An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment

Material possession attachment reflects a vital and ubiquitous way people valuate goods. A significant body of literature now provides a foundation for understanding material possession attachment. Yet there remains more to investigate about how possession attachment involves acquisition, consumption, and disposition behaviors, how it compares to place, brand, or consumption experience bonds, whether marketing activities influence possession attachment, and how having attachments affect consumer well-being and life satisfaction.

A challenge facing scholars of attachment is defining the concept and its boundaries. Few reports of "special," "important," "cherished," or "favorite" possessions offer conceptual definitions of the phenomenon under study. What is material possession attachment? What are its boundaries? Is material possession attachment part of a larger class of self-extensions that are essentially the same? Can we equate, for example, material possession attachment with place attachment or with person-brand relations? Assembling answers to such questions should assist scholars in advancing the literature on consumers' attachment to, and valuation of, material goods.

In this paper we integrate literature related to possession attachment to (1) offer a conceptual definition of material possession attachment; (2) specify its boundaries; (3) discuss the value (benefits and costs) of having possession attachments; (4) summarize age, gender, and life stage differences in material possession attachments; (5) discuss methodological issues related to studying possession attachment; and (6) relate possession attachment to place attachment, person-brand relations, and experience attachment. As these sections unfold, questions for future research will be posed, reflecting our primary purpose to create a resource for scholars pursuing questions about attachment and consumers' valuation of goods and services.

Face=+BoldBOUNDARIES OF MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENTFace=-Bold

Most reports of scholarly investigations of special, favorite, important, or cherished material possessions provide only operational definitions of the phenomenon under study. To advance the study of material possession attachment, we offer a conceptual definition of attachment and its boundaries that we believe effectively reflects the relevant literature to date.

Face=+BoldWhat Attachment Is Face=-BoldFace=+ItalicMaterial possession attachment is a multi-faceted property of the relationship between an individual or group of individuals and a specific material object that has been psychologically appropriated, decommodified, and singularized through person-object interaction. Face=-ItalicNine characteristics further characterize material possession attachment and help distinguish it from related concepts.

Face=+ItalicSpecific Material Object - Face=-ItalicMaterial possession attachment forms with specific material possessions, not with product classes or brands. The material objects are acquired through exchange, received as gifts, self-produced, or found. Most often attachment possessions are ordinary objects that have special meaning formed through experiences involving the object.

Individuals and their personal possessions have received the most scholarly attention although pairs or groups of people (e.g., families or subcultural members) become attached to particular shared possessions (Belk 1988; 1992a; 1992b; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Olson 1985).

Face=+ItalicPsychologically Appropriated Material Object - Face=-ItalicAttachment does not require legal or physical possession (Belk 1992a; Furby 1978), only psychological appropriation; that is, a sense the object is "mine". Through consumption people extract cultural meaning from, give meaning to, and claim goods as theirs (McCracken 1988). Examples of psychological appropriation include students taking possession of "their" chair in a classroom for the term; lost, stolen, or destroyed valued possessions still perceived by the owner to be "mine"; jointly held possessions perceived to be "ours" (Olson 1985); or singular culturally shared possessions, such as the Statue of Liberty (Belk 1987). Psychological appropriation is necessary but not sufficient for material possession attachment to form.

Face=+ItalicA Type of Self-Extension - Face=-ItalicBelk (1988) portrays how we extend ourselves into things such as people, places, experiences, ideas, beliefs (see also Abelson 1986), and material possession objects. Conceptually, self-extension encompasses objects perceived to be "mine," including but not limited to possession attachments. Only one study reports investigating the empirical relationship between self-extension and material possession attachment (Sivadas and Venkatesh 1995). Study results were inconclusive, calling for more empirical work investigating the attachment/self-extension relationship. We believe the literature portrays material possession attachment as a type of self-extension among other types (e.g., brand bonds, place attachments).

Face=+ItalicDecommodified, Singular Possessions - Face=-ItalicWe construct meanings for material objects in ways similar to how we construct meanings for people; over time we get to know them as individuals (Kopytoff 1986). Self-extension processes decommodify, singularize, and personalize particular material objects symbolizing autobiographical meanings (Belk 1988). Perceived singularity often is associated with an unwillingness to sell the possession for market value (Belk 1991a). A singular, irreplaceable possession becomes nonsubsitutable. It "is one that a consumer resists replacing, even with an exact replica, because the consumer feels that the replica cannot sustain the same meaning as the original" (Grayson and Shulman 2000, p. 17). A young child's baby blanket is one well-known example (Winnicott 1953) of no subsitutability; Grayson and Shulman (2000) discuss adult examples. An unanswered empirical question is whether possessions must be irreplaceable to become attachments.

In Face=+ItalicZen and the Art of Motorcycle MaintenanceFace=-Italic Pirsig (1974) wonderfully illustrates possession personalization and decommodification:

But over the miles, and I think most cyclists will agree with this, you pick up certain feelings about an individual machine that are unique for that one individual machine and no other. A friend who owns a cycle of the same make, model and even same year brought it over for repair, and when I test rode it afterward it was hard to believe it had come from the same factory years ago. You could see that long ago it had settled into its own kind of feel and ride and sound, completely different from mine. Not worse, but different.

I suppose you could call that a personality. Each machine has its own, unique personality which probably could be defined as the intuitive sum total of everything you know and feel about it. This personality constantly changes, usually for the worse, but sometimes surprisingly for the better, and it is this personality that is the real object of motorcycle maintenance. (p. 44)

Face=+ItalicPersonal History Between Person and Material Possession -Face=-ItalicPirsig's description also illustrates why possessions do not become decommodified and singularized without personal history between self and object. Over time, particular goods become irreplaceable via possession rituals (e.g., using, displaying, cleaning, storing, discussing, comparing) that extract meaning from, and give meaning to, the goods (McCracken 1988). A toddler becomes attached to a special object (e.g., baby blanket, stuffed animal) over many, many repeated uses. Adult possessions may become "contaminated" through constant or habitual use and dependency (e.g., one's "faithful" wristwatch or constantly worn piece of jewelry) endowing it with personal meaning connecting self and object (Belk 1988; Watson 1992).

