Article

Journal of Marketing Research 2018, Vol. 55(5) 752-765 ª American Marketing Association 2018 The Seesaw Self: Possessions, Identity Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions (De)activation, and Task Performance DOI: 10.1177/0022243718793885 journals.sagepub.com/home/mrj

Jaeyeon Chung and Gita V. Johar

Abstract Research has shown that possessions have the power to change consumers’ self-construal and activate different aspects of the self. Building on this literature, the authors suggest that the salience of product ownership not only activates the product- related self but also simultaneously deactivates product-unrelated selves, resulting in impaired performance on tasks unrelated to the activated self. In five experiments, we first elicit feelings of ownership over a product (e.g., a calculator) to activate a product-related identity (e.g., the math self). Participants then engage in a task that is labeled as being a product-related task (e.g., a math task) or a product-unrelated task (e.g., a visual task). Although the task is the same, participants in the ownership condition perform worse on a task labeled as product-unrelated than those in the baseline condition do. Support for the underlying identity activation process comes from the finding that performance impairment is more likely to hold under conditions of low self-concept clarity, in which identity is malleable. The authors discuss the theoretical and practical impli- cationsofthisfinding.

Keywords ownership, identity, self-concept clarity, task performance, possessions

Online supplement: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718793885

Teenagers purchase Nike shoes believing that they can be feelings of ownership can improve consumers’ performance in better athletes when they are wearing these shoes. Prospective product-related domains by activating the product-related iden- job candidates wear designer suits believing that they will tity. Importantly, we propose a novel by-product of such activa- sound more sophisticated and impressive during an interview tion. We suggest that activating the product-related identity is when wearing one of these suits. Are consumers’ intuitions likely to simultaneously deactivate product-unrelated identities regarding the influence of products and brands on their perfor- and thus impair consumers’ performance in product-unrelated mance accurate? Recent research suggests that brands and domains. It is well established that feelings of psychological products can facilitate product-related performance in two ownership over a product activate product-related identity (Peck ways. First, brand use can increase perceptions of domain- and Shu 2009; Weiss and Johar 2013), but we are not aware of specific self-efficacy and thereby enhance performance (Park any evidence for the deactivation of product-unrelated selves. and John 2014). Second, feelings of ownership over products We base our proposition on research suggesting that activation can result in these products’ being categorized as a “part of the of one aspect of the identity can lead to a momentary deactiva- self” and thereby affect product-related judgments and tion of other aspects of the identity (Bodenhausen, Macrae, and behaviors (Weiss and Johar 2016). An equally important but Hugenberg 2003; Hodges and Park 2013; Zhang et al. 2013). unaddressed question concerns consumer performance on Our research contributes to the existing literature on identity product-unrelated tasks when product-related identity is acti- from a theoretical as well as practical perspective. Theoreti- vated. Would wearing a new pair of Nike shoes affect a teen- cally, we propose that activating one identity can simultane- ager’s ability to perform in nonathletic domains, such as in an ously deactivate other identities that may be unrelated to (but English class? Would purchasing a designer suit on a Saturday evening affect a job candidate’s ability to cook dinner that night? The current research examines downstream consequences of Jaeyeon Chung is Assistant Professor in Marketing, Jones Graduate School of product ownership on task performance in product-unrelated Business, Rice University (email: [email protected]). Gita V. Johar is Meyer domains. Consistent with prior research, we suggest that Feldberg Professor of Business, Columbia University (email: [email protected]). Chung and Johar 753 not necessarily in conflict with) the activated identity. To our Feelings of product ownership can lead consumers to knowledge, such an assertion has not been made previously in behave in ways that are consistent with traits associated with the literature. Our experimental evidence is robust and reveals the owned product (Coleman and Williams 2013; Reed et al. these effects with a simple change in task label while the actual 2012; Weiss and Johar 2013; Wheeler, DeMarree, and Petty task remains the same. Individuals do not appear to consciously 2007). For example, consumers who wear fake sunglasses (pre- disengage from tasks unrelated to the currently active identity; sumably feeling ownership of the sunglasses; see Weiss and rather, these effects appear to manifest outside of conscious Johar 2016) are more likely to exhibit fake behavior (i.e., cheat) awareness. than those who wear authentic sunglasses (Gino, Norton, and Practically, we show that the mere salience of possessions Ariely 2010). In an academic setting, undergraduate partici- can lead to such identity activation and deactivation effects. pants who used an MIT pen were likely to perform better on Everyday activities such as shopping can activate product- a GRE test than those who used a Pilot pen, and this product– related identities and deactivate product-unrelated ones, result- self assimilation was stronger among entity theorists who used ing in downstream consequences for consumer performance the product to bolster their perceptions of their fixed ability and behavior. In some domains, such as education or gaming, (Park and John 2014). Overall, research has convincingly task performance could be a critical variable that companies demonstrated that owned-product traits transfer to the self, and aim to maximize. Although student learning remains a primary that consumers exhibit product-congruent behaviors on goal of education, some companies have observed that better product-related tasks (McCracken 1986). Such assimilation performers (e.g., those who score higher on tests) are more of the self to owned products can occur through inferential likely to stay engaged and complete the course. Direct evidence processes (Park and John 2014) or categorization processes for the relationship between performance and customer reten- (Weiss and Johar 2013). tion comes from online course providers (Coursera 2017). Although prior research has clearly demonstrated behavioral Although it is impossible to determine causality in the relation- assimilation to the identity activated by an owned product, it ship between student engagement and performance, they has been silent about behaviors related to other identities. The appear to mutually reinforce each other. In fact, gaming com- assumption thus far appears to be that performance facilitation panies design games to fit the level of the player to maintain a as a result of ownership-induced identity activation does not balance between challenge and achievement (Engeser and impose any costs on performance related to other identities. Rheinberg 2008). Gamers may be demotivated if the game is Contrary to this view, we suggest that activation of the either too easy or too difficult. To enhance task performance product-related identity is likely to result in simultaneous deac- and the perception of flow, identity activation may be a useful tivation of product-unrelated identities, resulting in impaired strategy that firms can employ. The notion of identity deactiva- performance on product-unrelated tasks. We base our predic- tion and performance impairment suggests that courses should tion on research by Bodenhausen, Macrae, and Hugenberg be maintained within portfolios of identity-related content and (2003) that suggests that people want to behave in a coherent customers should be encouraged to work within one skill domain at a time. We return to the practical relevance of our and situationally appropriate manner (Hugenberg and Boden- findings in the General Discussion section. hausen 2004), resulting in the active inhibition of identities that make the self-view less cohesive when one particular identity is activated (Hugenberg and Bodenhausen 2004; Macrae, Boden- Possessions and Identity (De)Activation hausen, and Milne 1995; Neill 1977). Among competing repre- Products are an integral part of consumers’ identity (Reed et al. sentations of identities, people selectively attend to a focal 2012). Our possessions communicate our social beliefs (e.g., category, and the selected target category guides subsequent breast cancer awareness bracelets) and our social affiliations processing (Bodenhausen 1988; Macrae, Bodenhausen, and (e.g., university T-shirts; Wu, Cutright, and Fitzsimons 2011). Milne 1995; Mercurio and Forehand 2011). Unattended cate- Possessions help individuals to explore and discover their iden- gories are not passively ignored but are actively suppressed tity (Wu, Cutright, and Fitzsimons 2011) or to pursue an idea- (Neill 1977) because they are treated as distractors during lized self-image (Mandel, Petrova, and Cialdini 2006). information processing (Deutsch and Deutsch 1963). Consistent with the idea that products can activate aspects of The idea that individuals have multiple identities and that identity, recent research has shown that feelings of product activation of one can lead to the inhibition of another has ownership lead to incorporating product attributes as a part received some empirical support (Bodenhausen, Macrae, and of the self (Weiss and Johar 2013). Such psychological own- Hugenberg 2003; Macrae, Bodenhausen, and Milne 1995). For ership—the feeling that a product is part of the self—can arise example, when Chinese Americans had their Chinese identity without actual possession of a product, and by means of mere activated by seeing the face of another Chinese (vs. Caucasian) touch or mental imagery (Peck and Shu 2009). The sense of person, they suppressed their American identity, as indicated ownership can even be experienced in a virtual world, and a by their impaired fluency in English (Zhang et al. 2013). Simi- product can be perceived as an extension of the self (Slater larly, Asian American women performed better on a mathe- et al. 2009). What are the downstream behavioral consequences matics test when their Asian identity was activated than when of feelings of ownership and identity activation? their gender identity was activated (Shih, Pittinsky, and 754 Journal of Marketing Research 55(5)

