artistic
char-
acter.
While
some
respondents simply
noted
that
the
object possessed beauty
or
mentioned
appearance
characteristics
that were
personally appealing, many
tied the
possession's appearance
to
themselves
in
some
TABLE
2
TYPES OF POSSESSIONS VALUED BY RESPONDENTS
Possession type n Percentage
Sentimental objects 30 16.0
Assets 41
21.8
Transportation 32 17.0
Practical objects 19 10.1
Recreational 29 15.4
Personal appearance 11 5.9
Extensions of self 10 5.3
Aesthetic
objects 9
4.8
Other 7 3.7
way, reporting, in essence, that having an attractive ob-
ject
made them feel better
about themselves or about
their
own
appearance.
Other
respondents
tied
the ob-
ject's appearance to the reactions of other people. One
individual, for instance, said his car was distinctive and
"stands out"
in
his town,
which
allowed the car (and
its possessor?) to be readily recognized. Another men-
tioned that
he
valued his watch
because
it
"looked ex-
pensive" and thus impressed others. For these and sev-
eral other
respondents,
audience reaction to their
possessions' appearance
was
clearly an important
di-
mension of
meaning,
and this sense of
"appearance"
goes beyond the conventional notion of aesthetics.
STUDY 2
Study
2 was
designed
to assess shared
public meanings
as
they
relate to sources
of
value. The valued
possessions
generated in Study 1 were used as stimuli. Following
Prentice (1987), multidimensional scaling analysis
(MDS)
of
outside observers' perceptions
of
these pos-
sessions was used to
identify
the
underlying
dimensions
of
public meaning.
Methods
Samples. Thirty-two
students
(18 undergraduate
and
14 Master's in
Business
Administration)
and 32
nonstudent adult consumers
participated.
Students
re-
ceived course
credit for their
participation.
Adult sub-
jects
were recruited
through
a church
group
and
a
par-
ents'
group
for a
youth
soccer
league,
who
stayed
after
regularly scheduled meetings to participate. Three dol-
lars
was contributed
to
the
respective organizations
for
each member
who
completed
the
study. Quotas
were
used
to ensure that the adult
sample
would
be
evenly
split
between males and females and between those
above
and below
40
years
of
age. Demographic
char-
acteristics
of the adult
sample
are
reported
in
Table
4.
Responses
from one adult
subject were
eliminated be-
cause
of failure to
complete the
task within the allotted
time;
data
from one student
subject
were discarded be-
cause
of
failure
to follow
instructions.
4The
responses of four subjects did
not refer to objects but
to family
members or abstract
concepts (e.g., health). These
cases were excluded
from further
analysis.
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
8/19
EXHIBIT
CODINGCATEGORIES
FOR
REASONS
A POSSESSION
IS VALUED WITH
EXAMPLES)
1. Utilitarian
Provides a necessity
such as shelter, transportation,
food:
"It gets me
to and from
where
Ineed to go" (car)
"Can't see
without them"
(eyeglasses)
Enhances efficiency
or effectiveness; necessary
for
work:
"It keeps me organized" (computer)
"Helps me do my
work" (tractor)
Valued for performance
characteristics or
functional
attributes:
"It's safe"
(35-ft sailboat)
"Because
it
sounds
great" (electric
guitar)
Provides freedom,
independence:
"It represents
freedom to
me" (car)
"Makes
me feel independent"
(house)
2.
Enjoyment.
Provides
pleasure/enjoyment/entertainment;
allows
a pleasurable
activity:
"The
joy of listening
to
music"
(stereo
equipment)
"I love to ski" (skis)
Provides relaxation,
comfort,
a
retreat or escape,
feelings of
security:
"Relaxing" (lawn glider)
"Symbol
of
peacefulness"
(home)
Provides companionship:
"Makes me feel
special and loved"
(cat)
"Itis my friend" (piano)
3.
