Transcript Consumer reluctance to dispose of objects they do not use anymore

Consumer reluctance to
dispose of objects they do not
use anymore
Valérie GUILLARD
PhD student
1
Research context
• Charitable
organizations
• Firms which work on
the replacement
market
What do
consumers do
with objects they
do not use
anymore?
• Consumers who
are reluctant to
dispose of objects
2
Research context

Little attention in marketing on the question: what do consumers do with
objects they do not use anymore?

Exploratory researches (Jacoby and al, 1977 ; Hanson, 1982 ; McConocha and al, 1992).

Conceptual model of major disposition behaviors:


Keep the product.
Permanently dispose of it:





Give it,
Trade it,
Throw it away,
Exchange it.
Temporarily dispose of it:


Loan it,
Rent it.
3
Research context

(continued)
Choise of an option depends on:
 Product intrinsic factors.
Physical characteristics
Size, color, style, reliability, condition, dangerousness,
etc.
Economical characteristics
Initial cost, replacement cost, actual price, future value,
etc.
Obsolescence
Age, technological innovation, fashionable items, etc.
Usage characteristics
Durability, adaptability, time of using, time of storage,
etc.
Conditions of acquisition
Buying, giving, place of acquisition, relationships with
people who gave it, time of acquisition, effort to acquire
it, etc.
4
Research context

(continued)
Situational factors.
Physical characteristics
Legal considerations
Personal situation
Storage capacity, etc.
Tax deduction, environmental politics, etc.
Finances, urgency, personal events (divorce, children,
wedding, decease, etc), replacement, number of objects
people have, peer pressure, etc.
Economical environment
Fashion changes, waste center, charitable organization,
etc.
5
Research context

(continued)
Psychological characteristics of the decision maker.
Attitude
Attitude toward giving, throwing away, keeping,
charitable organization, etc.
Personality
Creativity, level of risk tolerance, social responsibility,
altruism, etc.
Perception
Socio-demographic
characteristics
Objects, costs and benefits of a disposition option, etc.
Age, sex, social class, etc.
6
Research area

In this research, we are focused on objects:
 For which consumer do not have any use anymore,
 Still usable by others,
 That are not worth being sold.
 Perceived cost > perceived benefit.
 Objects that nobody wants to buy.

Decision to know what to do with these objects is costly and complex:
 Keeping  clutter,
 Giving, exchanging  information search, transportation costs,
 Throwing away  environmental costs.

Before this decision:
 Some consumers have no difficulty to dispose of objects,
 Others are always reluctant to do so.
7
Research questions

Why do some consumers have reluctance to dispose of objects they do
not use anymore, still usable by others, that are not being sold?
8
Importance of the subject

A lot of people seem to be concerned with the problem:



Exploratory study.
“New” job in France: Home organizer.
What is known on the subject:

Literature on how people get rid of « sacred » objects, inalienable objects.
(Sherry, 1990 ; Herrmann, 1997 ; Belk and Sherry, 1999).



No literature on the causes of their behavior.
No literature on knowing which consumers are reluctant to dispose of objects.
Research aims at characterizing the consumer reluctance to dispose of objects
as a personal determinant.
9
Research objectives

Knowing the nature of the Reluctance to Dispose of Objects (RDO).
 Study 1.

Measuring this phenomenon.
 Study 2.

Identifying consumers who are reluctant to get rid of objects.
 Study 3.
10
Study 1: Knowing the nature of the
Reluctance to Dispose of Objects (RDO)

Psychological blockage which leads people to keep objects.
(Frost and al, 1999 ; 2003).

What is the nature of this psychological blockage?

Literature on psychological possession and on relationships with objects
(Pierce and al, 2003 ; Belk, 1988, 1991 ; Tisseron, 1999 ; Beaudrillard, 1968 ; Richins, 1994).

Objects may have sense when they enable people to:
 Control their environment,
 Recall past, memories, interpersonal links,
 Have a social context.
11
Study 2: Measuring this phenomenon

Objective of a scale: to identify people who are reluctant to dispose of objects.