Facilitates Activation of product- performance on H related identity 1a product-related task Psychological ownership over a product Deactivation of Impairs performance

product-unrelated on product-unrelated H1b identity task

Self-concept clarity

H2

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

Ambady 1999; see also Gibson, Losee, and Vitiello 2014; of owned products simply primes product-related goals and Moon and Roeder 2014). deactivates other goals. To tease apart these two potential Activation of one identity leading to deactivation of a dif- mechanisms, we turn to the construct of self-concept clarity. ferent identity may seem relatively intuitive for conflicting Self-concept clarity is defined as the extent to which the con- identities, where activation of one identity automatically tents of a person’s self-concept are clearly and confidently implies suppression of a conflicting identity. This is the case defined, internally consistent, and temporarily stable (Camp- in the two findings cited above. In fact, the Shih, Pittinsky, and bell et al. 1996; Morrison and Wheeler 2010). People with a Ambady (1999) finding may simply reflect behavior that is clear self-concept are more likely to commit to one identity and consistent with the activated stereotype. The literature provides are less likely to reconsider their self-view on a daily basis some evidence for deactivation of identities unrelated to the (Schwartz et al. 2011). Individuals with high self-concept currently active identity, although the findings have not neces- clarity are less likely than individuals with low-self-concept sarily been interpreted using our theoretical lens (Kettle and clarity to have fluctuating self-views when encountering neg- Ha¨ubl 2011; Macrae, Bodenhausen, and Milne 1995; Winterich ative life events (DeHart and Pelham 2007). In contrast, people and Barone 2011). For instance, when lab participants had their who have low self-concept clarity hold uncertain, instable, and student identity activated (vs. not activated), they were more inconsistent self-views. If the effects are driven by the activa- engaged in an identity-related camera shopping task and were tion and deactivation of different aspects of one’s identity less engaged in an identity-unrelated dishwasher shopping task rather than by goal priming, ownership-induced effects on (Experiment 1 in Kettle and Ha¨ubl 2011). Another study found identity and task performance should be attenuated under con- facilitation of performance on a lexical decision task when the ditions of high self-concept clarity. The reason is that individ- words were related to the activated identity and inhibition when uals with high self-concept clarity have stable self-concepts, the words were related to a different identity, compared with and therefore cues such as feelings of product ownership are the performance of participants who had no identity activated less likely to activate and deactivate different identities. On the (Macrae, Bodenhausen, and Milne 1995). These findings are other hand, individuals with low self-concept clarity have less consistent with research in social cognition that suggests that stable self-concepts, and their self-identities are more likely to activation of a target representation benefits when inhibitory be activated by environmental cues, such as products and pos- mechanisms suppress interfering alternatives (Neill 1977). sessions. Thus, we derive the following hypothesis: From the literature discussed in this section, we derive the following hypothesis (see the conceptual model in Figure 1). H2: H1 is more likely to hold for individuals who have low self-concept clarity than for individuals who have high self-concept clarity. H1: Relative to a baseline condition, salience of product ownership (a) facilitates performance on product-related tasks and (b) impairs performance on product-unrelated Overview of Experiments tasks. Our theoretical framework posits activation of the self when As discussed previously, we invoke the notion of identity feelings of product ownership are salient, regardless of whether activation to justify this hypothesis. An alternative perspective ownership is psychological (i.e., feelings of ownership) or on why feelings of ownership may influence performance on actual (i.e., legal ownership). Across experiments, we use both product-related and product-unrelated tasks is that the salience types of ownership manipulation. Experiment 1 uses the Chung and Johar 755 experimental-causal-chain design approach (Spencer, Zanna, known for its home decor products inspiring consumers to and Fong 2005) to establish the underlying activation process. artistically decorate their living areas. IKEA can therefore be Experiment 2 uses a well-grounded psychological ownership viewed as being linked with an artistic aspect of the self. manipulation to demonstrate attenuated task performance on Ninety-three Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) participants product-unrelated tasks. Experiment 3 replicates the finding (44.1% male; Mage ¼ 40.07 years, SD ¼ 12.82) first engaged in using a different ownership manipulation and measure of per- an IKEA shopping task in which they were randomly assigned formance. Experiment 4 activates two different identities and to either the ownership condition or the baseline condition. All shows that performance on the exact same task is enhanced participants browsed an online IKEA catalog with three images when the activated identity is consistent with the task label and that showed furniture and other home decor items (see Web attenuated when the identity is inconsistent with the task label. Appendix 2). Depending on their condition, participants were Experiment 5 uses the moderation approach to discern the asked to identify five items that they would like to own (owner- underlying activation process (H2) and shows that the perfor- ship condition) or five items that they thought would be suitable mance effects are attenuated under high self-concept clarity. for senior citizen homes (baseline condition). All participants Our participant screening rule for each of these experiments is then spent at least three minutes describing why they had chosen described in Web Appendix 1. the products. The amount of time participants spent on the shopping task did not differ across the two conditions (F < 1). In the next (ostensibly unrelated) task, all participants had to Experiment 1: Identity (De)Activation complete 20 sentences beginning with the stem “I am good at During Shopping Tasks ____.” This 20-statement task (Kuhn and McPartland 1954; The goal of Experiment 1 is to test whether shopping for prod- Weiss and Johar 2016) was used to measure the activation of ucts for oneself activates the product-related identity and deac- different identities. After completing this task, participants tivates unrelated identities, resulting in downstream were shown their 20 statements and were asked to code each consequences for performance on product-unrelated tasks. In statement as related to an art-related skill set or to a non-art- prior psychology and marketing studies, researchers have acti- related skill set. The proportion of art-related sentences served vated participants’ identities by increasing the salience of prod- as the dependent variable. ucts that people already own, using writing and/or recall tasks Results and discussion. The number of completed statements did (Chugani, Irwin, and Redden 2015; Coleman and Williams not differ between the two conditions (M ¼ 14.42 vs. 2013). To our knowledge, existing research has not yet shown ownership M ¼ 15.49; F < 1). As expected, participants in the own- that the mere act of shopping can activate certain identities with baseline ership condition generated a greater proportion of statements consequences for subsequent performance. related to art skills (M ¼ 36.02%,SD¼ .26) than By employing an experimental-causal-chain design ownership participants in the baseline condition generated (M ¼ approach (Spencer, Zanna, and Fong 2005), Experiment 1 baseline 25.52%,SD¼ .18; F(1, 91) ¼ 5.09, p ¼ .027, d ¼ .45), in demonstrates that feelings of product ownership result in iden- response to the 20-statement task. tity (de)activation and impairment of product-related perfor- Additional analysis of the first three identities listed in the mance. Specifically, Experiment 1a reveals that shopping for 20-statement task revealed a similar pattern of results. Partici- IKEA interior design products can activate the art-related iden- pants in the ownership condition reported a greater number of tity and simultaneously deactivate identities unrelated to art art-related identities than those in the baseline condition (the independent variable ! mediator link). Experiment 1b reported (M ¼ 1.48, SD ¼ 1.14 vs. M ¼ .95, manipulates the extent to which the art-related identity is acti- ownership baseline SD ¼ 1.00; F(1, 92) ¼ 5.47, p ¼ .022), further supporting the vated and shows its detrimental effect on a supposedly unre- idea that salience of ownership of art-related products activates lated shopping task that requires math skills (the mediator ! art-related identity. Given the fixed number of statements, dependent variable link). Finally, Experiment 1c shows a direct these findings also serve as evidence for deactivation of non- link between the IKEA shopping task and performance impair- art-related identities. ment on the math-related shopping task (the independent vari- Two follow-up experiments using different dependent mea- able dependent variable link). ! sures (a word completion task and a cognitive accessibility task) further corroborate these findings and clearly show iden- Experiment 1a: Shopping for IKEA Interior Design tity activation of owned product-related identities and deacti- Products and Art Identity Activation vation of product-unrelated identities (we report the means for these follow-up experiments in Table 1). The goal of Experiment 1a is to test the first link of the con- ceptual model. We expect that shopping for IKEA products for oneself will lead to activation of participants’ art identity and Experiment 1b: Activation of Art-Related Identity deactivation of art-unrelated identities. and Downstream Consequences Method. We used an IKEA catalog shopping task to manipulate Building on the results from Experiment 1a, Experiment 1b ownership and activate an art-related identity. IKEA is well tested the downstream consequences of identity activation on 756