Interpersonalties
Represents
interpersonal
ties:
Symbolic
ties to others (except
gifts):
"Was
made by my son" (wall
plaque)
"Bought
with my husband
on our honeymoon"
(painting)
Gifts:
"A friend
gave
it to
me during
a difficultperiod
in her
life"
(friendship
ring)
"Was given to
me by a boyfriend"
(leather
jacket)
Symbols
of
familial history:
"Because of
how long
it has been
in the family-I'm
the
fifth
generation
to
own
it"
(secretary
desk)
"It's a family
heirloom" (sterling
silverware)
Facilitates
creation or
strengthening of
interpersonal
ties:
"A
place
for
social
entertainment" (swimming
pool)
"The
center
of our
family life" (home)
4.
Identity
Self-expression:
Is a
part
of
the
self
or expresses
the
self;
includes religious
and
ethnic
identity:
"Expression of my own style" (clothing)
"Where
I
write my thoughts"
(journal)
Allows creative
expression:
"Creative
outlet"
(violin)
"Personal satisfaction
of making and
designing clothes"
(sewing
machine)
Represents
achievement,
is
a
source
of pride:
"Satisfaction
of
knowing
I
helped
young boys
develop
into
responsible
adults"
(scouting
awards)
"I
have
pride
in
the clubs
I
use"
(golf
clubs)
Symbolizes personal
history:
"Reminds
me
of
my
time in Germany" (cuckoo
clock)
"Had
them since I was a teenager" (drums)
5.
Financial
aspects
References to investment
value
or equity,
provides
financialsecurity:
"A
good
financial investment" (real
estate)
"Security-we
have
a
lot of
equity
built
up" (house)
References
to
cost
or
expense
of the
possession:
"It
cost
a lot "
(car)
"Too expensive to replace" (furs)
6.
Appearance-related
Possession's appearance
enhances
owner's
appearance
or
self-feelings:
"I look
good
when
I
wear
them"
(Italian
black leather boots)
"Wearingbeautiful
things
makes
me feel
good"
(ewelry)
References
to the
appearance
of
the
possession
itself:
"It
looks
good"
(new
Honda
Prelude)
"I like
the
style
of
it"
(home)
7.
Other/unclassified
Includes
items that could
not be
interpreted or that
could not
be unequivocally
assigned
to one of the
above
major
categories
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
9/19
PUBLIC
AND
PRIVATE MEANINGS
511
TABLE 3
PRIVATEMEANINGSFOR
POSSESSION VALUE
Meanings
Number
Utilitarian:
Provides a necessity 24
Enhances work
efficiency
or effectiveness
10
Valued for performance or functional
attributes
22
Provides freedom,
independence
11
Total (%)
67
(20.4)
Enjoyment:
Provides pleasure, allows
enjoyable activity 40
Provides relaxation, comfort, escape
27
Provides
companionship 5
Total (%)
72 (22.0)
Interpersonal ties:
Represents
interpersonal ties:
Symbolic
ties to others 27
Gifts
21
Symbols of
familial
history
4
Total (%)
52
(15.9)
Facilitates interpersonal ties (%) 11 (3.4)
Identity:
Self-expression:
Part of self; self-expression
11
Allows creative
expression 6
Total (%) 17
(5.2)
Represents achievement,
is
source of pride
(/)
20
(6.1)
Symbolizes personal
history
(%)
19
(5.8)
Financial
aspects:
Investment value; equity; financial
security
11
Expensive
item
9
Total
(%)
20 (6.1)
Appearance-related:
Enhances owner's appearance or
self-feelings
6
References to possession's
appearance 23
Total (%)
29 (8.8)
Unclassified
(%)
21
(6.4)
Total
328
(100)
Data
Collection. Participants were
given a deck of
cards
to
sort,
with each card
listing
one of the
posses-
sions
generated
in
Study
1. To
reduce the burden on
subjects
for the sort
task, only
97
of the 126
unique
possessions
originally generated
were
used.
If
two or
more
possessions
were
very
similar
(e.g.,
bicycle,
10-
speed bike,
mountain
bike),
only
a subset of these
was
included on
cards.
Subjects
were told that
people
had
mentioned
these
possessions
as
being particularly
im-
portant to them and were asked to sort into piles the
possessions that
might
be valued for similar reasons.
