What's Mine Is a Hologram? How Shared Augmented Reality Augments Psychological Ownership

Augmented Reality (AR) holograms are 3D digital objects projected into a customer's physical environment through mobile technology. Applied as potential substitutes to physical products, AR holograms pose a unique challenge for conventional configurations of product ownership. Taking a socially situated cognition perspective, we demonstrate how customers' shared experience of AR holograms leads to distinct perspectives on psychological ownership. In Study 1, we demonstrate how customization of AR holograms lets customers feel psychological ownership of digital products. In Study 2, we highlight the mechanisms of social adaptation related to assimilation and differentiation that drive the relationship between customization and psychological ownership of AR holograms in social settings. In Study 3, we illustrate how these mechanisms are influenced by the affordances of AR technology when customers switch between personal or shared devices. We discuss implications for theory and marketing practice of this potentially novel class of digital consumer products.

[1]  Andrei Hagiu,et al.  Finding the Platform in Your Product , 2017 .

[2]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Virtual Brokerage and Closure , 2014, Commun. Res..

[3]  Daniel T Gilbert,et al.  The Unforeseen Costs of Extraordinary Experience , 2014, Psychological science.

[4]  Alladi Venkatesh,et al.  Mobile Marketing in the Retailing Environment: Current Insights and Future Research Avenues , 2010 .

[5]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Feedback effects between similarity and social influence in online communities , 2008, KDD.

[6]  Johanne S. Bjørndahl,et al.  A heart for interaction: Shared physiological dynamics and behavioral coordination in a collective, creative construction task. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Johanna Beyer,et al.  The Hologram in My Hand: How Effective is Interactive Exploration of 3D Visualizations in Immersive Tangible Augmented Reality? , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[8]  R. Baumeister,et al.  The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  LeeYounghwa,et al.  Usability Design and Psychological Ownership of a Virtual World , 2011 .

[10]  S. Forsythe,et al.  Adoption of Virtual Try-on technology for online apparel shopping , 2008 .

[11]  Edward L. Thorndike,et al.  The measurement of an individual. , 1904 .

[12]  Fred A. Mael,et al.  Social identity theory and the organization , 1989 .

[13]  J. Bargh,et al.  Shared Experiences Are Amplified , 2014, Psychological science.

[14]  Jens Nordfält,et al.  In-Store Mobile Phone Use and Customer Shopping Behavior: Evidence from the Field , 2018, Journal of Marketing.

[15]  Dorothea Kübler,et al.  The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap: A failed replication of Plott and Zeiler , 2015 .

[16]  James Gaskin,et al.  I’m Proud of It: Consumer Technology Appropriation and Psychological Ownership , 2015 .

[17]  J. Peck,et al.  The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership , 2009 .

[18]  Vili Lehdonvirta,et al.  Game Design as Marketing: How Game Mechanics Create Demand for Virtual Goods , 2010 .

[19]  Ko de Ruyter,et al.  Let Me Imagine That for You: Transforming the Retail Frontline Through Augmenting Customer Mental Imagery Ability , 2019, Journal of Retailing.

[20]  N. Montgomery,et al.  The Social Context of Temporal Sequences: Why First Impressions Shape Shared Experiences , 2013 .

[21]  G. Logan,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Your Words Are My Words: Effects of Acting Together on Encoding , 2022 .

[22]  Katherine Duffy,et al.  We ARe at home: How augmented reality reshapes mobile marketing and consumer-brand relationships , 2018, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services.

[23]  Allen G. Taylor,et al.  What Is the Microsoft HoloLens , 2016 .

[24]  Eric J. Arnould,et al.  Liquid Relationship to Possessions , 2012 .

[25]  Mike Molesworth,et al.  The relationship between ownership and possession: observations from the context of digital virtual goods , 2016 .

[26]  D. Norman.  The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition , 2013 .

[27]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Digital artifacts as legacy: exploring the lifespan and value of digital data , 2013, CHI.

[28]  P. Rauschnabel.  Virtually enhancing the real world with holograms: An exploration of expected gratifications of using augmented reality smart glasses , 2018 .

[29]  Rajesh Sethi,et al.  Stage-Gate Controls, Learning Failure, and Adverse Effect on Novel New Products , 2008 .

[30]  Joseph F. Hair,et al.  Individual Psychological Ownership: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications for Research in Marketing , 2015 .

[31]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual Versus Verbal Information Processing , 1985 .