Table 1. Means Across Experiments.

Product-Unrelated Task Condition Product-Related Task Condition

Ownership No No Sample Manipulation Dependent Measure Ownership Ownership p Cohen’s d Ownership Ownership p Cohen’s d Size

Experiment 1a IKEA design/art-related 20-statement identity activation measure — — — — .36 (.26) .25 (.18) .027 .45 93 product shopping task Experiment 1b Modified 20-statement Pantry item shopping task that requires 6.38 (1.92) 7.28 (2.11) .034 .45 — — — — 95 manipulation math skills Experiment 1c IKEA design/art-related Pantry item shopping task that requires 6.58 (1.84) 7.58 (1.82) .007 .55 — — — — 102 product shopping task math skills Experiment 2 Calculator ownership Anagram task (label: math vs. creative 6.98 (2.00) 8.05 (1.40) .006 .62 8.13 (1.67) 8.00 (1.85) .724 .07 187 manipulation (Peck and writing) Shu 2009) Experiment 3 Calculator ownership IQ-style quiz (label: math vs. visual 3.00 (1.46) 4.00 (2.02) .038 .58 4.19 (1.66) 3.33 (1.71) .080 .50 104 manipulation using own sensitivity) vs. library computer Experiment 4 Calculator ownership or IQ quiz (label: math vs. art) 4.16 (2.02) 5.41 (1.72) .002 .67 5.42 (1.59) 4.62 (2.08) .049 .43 174 art piece ownership Experiment 5 Calculator ownership IQ quiz (label: math vs. art) 2.81 (1.30) 3.65 (1.87) .025 .53 3.74 (1.87) 3.04 (1.67) .052 .39 383 manipulation (Peck and Shu 2009) Follow-up Calculator ownership 20-statement identity activation measure — — — — .28 (.27) .18 (.13) .039 .41 90 Experiment I manipulation using own vs. library computer Follow-up Calculator ownership Word completion task: implicit content — — — — 5.37 (1.81) 4.36 (1.70) .012 .58 55 Experiment II manipulation using own accessibility—self-identity task vs. library computer (Johnson and Lord 2010; Knowles and Gardner 2008). Follow-up Calculator ownership Cognitive accessibility of different self- 4.06 (1.79) 4.78 (1.37) .033 .45 4.88 (1.79) 4.14 (1.65) .013 .43 197 Experiment III manipulation using own identities (Chugani, Irwin, and Redden vs. library computer 2015) Follow-up Dick’s Sporting Goods Inclusion of Other in the Self scale for 4.02 (1.37) 4.68 (1.58) .034 .45 4.53 (1.52) 3.92 (1.50) .050 .40 95 Experiment IV shopping task athletic/creative writing skills (Aron, (shopping for self vs. Aron, and Smollan 1992) high school students) Follow-up IKEA design/art-related Inclusion of Other in the Self scale for 3.65 (1.92) 4.37 (1.64) .045 .40 5.04 (1.53) 4.29 (1.85) .031 .45 99 Experiment V product shopping task art/math skills (Aron, Aron, and Smollan 1992) Follow-up Earphone ownership or Anagram task (label: music 5.44 (1.55) 6.54 (1.35) .026 .77 6.32 (1.60) 5.64 (1.63) .193 .36 194 Experiment VI notepad baseline comprehension vs. creative writing) manipulation