The requirement of a personal history between person and possession is one of the strongest themes in the special possession literature. (We will also find the same theme in the place attachment literature, to be discussed below). However, the intriguing possibility of something we might call anticipatory self-extension is suggested by Ball and Tasaki's (1992) results. In their study of material possession attachment, teen and young adult respondents expressed self-identification with strongly desired (but not yet acquired) goods. The sentiment respondents expressed seemed to be that "Face=+Italicif Face=-ItalicI had it, it Face=+Italicwould Face=-Italicbe me" and was tied to a particular age group or life stage. This interesting result pattern deserves further attention. It relates to consumer desire (Belk, Ger, and Askegaard 2003), age and life stage consumption differences, and the possibility that marketers may have some pre-purchase influence on what goods or brands become self-extensions.

Face=+ItalicAttachment has Strength - Face=-ItalicAlthough we use language such as "who I am" and "who I am not," or what is "me" and "not me," to discuss attachments, attachment is really a matter of degree. Attachment to a possession can be relatively strong or weak. Generally, strong attachment possessions include those regarded as "most difficult to part with and most cherished," "attached to," or "irreplaceable." Strong attachments are more central to the proximal self (Belk 1988) whereas weak attachments do not reflect the self as much or at all (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). The strength of attachment may be indicated by behavioral tendencies such as unwillingness to sell possessions for market value or to discard objects after their functional use is gone (Belk 1991b).

Face=+ItalicAttachment is Multi-Faceted -Face=-Italic Attachment is a multi-faceted, relatively complex concept. Belk (1988) portrays the extended self (including attachments) as being comprised of different layers from the private inner self-core to the outermost collective layer. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) assert that special possession objects (including possession attachments) vary in their symbolic purposes and identify various motivations for attachments, suggesting multi-faceted person-possession ties. Working with social psychologists' distinction between the public (interpersonal) and private (intra-personal) sides of the self (Greenwald and Breckler 1985), Ball and Tasaki (1992) assert that possessions most useful for cognitively rehearsing elements of either self aspect will be attachments. Kleine, Kleine, and Allen (1995) and Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan (1989) define attachment to have facets of affiliation, autonomy, and past, present, and future temporal orientations. Each self is associated with different kinds of possession attachments that reflect particular self-developmental tasks. The portrayal of attachment as multi-faceted is another strong theme in the literature.

In contrast to multi-faceted conceptualizations, attachment measurement scales proposed to date represent the construct as a unidimensional construct. Ball and Tasaki's (1992) nine-item Likert scale to measure attachment captures the public and private self-cognitions leading to attachments (see Table 1 for scale items). Ball and Tasaki demonstrate support for a separate, unidimensional measure of "emotional significance" capturing the degree of emotional attachment a possession holds. Sivadas and Venkatesh (1995; see Table 1 for scale items) provide confirmatory factor analysis support for the unidimensionality of their "possession attachment" and "self-extension" measures. However, results failed to support discrimination between the two scales, requiring further investigation into their validity.

Face=+Bold Measures of Possession Attachment, Emotional Significance of Possessions, and Self-ExtensionFace=-Bold

The contrast between multi-faceted conceptualizations and unidimensional measurement scales probably reflects the challenge of capturing a rich concept such as attachment in measurement scale format. (Most studies of special possessions do not use measurement scale techniques.) Confidence in a unidimensional conceptualization of attachment requires additional validation, presenting opportunities for interested scholars. Based on the literature, we conclude attachment should continue to be regarded as a multi-faceted construct.

Face=+ItalicAttachment is Emotionally Complex - Face=-ItalicAttachment possessions, laden with personal, deeply emotional meanings are "extraordinary, mysterious, and emotion evoking rather than merely functional" (Belk 1992a, p. 45). Attachment is emotional in experience quality, recorded in a cognitive-emotive understanding of the possession's symbolic, autobiographical, personalized meaning formed via a history between self and object. The emotional quality of various possession attachment types is another area ripe for scholarly investigation.

Face=+ItalicAttachment is Dynamic - Face=-ItalicThe meaning associated with a possession and the intensity of attachment to it does not remain static but evolves as the person's self evolves and the autobiographical function of the object changes (Myers 1985). Myers (1985, p. 6) observed in her study of adults' retrospection of childhood attachments that "emotionally significant possessions are a sign of and participant in a person's growth and change" (Myers 1985, p. 6). Kamptner's (1989; 1991) seminal studies of life stage meanings of possessions shows systematic shifts in self accompany changes in attachment meanings.

Attachment being dynamic does not preclude particular possessions, such as heirlooms, from assuming relatively static meaning. Heirlooms, for example, symbolize deep meanings of family and self-continuity that are passed from one generation to the next (Curasi 1999; McCracken 1988; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000). An unusual case of heirloom meaning is McCracken's (1988) informant "Lois Roget," the self-appointed keeper of a home filled with generations' worth of family possessions. This "curatorial consumption" pattern "gives her important comforts, continuities, and securities that are generally now absent from the modern world. But it also works to constrain and coerce her existence in ways that most of us would find intolerable" (p. 44). McCracken suggests that in contrast to Mrs. Roget's situation, modern conditions usually lead people to mold and shape the meanings of household possessions to fit our identities.