They
were
allowed
to create as
many
or
as few
piles as
they
wished. Instructions were read
orally;
each
subject
was
also
given brief
written instructions
and was
en-
couraged
to refer to them
during
the sort
process.
Scalinlg
Results
Analyses were initially conducted
separately
for
the
adult and
student
samples.
However,
results
for
the two
TABLE
4
DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADULT
RESPONDENTS
IN STUDIES 2 AND 3
Study 3, Study 3,
Study 2 phase
1
phase 2
Percent- Percent- Percent-
Characteristic n age
n
age n age
Sex:
Male 16
50.0
28 57.1
55 45.8
Female 16 50.0
21
42.9 65 54.2
Marital status:
Married
30
93.8
45 91.8
99
82.5
Not married 2
6.3
4
8.2 21 17.5
Age (years):
20-29 6 18.7 6
12.2 21 17.5
30-39 10 31.3 13
26.5 25 20.8
40-49
8
25.0 12
24.5 35 29.2
50-59 6 18.7 9 18.4 18
15.0
60
and
older
2
6.3 9 18.4
19 15.8
Missing
... ...
2 1.7
Education:
High school
5
15.6 7 14.3 20 16.7
Some
college
8 25.0 8
16.3 31
25.8
College degree
14
43.8 22
44.9
53
44.2
Advanced degree
4
12.5 9 18.4
14
11.7
Missing
1
3.1 3
6.1
2 1.7
Income ($):
Under
15,000
2 6.3 2 4.1 4
3.3
15,000-24,999
4
12.5
2
4.1 11
9.2
25,000-34,999
8
25.0
11 22.4
17 14.2
35,000-44,999
4
12.5 10 20.4 16 13.3
45,000-54,999
4
12.5
4 8.2
29
24.2
55,000-74,999
6 18.7 8
16.3
20
16.7
75,000 or above
3 9.4
9 18.4
20 16.7
Missing
1
3.1 3 6.1
3 2.5
samples showed no important differences; findings re-
ported
here
are
from
the
analysis
of
combined
data.5
The number of
piles generated by respondents ranged
from five to 22 with a mean of
11.8.
The
groupings
of
possessions
created
by
each
subject
were transformed
into 97
X
97 0-1 incidence matrices, with
"
1"
indicating
that two
possessions
had
been
placed
in
the same
group;
this
resulted
in
one
incidence matrix
per subject.
The
incidence matrices were summed
across
subjects,
which
yielded an
overall
similarity matrix. Entries
in
the
overall
matrix
could
range
from zero
(meaning
that no
subjects
had
grouped
two
possessions together)
to
62
(if all subjects
had
grouped
the
two
possessions
to-
gether). The similarity matrix was analyzed by means
of
the
ALSCAL
algorithm
for
multidimensional
scaling.
Scaling
was
nonmetric;
stress was measured
by
means
of Stress
Formula
1
(Kruskal
and Wish
1978).
The criterion for
determining
the number
of dimen-
sions
in
the solution was to
maximize the amount
of
5Adults and students
generated approximately the same number
of
piles
in
their sort of
possessions (t
=
.83, df
=
59, p
>
.10; the
correlation between the two samples' possession weights for the
three
MDS dimensions were .98, .86, and .90.
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
10/19
512
JOURNAL
OF
CONSUMER
RESEARCH
variance
accounted
orby
the solution
while preserving
the
interpretability
of dimensions.
The
three-dimen-
sional
solution
met
this
criterionand
explained
93.7
percent
of
the
variance.6
Table 5
showsthe
possessions
with
extreme
values on
each of
the three
dimensions.
The first dimension
is similar
to
that obtained
by
Prentice
1987)
in herscaling
of
favorite
possessionsof
college
students.
Symbolic possessions
that
represent
the
self or attachments
o others
had high weights
on
the
positive
pole
of this
dimension,
whereas
instru-
mental
or practical
objects
were at the
negative
pole.
Dimension
2 forms
a
status-basedontinuum,
with
high
prestige
tems
(such
as
a mink coat)
at the positive
pole
and ordinary
possessions
(pets, eyeglasses)
at
the
neg-
ative
pole.