Notes: Results reported in this table are mean scores, with standard deviation in parentheses. Participants were from MTurk in all experiments except Experiment 4 and Follow-up Experiment IV, which used behavioral lab participants. The results reported for Experiment 5 are the means from the low self-concept clarity condition. The interaction of ownership with task relevance was insignificant in high self-concept clarity conditions and thus is not reported in this table. All follow-up experiments reported here are from earlier versions of this article (for details, see Web Appendix 8). Chung and Johar 757 product-unrelated task performance. Although our conceptua- differences were not consciously driven. Participants in both lization highlights the role of identity activation, an alternative conditions were highly engaged in the pantry item shopping explanation is that performance effects are goal driven, such task (Meffort ¼ 6.06 and Minvolvement ¼ 6.00 on a 7-point scale). that participants simply find the product-unrelated task to be The task was perceived to be moderately easy (Mdifficulty ¼ irrelevant and consciously disengage from the task. To test this 3.68 on a 7-point scale). Consistent with our prediction, parti- alternative explanation, we measured participants’ involve- cipants in the art-related identity condition were less accurate ment, effort, and perceived task difficulty. in choosing products with the lower unit price than those in the baseline condition were (Mart ¼ 6.38, SD ¼ 1.92 vs. Mbaseline ¼ Method. Following the procedure for the experimental-causal- 7.28, SD ¼ 2.11; F(1, 93) ¼ 4.63, p ¼ .034, d ¼ .45). Together, chain design analysis (Spencer, Zanna, and Fong 2005), we Experiments 1a and 1b demonstrate that feelings of ownership next manipulated the mediator of art-identity activation using activate product-related identity and deactivate product- the 20-statement task from Experiment 1a. Specifically, 95 unrelated identity (Experiment 1a) and lead to performance MTurk participants (47.4% male; Mage ¼ 37.18 years, SD ¼ impairment on a product-unrelated task (Experiment 1b). 12.26) were randomly assigned to either the art-related identity or the baseline identity condition. Participants in both condi- tions completed seven sentences that started with “I am good at Experiment 1c: Shopping for IKEA Products and Pantry ____.” The only difference between the art-related identity Shopping Task condition and the baseline identity condition was the instruc- Experiment 1c shows a direct link between feelings of owner- tion given to those in the art-related identity condition, who ship and performance impairment. In this experiment, we use were asked to fill in the blanks with the artistic/designer aspects the IKEA catalog shopping task as the independent variable of the self. Participants in the baseline condition did not receive and the pantry item shopping task as the dependent variable. this identity-specific instruction. We used a 7-statement (instead of 20-statement) task to ensure that participants in both Method. We expected that participants who shopped for their conditions did not find the sentence completion task too diffi- own home (vs. a senior citizen home) in the IKEA catalog task cult. As expected, participants in both conditions were able to would perform worse on the pantry item task that required math complete most of the seven statements (M ¼ 6.81 statements art skills. MTurk participants (N ¼ 102; 44.1% male; Mage ¼ vs. Mbaseline ¼ 6.98 statements). After responding to the seven 36.12 years, SD ¼ 11.13) were randomly assigned to either the statements, participants were asked to indicate the degree to ownership condition or the baseline condition and completed an which each of the seven statements was related to art/design IKEA shopping task identical to that described in Experiment 1a. skills (1 ¼ “this skill is not at all related to one’s skills in art and They then moved on to a pantry item shopping study identical to design,” and 13 ¼ “this skill is very much related to one’s skills that described in Experiment 1b, which measured their perfor- in art and design”). The responses from the seven statements mance on a math task. Finally, all participants responded to were averaged and used as the identity activation manipulation questions on involvement, effort, and perceived difficulty for check measure. the pantry item task, identical to those in Experiment 1b. All participants then moved on to the ostensibly unrelated pantry item shopping study, which measured their performance Results and discussion. Participants were highly engaged in on a math task. They were told that grocery stores carry prod- the pantry item task across conditions (Meffort ¼ 6.11 and ucts that differ in bundle sizes and prices, and that consumers Minvolvement ¼ 6.00 on a 7-point scale). The task was perceived often have to compare price per unit to choose bundles with the to be moderately easy (Mdifficulty ¼ 3.52 on a 7-point scale). best deal. Ten pairs of bundled products (e.g., toothpaste) were Participants’ self-reported levels of involvement, effort, and shown, and participants were asked to choose the product bun- perceived difficulty did not differ between conditions (all dle that had a lower price per unit (e.g., $6.99 for three tubes of ps > .294). Consistent with our prediction, participants in the toothpaste vs. $4.25 for two tubes of toothpaste; Web Appendix ownership condition were less accurate in choosing products 3). Performance was scored in terms of accurately choosing a with the lower unit price than those in the baseline condition product bundle among the two bundle choices (1 ¼ correct, 0 ¼ (Mownership ¼ 6.58, SD ¼ 1.84 vs. Mbaseline¼ 7.58, SD ¼ 1.82; incorrect), and the total possible score ranged from 0 to 10. F(1, 100) ¼ 7.57, p ¼ .007, d ¼ .55). Finally, all participants responded to questions about involve- In support of prior findings that identity-driven performance ment, effort, and perceived difficulty for the pantry item task: is not consciously goal-driven (Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady “How involved were you in the task?”; “How much effort did 1999), our results did not show any differences in involvement, you put in the task?”; and “How difficult was the task?” (1 ¼ effort, and perceived difficulty between the ownership and “not much involved”/“not much effort”/“not difficult at all,” baseline conditions. To further rule out the goal explanation, and 7 ¼ “very difficult”/“very involved”/“a lot of effort”). which would hold that performance after IKEA shopping is driven by ownership-condition participants’ having the goal Results and discussion. Participants’ self-reported levels of invol- to do well on art-related tasks but not on other tasks (such as vement, effort, and perceived difficulty did not differ between a pantry item math task), we conducted a follow-up experiment the two conditions (all ps > .127), suggesting that performance (N ¼ 126; 45.7% male; Mage ¼ 34.65 years, SD ¼ 8.19). This 758 Journal of Marketing Research 55(5) experiment employed the same IKEA ownership manipulation, ownership manipulation exercise (pretested in Web Appendix the same pantry item shopping task, and four items that mea- 4A) in which they saw an image of a calculator (the product) sured participants’ goals on art- and math-related tasks: (1) “It and either imagined bringing the calculator home (ownership is important for me to do well in art/design-related tasks”; (2) “I condition) or described which store would carry the calculator want to be good at design/art-related tasks”; (3) “It is important (baseline condition). In the next, ostensibly unrelated study, for me to do well in math-related tasks”; and (4) “I want to be participants were informed that the task would measure their good at math-related tasks” (1 ¼ “not true at all,” and 7 ¼ math skills (vs. creative writing skills) by testing how well they “totally true”). We again replicated the main findings that feel- recognize meaningful words from scrambled letters. The fram- ings of ownership over IKEA products lead to worse perfor- ing of the quiz—math versus creative writing—was chosen on mance on the pantry item math task (Mownership ¼ 6.07, SD ¼ the basis of our pretest showing that the two skills are perceived 1.90 vs. Mbaseline ¼ 6.76, SD ¼ 1.93; F(1, 124) ¼ 4.08, p ¼ to be unrelated to each other (Web Appendix 4B). Subse- .046, d ¼ .36). The four goal measures (two items for art, two quently, all participants responded to a ten-item anagram quiz items for math) were averaged in pairs to compose the art-goal that was labeled as measuring individuals’ math skills (calcu- activation and math-goal activation scores. These scores did lator product-related label condition) or creative writing skills not differ across the two conditions (art-goal activation: (calculator product-unrelated label condition). In fact, both Mownership ¼ 4.73 vs. Mbaseline ¼ 4.76; F < 1; math-goal quizzes were composed of identical anagram questions (e.g., activation: Mownership ¼ 4.64 vs. Mbaseline ¼ 4.43; F < 1). solutions were power, matrix, slope) that could plausibly be Overall, the results from Experiments 1a–1c suggest that perceived as tests of math or creative writing skills. Finally, shopping for a product activates product-related identities and all participants responded to demographic and debriefing deactivates product-unrelated identities. In support of H1b,we questions. also demonstrate the downstream consequences of such deac- tivation; participants who shopped the IKEA catalog for their own homes performed worse on a subsequent pantry shopping Results and Discussion task that required math skills, compared with those who shopped for a different purpose. Additional support of identity Participants were highly engaged in the task across conditions (de)activation upon product ownership also comes from (Meffort ¼ 5.96 and Minvolvement ¼ 6.55 on a 7-point scale). The Follow-up Experiments I to III (reported in Table 1), which task was perceived to be moderately easy (Mdifficulty ¼ 3.93 on utilize different ownership manipulations and different cogni- a 7-point scale). Participants’ self-reported levels of involve- tive accessibility tasks to measure activation. ment, effort, and perceived difficulty did not differ between In the next set of experiments, we manipulate ownership in conditions (all ps > .148), suggesting that any uncovered per- different ways and systematically explore downstream conse- formance differences were not consciously driven (Shih, Pit- quences of activation and deactivation using a full 2 (owner- tinsky, and Ambady 1999). ship: yes vs. no) 2 (quiz label relevance: product-related vs. A2 2 between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) product-unrelated) between-subjects experimental design. By revealed a marginal main effect of psychological ownership using the same task but framing it as either related or unrelated (F(1, 183) ¼ 3.35, p ¼ .069), such that participants in the to the product, we can rule out any role of task content and pin calculator ownership condition generally scored lower than down the role of identity (de)activation. those in the baseline condition. A main effect of quiz label (F(1, 183) ¼ 4.51, p ¼ .035) revealed that participants in the Experiment 2: Psychological Ownership of a creative writing label condition scored lower than those in the math label condition. These effects were qualified by a signif- Calculator and Performance on Tasks icant interaction between ownership and quiz label relevance Labeled as Math Versus Creative Writing (F(1, 183) ¼ 5.35, p ¼ .022). Consistent with the deactivation The goal of Experiment 2 is to examine the consequences of account, participants in the calculator ownership condition per- activating one identity on task performance on product-related formed worse than those in the baseline condition on the quiz and product-unrelated tasks. We used a validated psychological labeled as a creative writing task (Mownership, creative writing label ownership manipulation (Peck and Shu 2009) and measured ¼ 6.98, SD ¼ 2.00 vs. Mbaseline, creative writing label ¼ 8.05, SD ¼ performance on an anagram task labeled as either product- 1.40; F(1, 183) ¼ 7.96, p ¼ .006, d ¼ .62; see Figure 2). We did related or product-unrelated. not observe a significant activation effect within the math label condition (Mownership, math label ¼ 8.13, SD ¼ 1.67 vs. Mbaseline, math label ¼ 8.00, SD ¼ 1.85; F < 1); this finding could be due to Method a ceiling effect resulting from high scores ( 8 of 10) in both In this experiment, 187 MTurk participants (36.4% male; Mage conditions. The quiz scores within the ownership condition ¼ 35.87 years, SD ¼ 12.51) were randomly assigned to one of were also significantly different from each other (Mownership, the four conditions in a 2 (psychological ownership: ownership creative writing label ¼ 6.98, SD ¼ 2.00 vs. Mownership, math label ¼ vs. baseline) 2 (quiz label relevance: related vs. unrelated) 8.13, SD ¼ 1.67; F(1, 183) ¼ 10.38, p ¼ .002, d ¼ .64). No between-subjects design. First, participants completed an significant differences were found within the baseline Chung and Johar 759