Attachment itself, and the meanings of attachment possessions, tend to be dynamic in order to manage the relentless conflict between desiring self-continuity and needing self-change (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). Considering this dynamic process from the point of view of the object itself, Kopytoff (1986) portrays how things have biographies, just as people do. A branded good at its inception is a commodity that has a socio-cultural meaning captured by its brand name (McCracken 1988). During its life cycle, a possession may be exchanged (sold, given), consumed, or decommodified, or recommodified repeatedly. Appadurai (1986) characterizes a possession's biography as a "total trajectory" from production through exchange and distribution to consumption and beyond. He says these "commodities in motion" "...move in and out of commodity state" and "...such movements can be slow or fast, reversible or terminal, normative or deviant." (p. 13). Thus, commodity is a phase in an object's life cycle which implies that being an attachment is another phase. How attachment meanings change constantly is a fascinating area for scholarly investigation.

Face=+BoldWhat Attachment Is Not Face=-BoldScholars assert that attachment is conceptually distinct from materialism (Wallendorf and Arnould 1988), product involvement (Ball and Tasaki 1992; Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan 1989), attitude or affect toward the object (Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan 1989), and self-extension (Sivadas and Venkatesh 1995). Empirical demonstration of the relationship between attachment and related constructs has been limited.

Face=+ItalicGeneral Trait Materialism - Face=-ItalicTrait materialism is a tendency to invest one's self in material goods (Belk 1985), while possession attachment reflects the relationship between a specific person and a specific object. Both Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) and Ball and Tasaki (1992) found empirical evidence that possession attachment was discriminant from materialism.

Face=+ItalicProduct Category Involvement - Face=-ItalicPeople experience attachments to possessions in relation to particular possession objects, not product categories or brands. For example, becoming attached to a specific car or photograph collection does not require enduring involvement (Bloch 1983) with the respective product categories (Ball and Tasaki 1992). Likewise, attachment to a specific instance of a good does not generalize to the product category or brand. However, empirical demonstrations of the relationship between product category involvement, enduring involvement, and attachment would enhance understanding of the boundaries of each construct.

Face=+ItalicEvaluative Affect - Face=-ItalicAttachment is not the same as attitude or evaluative affect (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995; Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan 1989). Emotionally charged attachments often elicit mixed feelings such as warmth, happiness, and sadness. Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan (1989) found that possessions of stronger attachment tended to be associated with a different set of emotions than were possessions of least attachment. Moreover, emotions associated with stronger attachments were not always positive nor were negative feelings always associated with weak attachments. The literature suggests that reducing attachment to liking of the object trivializes its self-identification significance and ignores examples of disliked objects of attachment.

Face=+ItalicSpecial Possessions - Face=-ItalicStudies about "special possessions" or "possession meaning" probably include, but encompass something broader than, the domain of possession attachment (e.g., Belk 1992b; Mehta and Belk 1991; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Dittmar 1992; Furby 1991; Sayre 1994). Special possessions are not necessarily self-reflective or in service of self-developmental purposes. Sometimes special possessions are simply functional (Richins 1994).

Kamptner (1989) observed different possessions were elicited by varying prompts such as asking for "most favorite possessions," "most cherished possessions," "most important possessions," "possessions I would take in a fire," and so forth. Grayson and Shulman (2000) showed that cherished possessions are not necessarily irreplaceable and vice versa. Further investigation is needed about how different prompts elicit different possessions that reflect attachment, irreplaceability, self-extension, and so forth.

Face=+Bold Summary: Definition and Boundaries of Material Possession Attachment Face=-BoldMaterial possession attachment is a multi-faceted property of the relationship between a specific individual or group of individuals and a specific, material object that an individual has psychologically appropriated, decommodified, and singularized through person-object interaction. Nine characteristics portray attachment: (1) attachment forms with specific material objects, not product categories or brands; (2) attachment possessions must be psychologically appropriated; (3) attachments are self-extensions; (4) attachments are decommodified and singularized; (5) attachment requires a personal history between person and possession; (6) attachment has the property of strength; (7) attachment is multi-faceted; (8) attachment is emotionally complex; and (9) attachments evolve over time as the meaning of the self changes. Attachment is conceptually distinct from: general trait materialism, product category involvement, and evaluative affect toward the possession. Needing empirical attention is establishing differences among possessions elicited by prompts such as "special," "favorite," "cherished," or "most important."

Face=+BoldVALUE OF MATEIRAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENTFace=-Bold

In this section we review the literature about the value of material possession attachment. The benefits and costs of attachment flow from goods' singular capacity to carry and store meanings (McCracken 1988). Goods have the property of Face=+ItalicindexicalityFace=-Italic, as they provide tangible, palpable proof of life events (Grayson and Shulman 2000). "Retaining a possession that is incontrovertibly and physically linked to a memorable past event helps to verify for (a person) that the event has occurred" (Grayson and Shulman 2000, p. 8). Belk (1991a) describes goods as "magical vessels" of meaning connecting us to deeper, less understood, and unarticulated aspects of life (e.g., religion, magic, science). Flowing from this unique meaning-carrying capacity are the various benefits and costs of possession attachments scholars have identified. To efficiently portray these overlapping benefits of attachments, we organize them into two meta-themes: self-definitional value and self-continuity/change value.

Face=+Bold Self-Definitional ValueFace=-BoldHaving a tangible referent "out there" helps a person grasp "me" and provides opportunities for schema rehearsal about "who I am", "who I was", or "who I am becoming" (Ball and Tasaki 1992). Although scholars explain self-definitional value in different ways, each explanation reflects either the autonomy or affiliation seeking motives driving self-development (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995).

