1

Consumer reluctance to dispose of objects

they do not use anymore

Valérie GUILLARD

PhD student

2

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

3

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.

4

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.

5

Research context (continued)

Situational factors.

Physical characteristics Storage capacity, etc.

Legal considerations Tax deduction, environmental politics, etc.

Personal situationFinances, 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.

6

Research context (continued)

Psychological characteristics of the decision maker.

AttitudeAttitude toward giving, throwing away, keeping,

charitable organization, etc.

PersonalityCreativity, level of risk tolerance, social responsibility,

altruism, etc.

Perception Objects, costs and benefits of a disposition option, etc.

Socio-demographic characteristics

Age, sex, social class, etc.

7

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.

8

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?

9

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.

10

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.

11

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.

12

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).

13

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

keep it », “I keep it because I offend someone if I throw it away”, “I feel some remorse for getting rid of objects” ;

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”.

14

Study 2: Measuring this phenomenon (continued)

Items Dimensions

It reminds me of all I have done Sentimental reluctance

It reminds me who I was

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 Instrumental reluctance

They always come in useful

May be I would like to use them again one day

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?

15

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.

16

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.

17

Study 2: Measuring this phenomenon (continued)

N Mean Cronbach Alpha

Joreskog

Coefficient

Sentimental RDO

330 2,98 0,824 0,811

Instrumental RDO

330 4,36 0,750 0,79

18

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.

Reluctance to Dispose of Objects (RDO)

Instrumental Sentimental Scale

Throwing away -,247(**) -,154(**) -,236(**)

Keeping ,650(**) ,246(**) ,449(**)

H1b: The more a consumer is reluctant to dispose of objects, the more he has a tendency to keep them.

19

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

20

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 !