calculator ownership condition or the baseline condition. In 10 Ownership Baseline both conditions, participants were asked to spend at least 3 9 8.13 8 8.05 minutes describing how they would locate a calculator program 8 on a computer desktop. The only difference between the two 6.98 conditions was that participants were asked to describe either 7 the location of the calculator program on their personal com- 6 puter (ownership condition) or the location of the calculator program on a typical public library computer (baseline condi- 5 tion; for pretest results, see Web Appendix 5A). Next, partici-

Quiz Score 4 pants completed an ostensibly unrelated second study. The

3 cover story described the task as measuring the variance in people’s ability to perform math (vs. visual sensitivity) tasks. 2 Participants were randomly assigned to solve either a math- 1 labeled quiz (product-related label condition) or a visual sensi- tivity–labeled quiz (product-unrelated label condition), the 0 Product-Related Product-Unrelated labels of which were chosen based on a pretest (see Web Label (Math) Label (Creative Writing) Appendix 5B). Both quizzes were composed of ten identical questions. For example, participants saw five boxes that were Figure 2. The effects of calculator ownership on quiz performance filled with different arithmetic signs (þ,?, , ¼) and predicted (experiment 2). the composition of the arithmetic signs inside the sixth box (see Notes: The mean quiz score on the task labeled as product-unrelated Web Appendix 6). Next, participants responded to three ques- was significantly lower in the ownership condition than in the baseline tions measuring their level of involvement, their level of effort, condition. Error bars indicate standard errors. and the perceived difficulty of the quiz. Finally, all participants condition (Mbaseline, creative writing label ¼ 8.05, SD ¼ 1.40 vs. reported whether they used a PC or a Mac, the frequency of Mbaseline, math label ¼ 8.00, SD ¼ 1.85; F < 1). their use of the calculator program, and their demographics. Results from Experiment 2 demonstrate that participants who feel ownership over a calculator perform worse on a crea- Results and Discussion tive writing–labeled quiz that is unrelated to one’s activated math identity (H1b). Evidence for deactivation comes from the Ratings of how interesting the manipulation task was did not comparison of scores in the calculator ownership condition and differ between conditions (F < 1), casting doubt on the poten- the baseline condition within the creative writing quiz, as well tial alternative explanation that participants in the public com- as from comparing scores on the quiz labeled as math with puter (vs. own computer) condition were demotivated. Further, scores on the quiz labeled as creative writing within the own- participants’ self-reported levels of involvement, effort, and ership condition. We do not observe evidence for activation on perceived difficulty of the quiz did not significantly differ the math-labeled quiz in the ownership vs. baseline condition across conditions, suggesting that any observed performance (H1a); scores are uniformly high in both conditions, and we effect was not conscious. Moreover, the levels of effort and speculate that this is because of a ceiling on possible scores involvement were high in all four conditions (Meffort ¼ 6.03 on this easy quiz. and Minvolvement ¼ 6.18 on a 7-point scale), suggesting that participants across all conditions were highly engaged in taking Experiment 3: Ownership of a Calculator and the quiz. The quiz was perceived as difficult (Mdifficulty ¼ 5.72 on a 7-point scale). Performance on Math-Labeled Versus Visual The 2 2 between-subjects ANOVA revealed a significant Sensitivity–Labeled Quiz interaction only of ownership quiz label (F(1, 100) ¼ 7.50, p Experiment 3 demonstrates the robustness of the performance ¼ .001). In support of the deactivation hypothesis (H1b), when effects by using a legal (rather than psychological) ownership the quiz was labeled as a visual sensitivity quiz, participants in manipulation. We also employ a moderately difficult perfor- the calculator ownership condition performed worse than those mance task to prevent ceiling effects. in the baseline condition did (Mownership, visual sensitivity label ¼ 3.00, SD ¼ 1.46 vs. Mbaseline, visual sensitivity label ¼ 4.00, SD ¼ 2.02 F(1, 100) ¼ 7.50, p ¼ .038, d ¼ .58; see Figure 3). In Method support of the activation hypothesis (H1a), when the quiz was In this experiment, 104 MTurk participants (44.2% male; Mage labeled as a math quiz, participants in the calculator ownership ¼ 35.04 years, SD ¼ 11.57) were randomly assigned to one of condition performed marginally better than those in the base- the four conditions in a 2 (ownership: ownership vs. baseline) line condition (Mownership, math label ¼ 4.19, SD ¼ 1.66 vs. 2 (quiz label relevance: related vs. unrelated) between- Mbaseline, math label ¼ 3.33, SD ¼ 1.71; F(1, 100) ¼ 3.13, p ¼ subjects design. All participants first engaged in a “computer .080, d ¼ .50). Additional analysis revealed that participants in software” study in which they were assigned to either the the calculator ownership condition performed significantly 760 Journal of Marketing Research 55(5)