Face=+Italic Autobiographical Value - Face=-ItalicViewed as an autobiography, a person's self concept is a narrative construction told and retold based on selected life events (McAdams 1993; Singer and Salovey 1993). Special possessions, such as clothing, are among the cues that evoke autobiographical memory rehearsal (Kleine 2000). Autobiographical rehearsal is self-comforting and presents opportunities for self-encouragement or confrontation and resolution of life issues, as numerous examples in literature and poetry portray (Singer and Salovey 1993). According to McAdams (1993), underpinning autobiographical narratives are the paradoxical themes of autonomy versus affiliation seeking and self-continuity versus self-change management. These same themes are found in personal accounts of possession meaning and describe self-developmental purposes of different kinds of attachments (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995; Kleine 2000; Schultz, Kleine, and Kernan 1989).

Face=+ItalicStory-Telling Value - Face=-ItalicPossession attachments not only mark life events, but also mark time and help tell personal stories of search, self-discovery, growth, and achievement. In fact, though most discussions of material possession attachment focus on particular objects, individuals may also be attached to Face=+ItalicsetsFace=-Italic of objects that reflect role identities (product constellations; Solomon 1988; Solomon and Assael 1987; Solomon and Buchanan 1991; Solomon and Douglas 1987) or reflect ritualistic behavior (e.g., collections; Belk 1995). Examples include collections of photographs, souvenirs, trophies and other items telling the story of autobiographical events. For self-perceived collectors of particular material objects (e.g., stamps, Coca-Cola memorabilia, Depression glass), attachment has an added layer. While the collector feels attached to the pieces in the collection (though not necessarily Face=+ItaliceveryFace=-Italic piece), the whole collection represents something distinct from its parts (Belk 1995; Belk, Wallendorf, Sherry, and Holbrook 1991). Not just the individual pieces, but the entire collection tells the story of the experiences through which the collection was assembled (Belk, Wallendorf, Sherry, and Holbrook 1991). Further study on attachments to collections, constellations of possessions, and the interrelationships among related possessions would enhance understanding of possession attachment and its story telling value.

Face=+ItalicContemplation Value: Who am I? - Face=-ItalicCsikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) categorize special possessions into Face=+Italicaction objects Face=-Italicand Face=+Italiccontemplation objectsFace=-Italic. Contemplation value refers to using objects "for achievement of selfhood based on conscious reflection" (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; p. 96). The authors suggest that older people find contemplation more valuable than younger people do. They suggest that qualities of particular types of objects (e.g., photographs and stereos suited to mood manipulation) lend themselves to contemplative use. Tourists (including children) often purchase souvenirs for their anticipated contemplation value (Baker, Kleine, and Bowen, 2004).

Face=+ItalicAction Value: What I can do - Face=-ItalicThe Face=+Italicaction valueFace=-Italic of special possessions involves "the development of self-control through unique acts" (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; p. 96). Action value involves the possession's potential for enabling a sense of personal competence and control (Furby 1991). Children and youth especially value objects (e.g., musical instruments, pets, sports equipment, stuffed animals) requiring physical manipulation to release their meaning (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Myers 1985).

Face=+ItalicSelf-Boundary Regulation - Face=-ItalicMaterial possessions considered "me" or "not me" designate self-boundaries, both corporal and temporal (Belk 1988; Dittmar 1989; 1992; McCracken 1988). Possessions extend self-boundaries back into the past (Belk 1991a; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981) or forward into the future (Gentry, Baker, and Kraft 1995; Joy and Dholakia 1991; Kamptner 1989; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000).

Sometimes consumers consciously Face=+ItalicavoidFace=-Italic particular possessions to define "not me" boundaries. Freitas, Kaiser, Chandler, Hall, Kim, and Hammidi (1997) found young adults consciously rejected particular clothing items defining "definitely not me." Similarly, consumers define "not me" by rejecting "anti-constellations" to avoid being associated with the corresponding stereotype (Hogg and Mitchell 1997). Interested scholars have many opportunities to study the boundary regulation purposes of possessions.

Face=+ItalicSelf-Cultivation and Self-Development - Face=-ItalicEmotionally significant possessions reflect and influence a person's growth and development (Bih 1992; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Kamptner 1989; 1991; Myers 1985). Myers (1985) found the specific attachment possessions cited by study participants to vary widely, yet the Face=+Italicreasons Face=-Italicfor attachment were very similar at each life cycle stage.

Voluntary or involuntary disruption of attachments evidences their self-cultivation value (Milligan 1998). Victims of a California firestorm felt loss of their pasts, neighborhoods, routines, hobbies, and workplaces--things defining who they were. These losses led victims to renegotiate meanings of possessions surviving the disaster, and to reconsider and rebuild their identities (Sayre 1994). For earthquake victims in Japan and the United States, unexpected disruption of the possession component of their extended selves led to feelings of self loss (Ikeuchi, Fujihara, and Dohi 1999). The fact that possession loss leads to self-disruption suggests the importance of possessions for autobiographical and emotional purposes.

Attachment possessions are not just memorabilia that permit nostalgic reflection, "emotionally significant possessions appear to reflect and influence the individual's growth, in a dynamic process" (Myers 1985 p. 4). Reciprocity exists between self and possession in this dynamic self-cultivation process (Bih 1992).

Face=+ItalicAffiliation Value - Face=-ItalicMany of our deepest attachments to possessions flow from past or present relationships the possessions represent. Possession attachments often designate "who I am connected with" or "how we are connected", an understanding of one's self as necessary to self-development as defining the autonomous me (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). Possession attachments symbolize affiliation value in a variety of ways. For example, gift receipt more often is associated with strong attachments than weak attachments. Attachment forms because the gift stands for an important or valued relationship, even when the recipient dislikes the gift (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). Heirlooms that become attachments reflect familial associations defining who a person is (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; McCracken 1988; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000). Frequently, items such as photographs, jewelry, and other possessions appear on cherished possession lists representing relationships with others.