This dimension
is
similar
to the fourth
di-
mension
obtained
by
Prentice.7
Dimension
3 runs
from
possessions
that can
be considered
necessities
(house,
clothing)
at
the negative
pole
to objects
used
in
active
recreation
musical
nstruments,
sportsequipment)
on
the positive pole; it resemblesthe negativepole of di-
mension
3 and
the
positive
pole
of dimension
2 in the
Prentice
study.
The major
difference
between
the so-
lution
obtained
here and
that
reported
by Prentice
is
that
Prentice'sanalysis
ncluded
a
dimension
with
cul-
tured
or intellectual
possessions
at one end,
including
"a
script
of
Hamlet,""poetry
books,"
and "Yale
aca-
demic papers."
Such
a
cluster
of possessions
is
more
likely
to occuramong
college
students
than
among
the
population
at large,
which
was
the source
of valued
possessions
for
the
study reported
here.
Private
and
Public
Meanings
Compared
Inaddition o examiningprivateandpublicmeanings
in
isolation,
it is useful
to look
at the
similarities
and
differences
n
these
two sources
of meaning.
Although
the following
s
not intended
o be
a definitiveapproach
to comparing
private
and
public
meanings,
it is
one
way
to
do so
given
the methods
for assessing
meaning
used
in
the
present
research.
In order o
examine
the correspondence
between
the
two
types
of
meaning,
t was
necessary
o
assign
specific
private
and public
meanings
to
each
of
the
possessions
studied.
For
privatemeanings,
the
codes
from the
con-
tent analysis
were
used.
Public
meanings
were
assigned
to
each
possession
on
the basis
of the
possession's
weights
on the three
MDS
dimensions.
If the
absolute
TABLE
5
THREE-DIMENSIONAL
CALING
SOLUTION
FOR
VALUED
POSSESSIONS
Possession
Weight
Dimension 1:
Instrumental
possessions
(negative
polarity):
CD player
-1.40
VCR
-1.38
Computer
-1.35
Jeep Cherokee
-1.33
Truck
-1.23
TV
-1.21
Backpack
-1.19
Sewing
machine
-1.18
Symbolic
possessions
(positive
polarity):
Journal
(diary)
1.86
Army photos
1.85
Gold sailboat
pin given
to
me by my deceased
daughter
1.85
Paintings
done by my
son
1.85
Pearl collar
that belonged
to
my mother
1.84
Necklace given
to me by
my uncle
1.84
Wallplaque made by my son 1.83
Fountain
pen given
by
my wife
1.83
Dimension
2:
Ordinary
possessions
(negative
polarity):
Dog
-1.28
Cat
-1.28
Garbage
disposal
-1.23
Eyeglasses
-1.22
Electric
shaver
-1.21
Pocket
calendar/organizer
-1.20
Tools
-1.20
Books
-1.16
Prestige
possessions
(positive
polarity):
Mink coat
1.93
Italian black
leather
boots
1.90
Furs
1.90
Pearl
necklace
1.86
Oriental rug 1.79
Black leather jacket
1.78
Fine
china
1.74
Mercedes
1.69
Dimension 3:
Necessities (negative
polarity):
Money
-1.60
House
-1.55
Furniture
-1.43
Bed
-1.40
Clothing
-1.33
Car
-1.20
Recreational
possessions
(positive
polarity):
Guitar
1.49
Golf clubs
1.47
Violin
1.47
Exercise bike
1.42
Skis 1.41
Drums
1.38
Canoe
1.37
Gun collection
1.29
value
of a possession's
weight
on a dimension
was
1.0
or
greater,
t was
assigned
he
public
meaning
associated
with
the
appropriate
pole
of that dimension.
Thus,
as
shown
in Table
5,
CD
player
had a
weight
of
- 1.40
on
6Thevariance
accounted
or by
the
one- and two-dimensional
o-
lutions
were
62.7 percent
and 83.8
percent,
respectively;
he fourth
dimension
was not
interpretable.
7An interpretation
f
this dimension
as
representing
he
cost
or
financial
value
of the possession
might
appearreasonable
at first
glance,
but this interpretation
s not
tenable
becausesome
of the
mostexpensive
possessions
mentioned
by respondents
had
negative
rather
han
positive
weights
onthis
dimension.
