The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods
Open accessAbstract
Digital goods are, in many cases, substantive innovations relative to their physical counterparts. Yet, in five experiments, people ascribed less value to digital than to physical versions of the same good. Research participants paid more for, were willing to pay more for, and were more likely to purchase physical goods than equivalent digital goods, including souvenir photographs, books (fiction and nonfiction), and films. Participants valued physical goods more than digital goods whether their value was elicited in an incentive compatible pay-what-you-want paradigm, with willingness to pay, or with purchase intention. Greater capacity for physical than digital goods to garner an association with the self (i.e., psychological ownership) underlies the greater value ascribed to physical goods. Differences in psychological ownership for physical and digital goods mediated the difference in their value. Experimentally manipulating antecedents and consequents of psychological ownership (i.e., expected ownership, identity relevance, perceived control) bounded this effect, and moderated the mediating role of psychological ownership. The findings show how features of objects influence their capacity to garner psychological ownership before they are acquired, and provide theoretical and practical insights for the marketing, psychology, and economics of digital and physical goods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651257 · Cited by 12,583
Possessions and the Extended Self
Belk, R. W. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209154 · Cited by 9,064
Extended Self in a Digital World: Table 1.
Belk, R. W. (2013) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/671052 · Cited by 1,698
Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?
List, J. A. (2003) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/00335530360535144 · Cited by 1,183
Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2012.651387 · Cited by 1,008
Born to choose: the origins and value of the need for control
Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.001 · Cited by 717
Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism.
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020240 · Cited by 587
Self-citationFundamentals of Modern Statistical Methods: Substantially Improving Power and Accuracy
Wilcox, R. R. (2010) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5525-8 · Cited by 404
Cited by
How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242919825649 · Cited by 2,386
In Times of Trouble: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Responses to Threats
Campbell, M. C., Inman, J. J., Kirmani, A., & Price, L. L. (2020) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucaa036 · Cited by 257
Smart Products: Conceptual Review, Synthesis, and Research Directions*
Raff, S., Wentzel, D., & Obwegeser, N. (2020) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12544 · Cited by 196
van Ooijen, I., & Vrabec, H. U. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Policy · doi:10.1007/s10603-018-9399-7 · Cited by 180
Beyond scarcity: A social value-based lens for NFT pricing
Hofstetter, R., Fritze, M. P., & Lamberton, C. (2024) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucad082 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- Atasoy, O., & Morewedge, C. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-10-09
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1343-1357
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2761465727
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 28.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jcr/ucx102
- The paper
- Atasoy, O., & Morewedge, C. K. (2018). Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx102
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.