Attachment and special possession studies traditionally focus on individuals. However, a growing body of work has explored the affiliation value of Face=+Italicshared Face=-Italicattachments (e.g., McCracken 1989). Olson (1985) explored how material artifacts in the home influences dyadic communication between co-habitating relationship partners. Artifacts of young married couples reflected future-orientations and shared values, while those of older married couples reflected past-orientations and substituted for verbal communication. Possessions of unmarried couples were individual artifacts reflecting present-orientations and independence within the relationship.

Belk's (1992b) study of the possessions of Mormon families who migrated to the western U.S. also reflects families' shared meanings of possessions. The diary accounts Belk examined revealed a search for, and reinforcement of, communal meanings via particular possessions. A sense of caring for one another during a potentially life-threatening transition characterized their meanings. Possessions were also used to negotiate balance between group isolation and worldliness on a collective level.

Mehta and Belk's (1991) exploration of possessions of Indian immigrants to the U.S. versus Indians residing in India also addresses the issue of group identity and its assembly/reassembly and enhancement via possessions. Indian immigrants preserved collective identities through consumption rituals such as celebration of Indian holidays, eating Indian foods, or wearing Indian clothing. Possession artifacts used in the rituals were particularly potent for maintaining appearances and self-perceptions of being Indian.

Bih (1992) and Joy and Dholakia (1991) also explored how objects were used for adapting to a new culture. The Chinese students Bih (1992) interviewed used objects to connect with their home culture strongly values family ties. Similarly, the Indian professionals Joy and Dholakia (1991) interviewed used possessions to situate themselves in relationship networks. Possessions used for cultural adaptation may become attachments reflecting affiliative value.

Face=+BoldSelf Continuity/Self-Change ValueFace=-Bold Using possession meanings to negotiate the dialectic tension between self-continuity and self-change is the second meta-theme in the literature. On one hand, attachment possessions bring past meanings into the present and maintain present meanings. Possessions also help us project ourselves into the future, even beyond death (McCracken 1988; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000). We also cling to goods that capture unrealized ideal selves by using the goods for leverage toward imagined future conditions (McCracken 1988).

Face=+ItalicAdaptive Value - Face=-ItalicPossession attachments help people cope with and adjust to change. The sacred meaning of special possessions flows from their role in various kinds of personal journeys (Belk 1997). Well-known is the adaptive role of a young child's baby blanket or other comfort items (Winnicott 1953; see also Gulerce 1991 for a contrasting view). However, adults also keep or dispose of attachment possessions to aid life transitions, such as divorcing (McAlexander 1991), losing a loved one (Gentry, Kennedy, Paul, and Hill 1995), or anticipating one's death (Gentry, Baker, and Kraft 1995; Pavia 1993; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000).

Possessions are potent facilitators of late-life adaptation (Kamptner 1989; Rubenstein 1987; 1989; Sherman and Newman 1977-78). Attachment possessions serve as "lighting rods for memories" and "restate to oneself the core aspects of one's identity and life accomplishments..." (Rubenstein and Parmalee 1992; p. 154). Similarly, in a depth study of elderly people, Kamptner (1989) found that

Personal possessions appear to play a salient and meaningful role in many of the developmental tasks and challenges that old age may bring. One's belongings may enhance mastery and control in the face of losses; they may act as mood modulators; they may assist individuals in maintaining and preserving their identities in the face of events that erode their sense of self; they may trigger and enhance the life review process; and they may represent ties or bonds with others at a time of life when social losses tend to be greater (p. 182).

Several studies reflect the adaptive value of possessions. In a study of elderly nursing home residents, Sherman and Newman (1977-78) found a significant, positive relationship between residents' life satisfaction scores and having cherished possessions. Respondents most often listed photographs, religious items, symbolic jewelry, and consumer items as cherished possessions. Wapner, Demick, and Redondo (1990) found that cherished possessions provided historical continuity, comfort, and a sense of belongingness for a sample of nursing home residents. More well-adapted residents tended to have cherished possessions. Adaptation was indicated by measures of individual control, stress, response to conflicts, use of phone calls and letters, visitation to friends and relatives, and support of residents and staff. The most common cherished possessions in Wapner, Demick, and Redondo's (1990) study included musical instruments, silverware, tools, or cameras because of their action potential. In contrast, Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton's (1981) living-at-home older respondents tended to cherish possessions for their contemplation value. Do nursing home residents relate differently to cherished possessions compared to elderly people living in private homes?

Possessions not only help elderly people adapt to new living environments, they also influence others' perceptions of those elderly. Millard and Smith (1981) measured medical school students' perceptions of photographs showing elderly hospital patients either surrounded by possessions or devoid of possessions. Results suggested that elderly patients surrounded by personal belongings, get well cards, photographs, and so forth, were perceived more positively and evaluated as feeling better, more effective, less dependent, and more socially capable. The authors suggest that hospital staff may regard and treat elderly patients better if they were permitted to display personal possessions.

Face=+ItalicSelf-Preservation - Face=-ItalicElderly adults preserve themselves by passing along possessions to younger family members. Divestment rituals transfer possessions and their meanings from one generation to the next (Curasi 1999; McCracken 1988; Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000). Scholars also have examined how non-elderly people facing death relate to their possessions. For example, Pavia's (1993) study of HIV-infected informants showed that as the illness progressed, loss of possessions was secondary to losses of jobs, homes, health, and relationships. Echoing Furby's (1978) belief that bonding with possessions stems from the perceived control we have over them, Pavia found the worst part of possession loss was the decreasing ability to have or keep possessions, and consequent inability to maintain one's former self relationships (see also Stevenson and Kates 1999).