The
weights
or
house
and
car (make and
model
unspecified)
were -.84 and
-.86,
respec-
tively,
whereas he
weights
or some
less expensive tems
were
higher
(e.g., the weight
or
fine
china
was
1.74).
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
11/19
PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE MEANINGS
513
TABLE 6
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE
AND PUBLIC MEANINGS:STUDY 2
Public
meanings
Dimension
1 Dimension
2
Dimension 3
Private
meanings
Instrumental
Symbolic Ordinary
Prestige Necessity
Recreational None Total
Utilitarian
12
...
6
1 37 2
...
67
(6) (5)
(4)
(3)
Enjoyment
20 ... 5
6 21 7 72
(1 1) (7)
(2)
(6)
Represents
interpersonal ties ...
36
2 2 8 ... 48
Facilitates
3
... ... ...
6
(1)
1
1
interpersonal ties (2)
(1)
Self-expression
1
4
(2)
1
4 5 17
(2)
Achievement
1 6 ...
1
5
3
1
20
(3)
(1)
(2)
Ties to
past
2 11
1
8
1
23
Financial 1 6 12 ... 1 20
Appearance-related
1
3 13 10
1 ... 29
(1)
(1)
Other
2
3
(2)
2 10 1 1 21
(2)
NOTE.-Parenthetical entries
indicate the associated
possession
was
identified
as having
two
public meanings.
Entries
in
the
"None" column
indicate
the
associated
possession was identified
as
having
no
strong public
meanings.
dimension
1
and
was correspondingly assigned
the
public meaning of "instrumental."8
ome
possessions
had valuesgreater
han 1.0 on two dimensions, n which
case both appropriate
public meanings were assigned
to
that
possession.
For
example,
the
possession
watch
had weights of -1.07 and -1.14 on dimensions 1 and
3, respectively.Thus, the two public
meanings of "in-
strumental"and "necessity"were assigned o
it.
The correspondence between private and public
meaningswas examined
by generating
a
cross-tabula-
tion table for the
two meaning types, shown
in
Table
6. The table contains entries
for each reason for
value
listed
by Study
1
respondents.
Row
headings
n thetable
refer o the private meaning categories
derived
n
con-
tent analysis see
Exhibit
1
and Table
3).
Column head-
ings
refer o thepublic meaningcategories
derived rom
the multidimensional caling.
When
two
public
mean-
ings were assignedto a possession,
entries were made
in both public meaning columns; these double entries
are indicated by parentheses.Thus, the firstrowof the
table shows that respondents
n
Study
1
reportedutil-
itarian
private meanings
67 times. For
12
of those oc-
casions,
the associatedproduct
had
an
instrumental
public meaningonly;
for
six
occasions, the associated
producthad both
an instrumentaland some other pub-
lic meaning.
As expected,
Table 6 reveals hat
there is some over-
lap
in public and private
meanings. The interpersonal
ties of category
3
in
the content
analysis(see
Exhibit 1)
are representedat the positive
pole of dimension
1
of
the
MDS solution. The
utilitarian xplanationsof
value
in category1of the contentanalysisarerepresentedat
the
negative poles
of dimensions 1 and 3; hedonic
as-
pects
appear
both
in
dimension
1
and dimension 3 (rec-
reational meanings).
Thereare some
differencesbetween
public and
pri-
vate meanings
as well. First, some elements
of meaning
were
present
in either public or privatemeaning,
but
not in both.
For instance, financial and
appearance
bases
for value
were
private
meanings
revealed
n
con-
tent analysis,
but
they
did
not emerge
from the
multi-
dimensional scaling
of
public
meanings.
Conversely,
status
or
prestige
value was
present
n
public
meanings
but
was not
represented
n
the content analysis.
When
respondents
valued items with
status-orientedpublic
meanings,they most frequentlydescribed he personal
source
of
value as
stemming
rom
the
item's
appearance
or
financialworth.
If
status
or
prestige
was
a
source
of
value
for
these respondents, hey
may have declined
to
disclosethis for
social
desirability
reasons.