Definition: consumer’s stable and recurrent reluctance to dispose of objects that do not
have any use for them anymore, that are still usable by others but that are not worth
being sold.

First step:
 Exploratory studies.
 “Do you keep objects you do not use anymore? Why?”
 “You replace a furniture, what do you do of the former?”

Second step:
 First data collection (N=180).

Third step :
 Second data collection (N=150).
12
Study 2: Measuring this phenomenon
(continued)

Guilt ( = 0,8), “I will feel guilty if I dispose of it ”, « I feel I do a fault if I do not

Indecision ( = 0,79) “I never know if I have to dispose of it or not”, « I can not
make the decision to get rid of objects », « It is always the fear of making
mistakes which prevents me to dispose them»;

Environmental concern ( = 0,810) “ To built them, we need materials and it
causes damage in environment” ; « I keep them until that I find an industry to
recycle them » ; « I feel guilty when I threat environment”,

Fear of emptiness ( = 0,70) “ I abhor a vacuum” “ I feel anxious if I part with
my objects”;

Felt responsibility vis a vis future generation ( = 0,76) “ I keep them [books]
because I will show them to my children” ; “ I would like to pass on future
generation”.
keep it », “I keep it because I offend someone if I throw it away”, “I feel some
remorse for getting rid of objects” ;
13
Study 2: Measuring this phenomenon
(continued)
You certainly have to make a decision concerning objects you do not
use anymore, still usable and that are not being sold.
When you have to make this decision, what do you tell yourself?
Items
It reminds me of all I have done
It reminds me who I was
Dimensions
Sentimental
reluctance
It is a souvenir of my past
It reminds me lots of things…
It is a part of my history
I could need them later
They always come in useful
Instrumental
reluctance
May be I would like to use them again one day
14
Study 2: Measuring this phenomenon (continued)

2 dimensions:


Sentimental
Instrumental

75% of variance explained.

Retest (same people, N=90, 3 weeks later)


Correlation = 0,87**.
This scale measures a stable and recurrent reluctance to
dispose of objects.
15
Study 2: Measuring this phenomenon (continued)


Fourth step:
Confirmatory analysis (N=420).

RMSEA = 0,06 ; SRMR = 0,1 ; AGFI = 0,923 ; Chi2/ddl = 2,50

Rhô de Joreskog and main indicators show a good fit between data and
model.

Fifth step:
Nomological and predictive validity:
Two behaviors which logically come from RDO:




Not throwing away objects.
Keeping.
16
Study 2: Measuring this phenomenon
(continued)
Sentimental
RDO
Instrumental
RDO
N
Mean
Cronbach
Alpha
330
2,98
0,824
Joreskog
Coefficient
0,811
330
4,36
0,750
0,79
17
Study 2: Measuring this phenomenon
(continued)
Nomological validity
H1a: The more a consumer is reluctant to dispose of objects, the less he has a
tendency to throw them away.
H1b: The more a consumer is reluctant to dispose of objects, the more he has a
tendency to keep them.
Reluctance to Dispose of Objects (RDO)
Instrumental
Sentimental
Scale
Throwing away
-,247(**)
-,154(**)
-,236(**)
Keeping
,650(**)
,246(**)
,449(**)
18
Study 3: Identifying consumers reluctant
to dispose of objects




Test with personality scales.
N=330
100 adults (means of age : 41 ; 30% male ; 70% female)
230 students (means of age : 21 ; 43% male ; 57% female)
RDO
Personality scale
Coefficient
Alpha
Sample size
Sentimental
Instrumental
Nostalgia
(Holbrook, 1991)
0,70
180
0,323**
0,135
Materialism
(Richins and
Dawson, 1992)
0,69
180
0,022
-0,003
Procrastination
(Tuckman, 1990)
0,80
180
0,034
-0,019
19
Conclusion

Some people are reluctant to get rid of objects they do not use anymore.

These people do not throw away objects and have the tendency to keep them.

No significant correlation with demographics.

No significant correlation with materialism.

Some people want to identify the future owner of their objects when they want
to give them (Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005 ; Price, Arnould and Curasi,
2000). Are they RDO?
Thank you !
20