Gentry, Baker, and Kraft (1995) describe how people at different life stages have different types of attachments, particularly when faced with death. Younger people facing death want possessions "now" due to feeling there is no tomorrow; whereas, dying adults do not want possessions because the possessions represent the ability to be productive which is no longer meaningful.

Face=+Bold The Costs of AttachmentsFace=-BoldKamptner believes that "an individual's belongings are an important and perhaps necessary part of the self (at least in Western cultures)..." (1989, p. 192). The importance of meaningful possessions may lie in a unique ability to carry meaning verbal language does not (McCracken 1988). McCracken (1988) concludes although some consumers engaging in "consumption pathologies" (e.g., defining one's self in terms of material things only), normally "the individual uses goods in an unproblematic manner to constitute crucial parts of the self and world" (p. 88).

On the other hand, there are economic and psychic costs associated with having and using material possession attachments. Attachment represents commitment of one's resources and self that could be invested in other things (Belk 1988; 1992a; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981). Relying heavily upon material goods for self-construction may restrict the range of meanings from which the self can be built. Self-cultivation becomes limited to the domain of the marketplace, "removing the 'infinitely rich lived world' from experience and replacing it with a poverty of meanings within prevailing material factivity dictated by the opaque contingencies of the market." (Kilbourne 1991, p. 454). That is, a person's pool of experiences is reduced by the objects into which one extends one's self. Kilbourne views this as limiting the developmental potential of individuals.

Perhaps the ultimate issue is how investing one's self in material attachments affects well-being, life satisfaction, and happiness (Belk 1992a). What are the opportunity costs of investing one's self into material attachments? How do possession attachments encourage or constrain attainment of self-potential, family and cultural preservation, and so forth? Do particular kinds of attachments (e.g., adaptive) serve more useful purposes than other kinds (e.g., clinging to the past)? Are material attachments substitutes for something else more desirable, or are they singular (and necessary) in their effects on self-development and life satisfaction? Is it better to have more or fewer possessions of attachment? What cross-cultural differences relating to degree of economic development or cultural values exist?

Face=+Bold Summary: The Value of Material Possession AttachmentsFace=-BoldThe value of material possession attachment includes benefits and costs. Scholars have identified various non-mutually exclusive kinds of value falling into two basic categories: self-definitional and self-continuity/change. Self-definitional attachments serve autobiographical, magical, contemplative, action, self-boundary regulation, and self-cultivation values. Self-continuity/self-change value is reflected in the temporal continuity and adaptive functions of attachments.

On the cost side, attachments bear opportunity costs in terms of investment of personal resources. Furthermore, they may unreasonably constrain one's options for self meaning making. How possession attachment correlates with personal or collective happiness and life satisfaction is wide open for empirical investigation.

Face=+BoldPOSSESSION ATTACHMENT: TYPOLOGIES AND METHOD ISSUESFace=-Bold

Scholars have developed several typologies of special possession categories or meaning content. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) identified 41 categories of objects (e.g., furniture, musical instruments, candlesticks) and classified these into two groups: action objects and contemplation objects. Kampter (1989) and Wapner, Remick, and Redondo (1990) employed Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton's (1981) typology. For other examples of special possession typologies, refer to Furby (1978), Sherman and Newman (1977-78), or Dittmar (1992).

Integrating special possession typologies presents three challenges. One, different prompts used across studies to elicit respondents' special possessions probably capture different domains of possessions. Prompts asking for "special," "most favorite," "most cherished," "irreplaceable," "most important," or "most likely to rescue in a fire" elicit different possessions from the same respondents (Kampter 1989). Two, study conclusions depend upon whether possession categories are based on the investigator's interpretation of shared meanings of the possessions (e.g., photographs generally mean such-and-such) or upon individuals' expressed meanings for those possessions. Three, where and when data is collected may impact the typology in ways not yet understood. For example, do participants respond differently, depending upon which role-identity "hat" they wear when responding? Does the location of the interview (e.g., in the home) influence the special possessions selected or meanings expressed by respondents? Scholars using existing or developing new typologies should carefully consider these issues to deepen our understanding of special possessions.

Measurement scale development and validation also needs empirical attention. Ball and Tasaki's (1992) attachment measure is the sole example in published literature of a measure (see Table 1) with reasonable empirical support. The utility of measurement scales for use with larger samples and ability to directly evaluate construct validity warrants additional scholarly attention to measurement scale development and validation.

To advance understanding of possession attachment, scholars should consider creative use of various methods. Photography (Millard and Smith 1981; Wallendorf and Arnould 1988), three-dimensional stereographic images (Holbrook 1997); object sorting (Belk 1987), projective methods (Baker, Kleine, and Bowen 2004; Belk 1986), and q-methodology (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995) illustrate the use of methods designed to enhance responding and elicit participants' subjective meanings. Continued use of multiple methods will enhance understanding of material possession attachment. As Belk (1992a, p. 55) notes,

The blend of qualitative and quantitative work that has characterized object attachment research to date seems a promising combination that should be continued. The qualitative work is best able to explicate the feelings and meanings of object attachments, while the quantitative work is best able to detect broad patterns of object attachments and their relationships to such key variables as media exposure, happiness, and changes in political and economic structures.

Face=+BoldSummary: Possession Attachment Typologies and Method IssuesFace=-BoldNumerous opportunities exist to enhance how we classify and study possession attachments. Factors limiting comparability of existing typologies include: the typologies may capture different domains (e.g., favorite versus most meaningful possessions); different typologies are not always based on the same perspective (i.e., investigator's versus respondent's); and unknown effects on results of different times and places of data collection. Methods including photography, three-dimensional stereographic images, object sorting, projective methods, and Q-methodology offer opportunities for method development. Measurement scales also need additional empirical attention. Continued use of multiple methods will enhance understanding of possession attachment.