Second, private
meanings
revealed
in the content
analysis
appear
to be more nuanced than
the public
meanings
derived from multidimensional
scaling.For
example,
the
instrumental/necessity
meanings
of
the
MDS
solution do
not
distinguish
betweenmeaningsde-
rived from practical
orms of utility (such
as providing
8Two
items had no weights
of 1.0 or greater on any of the
dimen-
sions.
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
12/19
514
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
transportation)
and
pleasure-based
meanings (such
as
the enjoyment
of listening to music).
In
addition, the
symbolic publicmeanings
revealed n MDS do not dis-
tinguish
between wo forms of
symbolic
meaning-that
associatedwith
interpersonal elationships
and
that
as-
sociated with personal dentity.
Third, the idiosyncratic
natureof private meanings
is revealed
n
Table
6
by the scattering
of entriesacross
rows. For instance,
"enjoyment" s obtained not just
from obviously
recreationalpossessionsbut also
from
necessities such
as one's home or car, from ordinary
items such as cookbooks,and from
statusobjects.Like-
wise,
value stemming
from the
expression
of
personal
identityis obtained
from
possessions
with a
variety of
public meanings.
While the differences between public and private
meanings
revealed above
may
be
due
to
the different
naturesof these meanings, hey
may also reflect,
n
part,
the different
methods used to
elicit
public
and
private
meanings.Multidimensional caling s atechniqueori-
ented towarddata
reduction,
whereascontent analysis
is
sometimes
able to detect more subtle shades
of
meaning. Thus,
the
suggestion
that private meanings
are
more
nuanced
than
public meanings may
be
due,
in
part,
to differences
n
the
methods used to detect
each.
Study
3 was carriedout to allow
comparisons
be-
tween
public
and privatemeanings
that are not
poten-
tially
confounded
by
methods effects.
STUDY
3
This study
used content
analysis
and
rating
scales to
measureboth
public
and
privatemeanings
or a smaller
number of possessionsthan those includedin Studies
I
and
2. It
consisted
of two
phases;
he
first
phase
elicited
private meanings of valued possessions,
the second
phase assessed public meanings.
The
study
is
an
ex-
ploratory
attempt o comparepublicandprivatemean-
ings obtained by
means of identical methods;
t
is
not
intended to be
a
definitive analysis
of the
public
and
private meanings
of the objects
involved.
Phase
1
Sample. Forty-nine
adult
consumers
were recruited
from among members of church and parents' groups
who stayed after regularly cheduled
meetings to com-
plete
a
questionnaire.
A small contribution was made
to their respectiveorganizations n return for partici-
pation. Demographic
haracteristics f
participants
are
shown
in
Table
4.
Measures. Respondents
were
given
a
three-page
questionnaire
nd were
asked o
complete
the first
page
before
looking
at the
rest
of
the
survey.
The first
page
asked
hem
to
identify
a
possession
hey considered
m-
portant
and
to describe
why
it was
important
o them.
The second
pagecontained
a revisedversionof the
Ditt-
mar
(personal
communication, 1993) possessionrating
scale,
which s shown n Appendix
A. The revised
rating
scale
contains
23
items
designed o assess he sources
of
possession
meaning
dentified n earlier esearchsee,
e.g.,
Dittmar 1989, 1992b;Kamptner
1991) and in Studies
1
and
2.
The
thirdpage contained
demographictems.
Respondentsgenerated38 uniqueimportantposses-
sions;
20 of
these were selected
for use
in
phase
2 of the
study(see App.B).
Possessions
werechosen
to
represent
the range
of
object
types
shown
in
Table 2; the choices
weremade before
the inspection
of subjects'responses
concerningpossession
meaning
n order o
prevent
bias
in
making
the selection.
Phase
2
Sample.phase2,
120 adult consumerswere recruited
fromgroups
similar o thoseused in phase
1
and from a
localcivicservice roup.
Two participants
ereeliminated
because
of failure o
follow
nstructions
nd werereplaced
with additional
espondents.Demographic
haracteristics
of
the
sample
are shown n Table4.
Measures. Respondents
completed
a three-page
questionnaire
imilarto
that used
in
phase 1;however,
questionnaire
tems
were revisedto elicit
public
rather
than
private
meanings.