performance when the task label matches the activated identity 7 Ownership Baseline and impaired performance when the task label mismatches the activated identity. To test this idea, we use two different own- 6 ership conditions rather than a baseline condition. Thus, a matching label in one condition is a mismatching label in the 5 4.19 4.00 other condition. Once again, the performance task is exactly the same in all conditions. 4 3.33 3.00 3 Method Quiz Score This experiment involved 174 behavioral lab participants 2 (31.6% male; Mage ¼ 23.17 years, SD ¼ 5.11) at a large North- eastern U.S. university. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 one of the four conditions in a 2 (ownership: scientific calcu- lator vs. art piece) 2 (quiz label relevance: math vs. artistic 0 Product-Related Product-Unrelated Label sensitivity) between-subjects design. Participants first Label (Math) (Visual Sensitivity) responded to the “marketing and product usage” survey, in which they spent at least 3 minutes describing a scientific Figure 3. The effects of calculator ownership on quiz performance calculator (or art piece) that they owned. We chose these prod- (experiment 3). ucts because most undergraduate students are required to own a Notes: The mean quiz score on the task labeled as product-related was scientific calculator for their core math classes and most stu- significantly higher in the ownership condition than in the baseline dents own art pieces (e.g., posters, sculpture, framed artwork) condition. The mean quiz score on the task labeled as product- in their dorms. unrelated was significantly lower in the ownership condition than in the baseline condition. The means within the baseline condition were Next, participants engaged in an unrelated second study that not significantly different from each other. Error bars indicate stan- stated that the researchers were interested in measuring their dard errors. math or artistic sensitivity skills. The quiz content was identical to that in Experiment 3 in both conditions. Note that the quiz worse on the visual sensitivity–labeled quiz than on the math- uses mathematical symbols in boxes and can plausibly be per- ceived as a math or artistic sensitivity quiz (Web Appendix 6). labeled quiz (M ¼ 3.00 vs. M ownership, visual sensitivity label ownership, Finally, participants reported their levels of effort and involve- math label ¼ 4.19; F(1, 100) ¼ 6.12, p ¼ .015, d ¼ .77). However, participants’ scores did not differ in the baseline conditions ment in the quiz and the perceived difficulty of the quiz and then answered demographic and debriefing questions. (Mbaseline, visual sensitivity label ¼ 4.00 vs. Mbaseline, math label ¼ 3.33; F(1, 100) ¼ 1.95, p ¼ .166, d ¼ .36). Participants’ own- ership of PC or Mac did not differ significantly between con- Results and Discussion ditions, and the frequency of using a calculator did not moderate the effects in any way. Participants’ self-reported levels of effort and involvement and Results from Experiment 3 replicate the deactivation findings the perceived difficulty of the two quizzes did not differ across conditions. Participants across all conditions were generally (H1b) and provide marginal support for activation as a result of engaged in the quiz (Meffort ¼ 4.99 and Minvolvement ¼ 5.33 ownership (H1a). As in Experiments 1 and 2, additional analysis of participants’ involvement and perceived quiz difficulty on a 7-point scale), and perceived the quiz to be somewhat reveals no differences across conditions. Overall, results from difficult (Mdifficulty ¼ 5.18 on a 7-point scale). Experiments 1 to 3 together show that salience of ownership The 2 2 between-subjects ANOVA revealed only a sig- over a product activates product-related selves and deactivates nificant ownership quiz label interaction (F(1, 170) ¼ 13.17, product-unrelated selves. The deactivation of a product- p < .001). As expected, among those who solved an artistic unrelated self results in impaired performance on a task labeled sensitivity–labeled quiz, participants in the calculator owner- as product-unrelated. Experiment 4 replicates these performance ship condition performed worse than those in the art piece effects by activating two different identities in participants and ownership condition (Mcalculator, artistic sensitivity label ¼ 4.16, showing evidence of comparative activation and deactivation. SD ¼ 2.02 vs. Mart piece, artistic sensitivity label ¼ 5.41, SD ¼ 1.72; F(1, 170) ¼ 10.02, p ¼ .002, d ¼ .67; see Figure 4). In contrast, among participants who solved a math-labeled quiz, Experiment 4: Shifting Identity and Task those in the calculator ownership condition performed better Performance on Matched Versus than those in the art piece ownership condition (Mcalculator, math label ¼ 5.42, SD ¼ 1.59 vs. Mart piece, math label ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ Mismatched Tasks 2.08; F(1, 170) ¼ 3.92, p ¼ .049, d ¼ .43). Additional analysis The goal of Experiment 4 is to activate different identities revealed that participants in the art piece ownership condition across participants and show evidence of enhanced performed worse on a math-labeled quiz than on an artistic Chung and Johar 761

vs. baseline) 2 (quiz label relevance: product-related vs. 7 Calculator ownership Art piece ownership product-unrelated) design. First, self-concept clarity was manipulated by asking participants to recall a past incident in 6 5.42 5.41 which they had (or did not have) a clear and a consistent sense 4.62 of self (Rozenkrants, Wheeler, and Shiv 2017; pretest results in 5 4.16 Web Appendix 7). After the writing task, participants were directed to an ostensibly unrelated second study, in which they 4 responded to the calculator ownership manipulation task used in Experiment 2 (Peck and Shu 2009). Finally, participants 3 responded to the same performance task as in Experiments 3 Quiz Score and 4; the task was framed as measuring either their math skills 2 (calculator product-related label condition) or their artistic skills (calculator product-unrelated label condition). 1 Results and Discussion 0 Math Label Artistic Sensitivity Label Similar to results from prior experiments, no significant differ- ences were found in participants’ self-reported levels of invol- Figure 4. Shifting self identities and task performance (experiment 4). vement, effort, and perceived difficulty. Participants were Notes: The mean performance on the math-labeled quiz was higher in generally engaged (Meffort ¼ 6.01 and Minvolvement ¼ 6.22 on the calculator ownership condition than in the art piece ownership a 7-point scale). The quiz was perceived as difficult (Mdifficulty condition. The mean performance on the artistic sensitivity–labeled ¼ 5.89 on a 7-point scale). quiz was higher in the art piece ownership condition than in the We found a significant three-way interaction between self- calculator ownership condition. Error bars indicate standard errors. concept clarity, ownership, and quiz label (F(1, 375) ¼ 5.84, p ¼ .016), as well as a marginally significant two-way interaction sensitivity–labeled quiz (Mart piece, math label ¼ 4.62, SD ¼ 2.08 between ownership and quiz label (F(1, 375) ¼ 3.21, p ¼ .074). vs. Mart piece, artistic sensitivity label ¼ 5.41, SD ¼ 1.72; F(1, 170) ¼ Consistent with our prediction, the results included a signifi- 3.99, p ¼ .047, d ¼ .41). On the other hand, participants in the cant two-way interaction of ownership quiz label within the calculator ownership condition performed worse on an artistic low self-concept clarity condition (F(1, 375) ¼ 7.92, p ¼ .005) sensitivity–labeled quiz than on a math-labeled quiz (Mcalculator, but not within the high self-concept clarity condition (F < 1). math label ¼ 5.42, SD ¼ 1.59 vs. Mcalculator, artistic sensitivity label ¼ Within the low self-concept clarity condition, the results sup- 4.16, SD ¼ 2.02; F(1, 170) ¼ 9.78, p ¼ .002, d ¼ .69). ported both deactivation (H1b;Mownership, art label ¼ 2.81, SD ¼ Results from Experiment 4 provide convincing evidence of 1.30; Mbaseline, art label ¼ 3.65, SD ¼ 1.87; F(1, 375) ¼ 5.08, p ¼ both relative performance enhancement (H1a) and relative per- .025, d ¼ .53) and activation (H1a;Mownership, math label ¼ 3.74, formance impairment (H1b) by activation of either the art or the SD ¼ 1.87; Mbaseline, math label ¼ 3.04, SD ¼ 1.67; F(1, 375) ¼ math identity. If, as we contend, activation of different identi- 3.79, p ¼ .052, d ¼ .39; see Figure 5). ties is the mechanism underlying the effects of ownership on Within the ownership condition in the low self-concept task performance, then the effects should be stronger for those clarity condition, participants performed significantly worse with low self-concept clarity, whose identities are more malle- on an art task than on a math task (Mownership, math label ¼ able and change based on social cues and environmental 3.74 vs. Mownership, art label ¼ 2.81; F(1, 375) ¼ 7.16, p ¼ influence (Campbell et al. 1996), than for those with high self- .008, d ¼ .58). There was no significant performance difference concept clarity. We test this idea in the following experiment. within the baseline condition (F(1, 375) ¼ 2.53, p ¼ .11, d ¼ .34). In an additional study, we measured (vs. manipulated) indi- Experiment 5: Self-Concept Clarity as a vidual differences in self-concept clarity and replicated the Moderator of the Effects of Ownership on results of Experiment 5. For details, see follow-up Experiment Task Performance VI in Web Appendix 8. Experiment 5 provides evidence for the underlying mechanism of identity activation by using self-concept clarity as a General Discussion moderator. Across five experiments, we replicate the finding that the sal- ience of actual or psychological ownership over a product Method results in performance impairment on product-unrelated tasks. In this experiment, 383 MTurk participants were randomly Our explanation for this effect is that salient possessions acti- assigned to one of the eight conditions in a 2 (self-concept vate related aspects of the self and deactivate other aspects of clarity: high vs. low) 2 (psychological ownership: ownership the self. This performance difference does not appear to be 762 Journal of Marketing Research 55(5)

AB 7 Calculator ownership No ownership 7 Calculator ownership No ownership

6 6

5 5

3.74 3.65 3.62 4 4 3.40 3.30 3.29 3.04 2.81 3 3 Quiz Score Quiz Score

2 2

1 1

0 0 Product-Related Product-Unrelated Product-Related Product-Unrelated Label (Math) Label (Art) Label (Math) Label (Art)