Face=+BoldAGE, LIFE STAGE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN MATERIAL POSSESSION ATTACHMENTFace=-Bold

Age, life stage, and gender are the individual differences in attachment most often studied. Generally, age, life stage or gender differences are found in the specific possessions people identify Face=+Italicand Face=-Italicsometimes in their articulated meanings for those possessions.

Face=+BoldAge and Life Stage DifferencesFace=-BoldFace=+ItalicOlder Adults - Face=-ItalicStudies portray older people as no more or less attached to their favorite things than younger people. However, some scholars have observed age and life stage variations in special possessions and the reasons for possession favoriteness. According to Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) and Wallendorf and Arnould (1988), older Americans' favorite possessions represented familial and other interpersonal ties more often than possessions of younger respondents. In Niger, older adults' favorite possessions also indicated age-related status differences (Wallendorf and Arnould 1988).

Kamptner's (1989; 1991) seminal studies investigating the developmental implications of special possessions showed that older subjects use material possessions to negotiate life reviews and to extend themselves temporally into the future by giving special possessions to younger family members. More recently Price, Arnould, and Curasi (2000) confirmed this adaptive, kin-keeping role of possessions in old age. Gentry, Baker, and Kraft (1995) and Pavia (1993) observe that similar processes may apply to younger adults facing death, suggesting that it is not age, per se, but life stage that influences cherished possession disposition.

Face=+ItalicChildren - Face=-ItalicThe literature reflects at least two views of how children relate to special possessions. The traditional and most familiar view, first associated with Winnicott (1953), suggests that young children (up to about six years old) use inanimate objects for transitioning toward independence and self-hood. Myers' (1985) adult participants identified blankets, stuffed toys, and dolls as their earliest possession attachments serving comfort and security functions. In Winnicott's view, having these transitional objects is universal among healthy children, implying material possession attachment is necessary for healthy psychological development of the autonomous self.

Gulerce (1991) proposes an alternate view of the developmental functions of children's possession attachments. This "transformational model" regards transitional possessions not as extensions of primary caregivers, but as Face=+Italicextensions of selfFace=-Italic. In contrast to Winnicott's view, Gulerce's cross-cultural and cross-socioeconomic status research shows that transitional object attachment is Face=+ItalicnotFace=-Italic universal, but "subject to sociocultural influences" (p. 201). Children's self-development cycles through periods of autonomy-seeking and affiliation-seeking as opposed to a unidirectional drive toward independence. A similar pattern was observed in Myers' (1985) and Kleine, Kleine, and Allen's (1995) studies of adults' possession attachments. How children form possession attachments and the kinds of attachments formed have implications for lifelong relationships to material possessions (Gulerce 1991).

Myers' (1985) adult participants recalled special possessions from elementary school years representing the ability to do things. The adolescent period was characterized by possessions representing autonomy and self-reliance balanced with maintaining affiliative ties. Recollections of special possessions from young adulthood reflected independence and autonomy seeking while maintaining closeness and intimacy with others. No doubt, the meaning and function of attachment possessions changes through the life cycle and in ways captured by theories about child development (Myers 1985).

Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) characterized children's special possessions as tending toward more action and future-oriented use. Complementing those findings, Baker, Kleine, and Bowen (2004) found children (ages 8-13) were already beginning to form contemplative, symbolic meanings for souvenirs they anticipated would serve as mementos marking special places.

Most of the studies of age and life stage related attachments are descriptive in nature. Considerable opportunity exists to investigate the age and life stage developmental implications of cherished possessions to fill in the picture of material possession attachment through the human life cycle.

Face=+BoldGender DifferencesFace=-BoldFace=+ItalicGender Differences in the Possessions Themselves - Face=-ItalicPioneering "special possessions" scholars tended to show that men's and women's special possession differ based on the possessions themselves. That is, men and women tend to possess different kinds of objects; therefore, objects of attachment also reflect gender differences. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) observed significant gender differences in 12 of 41 categories of "special" possessions. Participants were interviewed in their homes, where gender roles were likely salient. Women were significantly more likely to identify sculptures, photographs, plants, plates, glass, and textiles than men, reflecting women's expressive, home-oriented roles. Men more often identified televisions, stereos, tools, sports equipment, vehicles, and yard equipment, reflecting men's action-oriented roles. Similarly, Kamptner (1989) found that among elderly adults, men listed motor vehicles, homes, and small appliances most often; females identified homes, dishware-silverware, and jewelry most often.

Face=+ItalicGender Differences in the Reasons for Possession Specialness - Face=-ItalicDifferent scholars put their own spin on gender distinctions, yet the theme of men as autonomy seekers and women as affiliation keepers is universal in the gender studies. "Women and men pay attention to different things in the environment and may even value the same things but for different reasons" (Kamptner 1989, p. 189).

Elderly women in Kamptner's (1989) study identified interpersonal-familial associations for most important possessions significantly more often than did elderly men. She observed a similar pattern in meanings respondents gave for possessions they would rescue in a fire. Wapner, Demick and Redondo (1990) found that elderly women had significantly more cherished possessions, and those possessions were more often associated with self-other relationships. Also, women were less likely to attribute utilitarian meaning and more likely to attribute comfort functions to special possessions than were men. Similar patterns occurred in Sherman and Newman's (1977-78) study of nursing home residents.

Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) found that both U.S. and Nigerian women identified favorite possessions as "made for them or given to them by others, antiques or heirlooms that tie them to previous generations, and representational items (e.g., photos), depicting their children, spouses, and grandchildren" (p. 539). For example, U.S. women tended to identify handicrafts, antiques, and representational items (e.g., photographs) as favorite possessions. Nigerian women named silver jewelry and other objects that symbolized their connections to other women. U.S. male respondents identified art pieces, functional items, and plants and other living things. Nigerian men identified religious books, charms, swords, and horses that symbolized a "real or desired authority over persons or the spiritual world" (p. 539).