The
top
of the first
pagecontained
the following
statement:
"In
this
survey,
we'retrying
o
find
out why some
of the thingspeopleownare mportant
to them. Recently,
someone told us that a
they
owned
was
very
mportant
r
special
o them";one of the
objects
rom
the list of
20 was written
n the
blank.
Re-
spondents
hen described
why
someone would consider
this
possession
o be
important.
The
second
page
of the
survey
contained the
revised Dittmar
possession
rating
scalewiththewording hanged o reflect herespondent's
perceptions
of
why
someone
might
consider
the
object
important.
The third
page
contained
demographic
tems.
For each
of the
20 objects,public
meanings
wereobtained
from
six respondents.
Comparison
of
Public
and Private
Meanings:
Content Analysis
Becauserespondentsmight
be more motivated
o as-
cribe
meanings
to
their
own
possessions
than to the
possessions
of
others
and
thus to write
longer
or more
detailed
essays
when
reporting
private
than
public
meanings,the level
of effort
expended
by subjects
was
examined. The averagenumber of wordsused by re-
spondents
o describe
private
meaningsfor
the 20
cho-
sen
possessions
was
compared
with
the
average
number
of
words used
by
a
sample
of 40
respondents
who
pro-
vided
descriptions
of
public
meanings (two public
meaning descriptions
were
randomly
selected
for each
of
the 20
objects).
The
number of words
in
the
public
and
private
meaningessays
did
not
differ
Xpublic
=
41.3,
Xprivate 38.4;
t
=
.30, df
=
58, p
> . 10), which suggests
that similar
effort was
expended
in
providing
the two
types
of
explanations.
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
13/19
PUBLIC
AND
PRIVATE MEANINGS
515
TABLE
7
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
MEANINGS: CONTENT
ANALYSIS,
STUDY
3
Meaning category (1)8 (2) (3) (4) (5)
Utilitarian 7 5 5 2
0
Enjoyment
7
5 5
2
0
Represents interpersonal ties
7
10 5
2
5
Facilitates interpersonal ties
6
1
1
5 0
Self-expressive
2
0
0
2
0
Represents achievement
4
1
0
4
1
Symbolizes personal history
3
4
3
0 1
Financial aspects
6
4
3 3
1
Appearance-related
5
1 1
4
0
Status
0 3 0 0 3
Total
47
34 23
24
11
NoTE.-The table excludes
meanings
that
could
not
be classified. There
were
five unclassifiable private meanings and no unclassifiable
public meanings.
aColumns ndicate the numberof times each
meaning category
was
(1)
evoked
as
a
private meaning; (2)
evoked
as
a
public meaning; (3)
evoked
as
both a
private and public meaning for a particular object; (4) evoked as a private but
not
a
public meaning
for a
particularobject;
and
(5)
evoked
as
a
public
but not
a
private meaning
for
a
particularobject.
The
sum of the entries
in
cols.
(3)
and
(4)
is the
entry
in
col. (1).
The
sum of the entries
in
cols. (3) and (5) is the entry
in col.
(2).
Content
analysis
was used to assess the themes of
both
public
and
private meanings.
Two coders inde-
pendently
examined each
essay
for the
presence
of the
themes
shown in
Exhibit
I
and,
because
of
the
findings
of
the MDS
analysis,
or
references
o
status or
prestige
meanings.
Private
meanings
were assessed
by
exami-
nation
of
the
essays
obtained
n
phase
1
for
the
20
cho-
sen
objects.
Eachthemementioned
by
an
object'spos-
sessoras a reasonforvaluingthatobjectwasdeemed a
private meaning
for that
particular
object.
Public
meaningswere obtained
from
the essays
generated
n
phase
2. A theme
mentioned by at least one-half of the
respondents eporting n a particular bject
was
deemed
a
publicmeaning
or
that
object.
The
number
of
private
meaning categories
evoked
for an
object
ranged
from
one to
six;
that
for
public meaningsranged
from
one
to
four.
The
public
and
private meanings
for each of the 20
objects
were
compared.