Figure 5. Self-concept clarity as a moderator. Notes: Among participants with low self-concept clarity (Panel A), the mean quiz score on the task labeled as product-related was significantly higher in the ownership condition than in the baseline condition, and the mean quiz score on the task labeled as product-unrelated was significantly lower in the ownership condition than in the baseline condition. There was no difference in mean quiz scores among participants with high self-concept clarity (Panel B). Error bars indicate standard errors. motivated by a desire to do better on relevant tasks, given that conditions) does not produce the same results as feelings of self-reported levels of effort and involvement do not differ ownership do, suggesting that identity activation is driven by across conditions. By keeping the task constant and varying only possessions that are viewed as being a part of the self. the label, we also rule out inherent task properties as explana- tions for the effect. Finally, the finding that impairment of Theoretical implications. An overarching question concerns performance on product-unrelated tasks occurs only in low whether the performance effects we observe are motivational self-concept clarity conditions supports the argument that iden- or cognitive in nature. The motivational explanation would tity (de)activation stemming from product ownership salience suggest that participants are not motivated to perform well on underlies the effect. In high self-concept clarity conditions, the a task that is associated with the deactivated identity, whereas self-concept is not malleable, and salience of product ownership the cognitive account would suggest that participants uncon- does not result in (de)activation of specific aspects of the self. sciously disengage from tasks associated with a deactivated We conducted a meta-analysis of all main experiments identity. Previous research suggests that both routes are pos- reported in the article (McShane and Bo¨ckenholt 2017). Results sible. Evidence for the motivational route comes from confirmed a significant impairment effect (H1b;estimate¼ research showing that exposure to a brand may automatically 1.06, confidence interval ¼ [.32, 1.02]). Although the facil- prime goals and motivate goal-directed behaviors (Fitzsi- itation effect did not obtain at conventional levels of signifi- mons, Chartrand, and Fitzsimons 2008). Although we con- cance in all experiments, results of the meta-analysis revealed a strue our findings in terms of activation of different aspects significant facilitation effect (H1a; estimate ¼ 0.67, confidence of the self-concept, the underlying part-of-self mechanism interval ¼ [1.35, .76]). could be viewed as conferring commitment to a particular identity. Such commitment may not be captured in our mea- Implications sures of goal importance and engagement. Distinguishing the role of activation from that of commitment awaits further Several important takeaways from this study deserve to be investigation. highlighted. First, innocuous everyday tasks, such as shopping, can activate and deactivate product-related and product- Practical implications. The finding that frequent activities such as unrelated identities with downstream consequences for con- shopping can activate product-related identities with down- sumer behavior. Second, activation of aspects of the self can stream consequences for consumer behavior is a clear practical result in deactivation of negatively correlated as well as unre- insight of this research. These downstream consequences lated aspects of the self. These findings bolster our contention include impaired performance on tasks such as price compar- that conscious inferences about the relationship between abil- isons when non-math-related identities are activated during a ities in each task domain are not necessary for the effects to shopping task. In Experiment 1, shopping for IKEA products obtain. Third, sheer priming of the product (as in the baseline for oneself (vs. someone else) activated participants’ art-related Chung and Johar 763 identities and deactivated their math-related identities, result- and in-game purchases can be used to facilitate game perfor- ing in poorer ability to identify good bargains. These results mance and loyalty. highlight purchase occasions when consumers may be less price sensitive or have lower ability to discern good deals. This Future Research finding has implications for managers making decisions about pricing and promotions in online shopping environments, Certain aspects of our paradigm merit discussion and future where prices can be manipulated in real time and consumers’ research. First, we focus on basic-level identities (such as math immediate prior online activities are known. We also believe skill), and we use ownership of a product (e.g., a calculator) awareness of this effect is important to enable consumers to to activate these identities. An obvious question concerns the level at which identities are activated: Is there a math self or a guard against this tendency. more general analytical self? We do not take a strong position Task performance on cognitive tasks such as those used in regarding the hierarchy of identities but suggest that future this study is a variable of critical interest in educational set- research examine this issue. Second, the experiments tings. Our findings have implications for the design of aca- reported in this article use rather mundane products. Products demic schedules as well as construction of courses. To and brands that have strong associations are likely to have maximize learning, courses that require similar skills should even larger effects. In sum, products can have profound be grouped more closely so that an appropriate identity is acti- implications for consumer behavior. Our findings open up vated and maintained and identity switching is minimized. exciting areas for future research on the influence of posses- Design of online courses is particularly key because only a sions on the self. small percentage of enrolled students complete free online courses, such as MOOCs (massive open online courses; Cour- sera 2017). One factor that has been found to increase engage- Authors’ Note ment with these courses is to ensure that participants are This article is based on the first author’s dissertation, under the super- appropriately challenged (from interviews; see Appendix). vision of the second author. Research has shown that it is possible to increase long-term engagement and achievement in online courses by using 10- Acknowledgments minute writing exercises to reduce social identity threat (Kizil- The authors thank Eva Ascarza, Charlene Chen, Ali Faraji-Rad, Don cec et al. 2017). Kizilcec et al. (2017) conducted two large field Lehmann, Oded Netzer, and Liad Weiss as well as audiences at the experiments in an online MOOC setting and showed that lear- Association for Consumer Research Conference, the Society for ners with threatened self-identity in developing countries Consumer Psychology main and boutique conferences, the Trans- become more persistent and are more likely to complete a Atlantic Doctoral Conference, the Association for Psychological Science Convention, Yale University’s Whitebox Advisors Graduate course upon self-affirmation. In a similar manner, online Student Conference, Johns Hopkins University, New York Univer- courses can activate course-related identities so as to maximize sity, Nanyang Technological University, Leeds University Business engagement and learning. For example, activating a related School, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Univer- identity (e.g., a traveler identity) before a course (e.g., an Ita- sity of Houston, and the Swiss Consumer Research Summit for their lian class) could be an effective way to enhance engagement helpful feedback. and performance. For underperformers, educators can explore ways to help consumers deactivate undesired identities and Associate Editor adopt a desired identity. Naomi Mandel served as associate editor for this article. Another industry that could use the insights from our study is gaming. We interviewed managers at many gaming compa- Declaration of Conflicting Interests nies and learned that designing games with the right balance between achievement and challenge is critical to retaining The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to gamers. Identity activation could be one way to achieve such the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. a balance. For example, relevant identities could be activated to improve performance but also deactivated to maintain chal- Funding lenge. While subtle cues such as avatars in a game could be The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support used for identity activation (Kim, Chen, and Zhang 2016), for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The participants could also be taught to adopt the identity needed authors thank the Columbia Business School Research Fund for to excel on each task (e.g., changing avatars depending on the financial support. upcoming task). Gamers who perform better are more likely to purchase in-game items and upgrade to paid, premium prod- References ucts. Helping these gamers adopt an identity (e.g., architect Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan (1992), “Inclusion identity for SimCity) to increase the sales of related products of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal (e.g., other Sim products, such as SimPark and SimSafari) Closeness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63 could be a useful marketing tactic. Similarly, different avatars (4), 596–612. 764 Journal of Marketing Research 55(5)