[32]  Mary T. Dzindolet,et al.  Social influence processes in group brainstorming. , 1993 .

[33]  C. Plott,et al.  The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the 'Endowment Effect,' Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations , 2005 .

[34]  Kennon M. Sheldon,et al.  Psychological need-satisfaction and subjective well-being within social groups. , 2002, The British journal of social psychology.

[35]  Lisa M. Jaremka,et al.  What Makes Us Feel the Best Also Makes Us Feel the Worst: The Emotional Impact of Independent and Interdependent Experiences , 2011 .

[36]  Bernd Fröhlich,et al.  Effective manipulation of virtual objects within arm's reach , 2011, 2011 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference.

[37]  B. Fredrickson,et al.  Strangers in sync: Achieving embodied rapport through shared movements. , 2012, Journal of experimental social psychology.

[38]  Ko de Ruyter,et al.  Making omnichannel an augmented reality: the current and future state of the art , 2018, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.

[39]  J. L. Pierce,et al.  The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research , 2003 .

[40]  F. Ward.  Lifelong Learning: Theological Education and Supervision , 2005 .

[41]  Lassi A. Liikkanen,et al.  The preference effect in design concept evaluation , 2014 .

[42]  David Gal,et al.  Answering the Unasked Question: Response Substitution in Consumer Surveys , 2011 .

[43]  Thomas Hess,et al.  It Is Not Just About Competition with “Free”: Differences Between Content Formats in Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay , 2015, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[44]  Ana Javornik,et al.  Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behaviour , 2016 .

[45]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Contextualizing person perception: distributed social cognition. , 2009, Psychological review.

[46]  James Gips,et al.  Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: : How varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment , 2014 .

[47]  H. Reis,et al.  To do, to have, or to share? Valuing experiences over material possessions depends on the involvement of others. , 2013, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[48]  G. Walton,et al.  Cues of working together fuel intrinsic motivation , 2014 .

[49]  Ben Blachnitzky,et al.  Augmented reality , 2012, 2012 IEEE Hot Chips 24 Symposium (HCS).

[50]  Bernd Fröhlich,et al.  A soft hand model for physically-based manipulation of virtual objects , 2011, 2011 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference.

[51]  Susan M. Broniarczyk,et al.  From Close to Distant: The Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships in Shared Goal Pursuit , 2015 .

[52]  Julie Tinson,et al.  Psychological ownership and music streaming consumption , 2017 .

[53]  Kim Willems,et al.  Can’t touch this: the impact of augmented reality versus touch and non-touch interfaces on perceived ownership , 2018, Virtual Reality.

[54]  Jon L. Pierce,et al.  Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: Construct introduction and elaboration , 2010 .

[55]  Michael E. Porter,et al.  Why Every Organization Needs an Augmented Reality Strategy , 2017 .

[56]  B. Schlegelmilch,et al.  “Ours” or “theirs”? Psychological ownership and domestic products preferences , 2017 .

[57]  James Andreoni,et al.  Why free ride?: Strategies and learning in public goods experiments , 1988 .

[58]  A. Hayes,et al.  Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis : , 2015 .

[59]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Let's Shop Online Together: An Empirical Investigation of Collaborative Online Shopping Support , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[60]  Andrew N. K. Chen,et al.  Usability Design and Psychological Ownership of a Virtual World , 2011, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[61]  Frank R. Kardes,et al.  An Investigation of the Mediational Mechanisms Underlying Attitudinal Conditioning , 1996 .

[62]  Hemant K. Bhargava,et al.  Information Goods and Vertical Differentiation , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[63]  Toby Hopp,et al.  Novelty Effects in Augmented Reality Advertising Environments: The Influence of Exposure Time and Self-Efficacy , 2016 .

[64]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  SOCIALLY SITUATED COGNITION IN PERSPECTIVE , 2013 .

[65]  Mathew B. Chylinski,et al.  Augmenting the eye of the beholder: exploring the strategic potential of augmented reality to enhance online service experiences , 2017, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.

[66]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[67]  Cait Lamberton,et al.  Whose Experience Is It, Anyway? Psychological Ownership and Enjoyment of Shared Experiences , 2018 .

[68]  Jakob Trischler,et al.  Co-designing services with vulnerable consumers , 2017 .

[69]  John D. Murphy,et al.  Avatars, People, and Virtual Worlds: Foundations for Research in Metaverses , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[70]  Andrew N. Smith,et al.  Augmented Reality: Designing Immersive Experiences that Maximize Consumer Engagement , 2016 .