There
was
perfectagreement
between
public
and
privatemeanings
forthree
objects.
For the remainingobjects,some elements
of
public
and
private meanings coincided, whereas others did not.
Table7 showsthe frequencywith which each meaning
element
appeared
n
public
and
private
meaningessays
and
the
frequency
of
agreements
and
disagreements
e-
tween
the two
types
of
meanings
when
compared
for
individual
objects.
Comparison
of
Public
and Private
Meanings:
Rating Scales
The
items
in
the rating
scales
administered
n
the
two
phases
of the
study represent
he
same
10
meaning
TABLE 8
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PUBLICAND PRIVATE
MEANINGS:
RATING
SCALES,
STUDY
3
Meaning category (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Utilitarian 14 7 7 7 0
Enjoyment
15 16 15 0
1
Represents interpersonal ties 15
14
12
3 2
Facilitates interpersonal ties 10
6
6
4
0
Self-expressive
13
1 1
9 4 2
Represents achievement 12
11
9
3 2
Symbolizes personal history 14 14 12
2
2
Financial
aspects
1 1 12
1 1 0
1
Appearance-related
14
13 12
2 1
Status 8 13
7
1
6
Spiritual
4
0
0
4
0
Total 130 117 102 30 17
NOTE.-Columns indicate the number
of
times each meaning category was
(1) evoked as a private meaning; (2) evoked as a public
meaning;
(3) evoked as
both
a
private
and
public meaning for
a
particularobject; (4) evoked
as a
private
but not a public meaning for a particularobject; and (5) evoked as a public but
not
a private meaning
for
a particular
object.
The sum of the entries
in
cols. (3)
and
(4)
is the entry
in
col. (1). The sum of the entries
in
cols. (3) and (5) is the
entry
in
col.
(2).
categories used in the content analysis of phase
1,
plus
an additional
category
for
spiritual meaning.
The first
step
in
comparingpublic
and
private meanings
was
to
determine
privatemeanings
as revealed
by
the scale.
A
possession
was said to have
a
private meaning
in one
of
the
11
categories
f the
possession's
owner
marked
at least one
of the
items
in
that category
with a value
of 4 or
higher
on
the
seven-point response
scale
("1,"
not true that the possessionis valued for that reason;
"7,"
very true that the possession s valued for that rea-
son). Thus,
if
a
respondent's
score on the
item
has a
lot of practical usefulness
was
4, his/her possession
was
said to
possess
utilitarian
privatemeaning
even
if
scores
on theother woitems
in
the "utilitarian"
ategory
were
both
less than
4.
The number of
private meaning
cat-
egories
evokedfor an
object ranged
from one to 10.
Becausepublic meanings represent
shared
or
con-
sensual
meanings,
an additional
criterionwas
necessary
to
determine
each object's
public meaning.
If
at least
one-half of the
phase
2
respondents
who evaluated
a
particular object assigned any
one of the items
in
a
meaning category
a
value
of
4
or
higher,
he
object
was
said to possess hatpublic meaning.It was not necessary
for respondentsevaluating
a
particularobject
to
agree
on the exact nature
of, say,
the
object's
utilitarian
meaning; hey only
needed
to
agree
hat the
object
had
some
sort of utilitarianvalue
(as representedby
the rat-
ing
scale
items).
The
number of
public meaning
cate-
gories
evoked for
an
object ranged
from
three to
10.
The
public
and
private meanings
for
each
of the 20
objects
were
compared.
There
was
perfect agreement
between
public
and
private meanings
for
only
one ob-
ject.
Table 8 shows the
frequency
with which each
-
8/11/2019 Valuing Things
14/19
516
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER
RESEARCH
meaning element appeared as public and
private mean-
ings, on the basis of the rating scales, and the frequency
of
agreements
and
disagreements
between
public
and
private meanings
when
compared
for
individual
objects.
Comparisonof Methods
More meanings (public and private) were elicited by
the
rating
scales than
by content analysis. For the 20
objects,
the mean
numbers of public
meanings
revealed
by
content
analysis
and
by ratings
were 1.70 and
5.85,
respectively (t
=
9.27, df
=
38, p