Bodenhausen, Galen V. (1988), “Stereotypic Biases in Social Deci- Enjoyment in Computer Games,” Journal of Consumer Research, sion Making and Memory: Testing Process Models of Stereotype 43 (2), 282–302. Use,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,55(5), Kizilcec, Ren´e F., Andrew J. Saltarelli, Justin Reich, and Geoffrey L. 726–37. Cohen (2017), “Closing Global Achievement Gaps in MOOCs,” Bodenhausen, Galen V., C. Neil Macrae, and Kurt Hugenberg (2003), Science, 355 (6322), 251–52. “Activating and Inhibiting Social Identities: Implications for Per- Knowles, Megan L., and Wendi L. Gardner (2008), “Benefits of Mem- ceiving the Self and Others,” in Foundations of Social Cognition, bership: The Activation and Amplification of Group Identities in Galen V. Bodenhausen and Alan J. Lambert, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Response to Social Rejection,” Personality and Social Psychology Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 131–54. Bulletin, 34 (9), 1200–1213. Campbell, Jennifer D., Paul D. Trapnell, Steven J. Heine, Ilana M. Kuhn, Manford H., and Thomas S. McPartland (1954), “An Empirical Katz, Loraine F. Lavallee, and Darrin R. Lehman (1996), “Self- Investigation of Self-Attitudes,” American Sociological Review, Concept Clarity: Measurement, Personality Correlates, and Cul- 19 (1), 68–76. tural Boundaries,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Macrae, C. Neil, Galen V. Bodenhausen, and Alan B. Milne (1995), 70 (1), 141–56. “The Dissection of Selection in Person Perception: Inhibitory Pro- Chugani, Sunaina K., Julie R. Irwin, and Joseph P. Redden (2015), cesses in Social Stereotyping,” Journal of Personality and Social “Happily Ever After: The Effect of Identity-Consistency on Prod- Psychology, 69 (3), 397–407. uct Satiation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 564–77. Mandel, Naomi, Petia K. Petrova, and Robert B. Cialdini (2006), Coleman, Nicole Verrochi, and Patti Williams (2013), “Feeling Like “Images of Success and the Preference for Luxury Brands,” Jour- My Self: Emotion Profiles and Social Identity,” Journal of Con- nal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (1), 57–69. McCracken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical sumer Research, 40 (2), 203–22. Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning Coursera (2017), “MOOC Research—What We Know So Far,” online of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research,13(1), article. 71–84. DeHart, Tracy, and Brett W. Pelham (2007), “Fluctuations in State McShane, Blakeley B., and Ulf Bo¨ckenholt (2017), “Single-Paper Implicit Self-Esteem in Response to Daily Negative Events,” Jour- Meta-Analysis: Benefits for Study Summary, Theory Testing, nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (1), 157–65. and Replicability,” Journal of Consumer Research,43(6), Deutsch, J. Anthony, and Diana Deutsch (1963), “Attention: Some 1048–63. Theoretical Considerations,” Psychological Review, 70 (1), 80–90. Mercurio, Kathryn R., and Mark R. Forehand (2011), “An Interpretive Engeser, Stefan, and Falko Rheinberg (2008), “Flow, Performance, Frame Model of Identity-Dependent Learning: The Moderating and Moderators of Challenge-Skill Balance,” Motivation and Emo- Role of Content-State Association,” Journal of Consumer tion, 32 (3), 158–72. Research, 38 (3), 555–77. Fitzsimons, Gra´inne M., Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons Moon, Alice, and Scott S. Roeder (2014), “A Secondary Replication (2008), “Automatic Effects of Brand Exposure on Motivated Beha- Attempt of Stereotype Susceptibility (Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, vior: How Apple Makes You ‘Think Different,’” Journal of Con- 1999),” Social Psychology, 45 (3), 199–201. sumer Research, 35 (1), 21–35. Morrison, Kimberly Rios, and S. Christian Wheeler (2010), Gibson, Carolyn E., Joy Losee, and Christine Vitiello (2014), “A “Nonconformity Defines the Self: The Role of Minority Opinion Replication Attempt of Stereotype Susceptibility,” Social Psychol- Status in Self-Concept Clarity,” Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 45 (3), 194–98. ogy Bulletin, 36 (3), 297–308. Gino, Francesca, Michael I. Norton, and Dan Ariely (2010), “The Neill, W. Trammell (1977), “Inhibitory and Facilitatory Processes in Counterfeit Self: The Deceptive Costs of Faking It,” Psychological Selective Attention,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Science, 21 (5), 712–20. Perception and Performance, 3 (3), 444–50. Hodges, Allegra J., and Bernadette Park (2013), “Oppositional Iden- Park, Ji Kyung, and Deborah John (2014), “I Think I Can, I Think I tities: Dissimilarities in How Women and Men Experience Parent Can: Brand Use, Self-Efficacy, and Performance,” Journal of Mar- Versus Professional Roles,” Journal of Personality and Social keting Research, 51 (2), 233–47. Psychology, 105 (2), 193–216. Peck, Joann, and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch Hugenberg, Kurt, and Galen V. Bodenhausen (2004), “Category on Perceived Ownership,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), Membership Moderates the Inhibition of Social Identities,” Jour- 434–47. nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (2), 233–38. Reed, Americus, Mark R. Forehand, Stefano Puntoni, and Luk Warlop Johnson, Russell E., and Robert G. Lord (2010), “Implicit Effects of (2012), “Identity-Based Consumer Behavior,” International Jour- Justice on Self-Identity,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (4), nal of Research in Marketing, 29 (4), 310–21. 681–95. Rozenkrants, Bella, S. Christian Wheeler, and Baba Shiv (2017), Kettle, Keri L., and Gerald Ha¨ubl (2011), “The Signature Effect: Sign- “Self-Expression Cues in Product Rating Distributions: When Peo- ing Influences Consumption-Related Behavior by Priming Self- ple Prefer Polarizing Products,” Journal of Consumer Research,44 Identity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (3), 474–89. (4), 759–77. Kim, Sara, Rocky Peng Chen, and Ke Zhang (2016), Schwartz, Seth J., Theo A. Klimstra, Koen Luyckx, William W. Hale, “Anthropomorphized Helpers Undermine Autonomy and Tom Frijns, Annerieke Oosterwegel, et al. (2011), “Daily Chung and Johar 765

Dynamics of Personal Identity and Self-Concept Clarity,” Opposite Effects on Self-Judgment,” Journal of Consumer European Journal of Personality, 25 (5), 373–85. Research, 42 (6), 915–30. Shih, Margaret, Todd L. Pittinsky, and Nalini Ambady (1999), Wheeler, S. Christian, Kenneth G. DeMarree, and Richard E. Petty “Stereotype Susceptibility: Identity Salience and Shifts in Quanti- (2007), “Understanding the Role of the Self in Prime-to-Behavior tative Performance,” Psychological Science, 10 (1), 80–83. Effects: The Active-Self Account,” Personality and Social Psy- Slater, Mel, Daniel Perez-Marcos, H. Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria V. chology Review, 11 (3), 234–61. Sanchez-Vives (2009), “Inducing Illusory Ownership of a Virtual Winterich, Karen Page, and Michael J. Barone (2011), “Warm Glow Body,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 3 (2), 214–20. or Cold, Hard Cash? Social Identify Effects on Consumer Choice Spencer, Steven J., Mark P. Zanna, and Geoffrey T. Fong (2005), for Donation Versus Discount Promotions,” Journal of Marketing “Establishing a Causal Chain: Why Experiments Are Often More Research, 48 (5), 855–68. Effective Than Mediational Analyses in Examining Psychological Wu, Eugenia C., Keisha M. Cutright, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2011), Processes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), “How Asking ‘Who Am I?’ Affects What Consumers Buy: The 845–51. Influence of Self-Discovery on Consumption,” Journal of Market- Weiss, Liad, and Gita V. Johar (2013), “Egocentric Categorization and ing Research, 48 (2), 296–307. Product Judgment: Seeing Your Traits in What You Own (and Zhang, Shu, Michael W. Morris, Chi-Ying Cheng, and Andy J. Yap Their Opposite in What You Don’t),” Journal of Consumer (2013), “Heritage-Culture Images Disrupt Immigrants’ Second- Research, 40 (1), 185–201. Language Processing Through Triggering First-Language Inter- Weiss, Liad, and Gita Venkataramani Johar (2016), “Products as Self- ference,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 Evaluation Standards: When Owned and Unowned Products Have (28), 11272–77.