Dittmar (1989) conducted correspondence analysis between types of "most important" objects and the reasons given for their importance to adult respondents. Both male and female respondents identified instrumental and use-related reasons for choosing "most important" things. However, men tended to cite instrumental, use-related, and self-expressive reasons significantly more often. Women more often cited emotional and relational reasons. The results parallel and extend Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton's (1981) conclusion that men cherished self-referent objects of action and women preferred objects of contemplation.

Analyzing diaries of Mormon families who migrated to the western U.S. in the late 1800's, Belk (1992b) found that more women than men reflected deep possession attachments and meanings. Belk interprets this as possible evidence of women's orientation toward continuity with former home and family versus the masculine perspective of journey representing separation and challenge. As Belk notes, the diary accounts also may reflect the social desirability of expressing the "correct" gender role.

Belk and Wallendorf (1997) found that achievement in women's special collections occurred when the collections provided connections to other people. Achievement for men occurred when their collections represented control and mastery over the environment.

For many cherished possessions, such as men's sports card collections, the possessions serve Face=+Italicboth Face=-Italicinstrumental (to trade for money or enhance the value of their possessions) Face=+Italicand Face=-Italicexpressive functions (signifying relationships and evoking nostalgia) (Baker and Martin 2000). When both instrumental and expressive functions are coded into possession meanings rather than treated as mutually exclusive, results may not reveal gender differences of any significance (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). As Dittmar (1992) observes, although gender differences in special possessions are real, Face=+Italicmen and women have more in common than not Face=-Italicwhen it comes to reasons for attachments.

Additionally, age or life cycle stage appears to be more strongly related than gender to differences in possessions and their meanings, in studies examining all three variables. To achieve deeper understanding of gender and material possession attachment, scholars must move beyond descriptions of gender differences toward explaining how gender identity influences, and is influenced by material possession attachment.

Face=+Bold Summary: Age, Life Stage, and Gender Differences in Possession AttachmentFace=-BoldResearch to date on age, life cycle, and gender differences has been mostly descriptive. Age studies find older people relating to special possessions differently than younger people, reflecting stage-of-life and developmental issues. Gender studies universally find predictable differences that men versus women are more likely to own certain special possessions. The meanings of those possessions tend to differ predictably as well--autonomy seeking for men and affiliation seeking for women.

Describing individual differences in attachments is one way to suggest that possession attachments have adaptive and self-developmental value. However, advancing the current literature on benefits and costs of cherished possessions requires a deeper look. Scholars must seek to develop a fuller understanding of the role possessions play throughout the life cycle and in relation to various role identities characterizing the individual.

Face=+BoldCOMPARING POSSESSION ATTACHMENT WITH PLACE, BRAND, AND EXPERIENCE ATTACHMENTSFace=-Bold

How does material possession attachment compare to attachments with places, brands, or consumption experiences? Research explicitly relating types of attachments would help clarify boundaries of possession attachments, enhance understanding of the origins of possession attachment meaning and value, discourage inappropriate conflation of different types (e.g., brand versus material possession attachment), and encourage cross-fertilization across the related literatures. To encourage attachment scholars to broaden their scope, we compare definitions and characterizations of material possession attachment with those for place, brand, and consumption experience bonds.

Face=+Bold Comparing Place Attachment and Possession AttachmentFace=-BoldThe place attachment literature, dating back to the 1960s, is remarkably interdisciplinary involving anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, social psychologists, folklorists, environmental and architecture scholars, and others (Low and Altman 1992; Giulani and Feldman 1993). Likewise, a variety of interpretive and confirmatory methods characterize place attachment inquiry.

The literatures on material possession and place attachments generally do not overlap yet each reflect remarkably similar descriptions of the two attachment phenomena. We will not report a thorough review of the place attachment literature as reviews can be found elsewhere (e.g., Low and Altman 1992; Giulani and Feldman 1993). However, Belk (1992a) observed that attention to place attachments "reveals the narrow partitions that have been employed in seeking to understand our bonds to the material environment" (p. 37). With this in mind, we identify parallels observed in the possession and place attachment literatures.

Face=+ItalicDefinition and Characterization of Place Attachment - Face=-ItalicTo what kinds of places do people become attached? Places of attachment vary widely in terms of size, scope, tangibility, and direct experience (Low and Altman 1992). Adults and children alike form emotional bonds various places such as natural landscapes (e.g., the Grand Canyon), sacred cites (e.g., Jerusalem, Stonehenge), types of architecture (e.g., cathedral), living spaces, neighborhood spaces (e.g., city park, bicycle trail), and so on.

A challenge in comparing scholarship on possession and place attachments is the absence of a single definition of place attachment. However, across the place attachment literature is a strong theme of person-place bonding that develops over time via repeated interactions with place (Low and Altman 1992; Milligan 1998; Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson 1992)Face=+Bold. Face=-BoldMilligan (1998) offers a representative definition: place attachment is Face=+Italicthe emotional bond formed by an individual to a physical site due to the meaning given to the site through interactional processesFace=-Italic. Leading to this emotional bond with place are personalization processes that make a place or space "me" or "mine," "we" or "ours" (Low and Altman 1992; Cooper Marcus 1992). "Places are...repositories and contexts within which interpersonal, community, and cultural relationships occur, and it is to those social relationships, not just to place qua place, to which people are attached" (Low and Altman 1992, p. 7). Emotional bonds and their meanings form the basis of place attachment. This concept of emotional bonding runs through both the place and possession attachment literatures.

What else does place attachment have in common with material possession attachment? The following characteristics are found in both literatures: