The Influence of Initial Possession Level on Consumers' Adoption of a Collection Goal: A Tipping Point Effect
Abstract
Previous research has typically treated collection as a top-down process and focused on its later stages. However, collections may start by accident and are often triggered by incidental, bottom-up factors. The authors propose that a small number of possessions (i.e., a few more than one) represent an unjustified and, thus, unstable possession level that prompts a status change. They examine the collection tipping point at which obtaining items belonging to a series (e.g., a couple of collectible Coke cans) often gives rise to a decision to start a collection. Consumers then seek additional items to fulfill their emerging goal. In six lab studies and one field study, the authors investigate the tipping point at which a collection “project” begins and explore the psychological processes underlying that tipping point. In addition, they discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of this research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Three behaviors (or items) is often a 'tipping point' when consumers start to gain meaning from a set.
“Other research supports the idea that three behaviors (or items) is often a 'tipping point' when consumers start to gain meaning from a set (e.g., consumer collections: Gao, Huang and Simonson 2014).”
From On or Off Track: How (Broken) Streaks Affect Consumer Decisions (2023) · cites this paper as Gao, Huang and Simonson 2014
Consumers continue certain behaviors after several past instances.
“Additionally, we contribute to past work showing that consumers continue certain behaviors after several past instances (e.g., collecting two or three items: Gao et al. 2014; acquiring a medium like loyalty points: Hsee et al. 2003)”
From On or Off Track: How (Broken) Streaks Affect Consumer Decisions (2023) · cites this paper as Gao et al. 2014
Cites
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4 · Cited by 2,573 · see citing works
Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y. (2006) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.1.39 · Cited by 731 · see citing works
The rat's speed-of-locomotion gradient in the approach to food.
Hull, C. L. (1934) · Journal of Comparative Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0071299 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
On or Off Track: How (Broken) Streaks Affect Consumer Decisions
Silverman, J., & Barasch, A. (2023) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucac029 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gao, L., Huang, Y., & Simonson, I.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Drexel University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gao, Leilei
- Huang, Yanliu
- Simonson, Itamar
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-11
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 143-156
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2160368255
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 5.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Marketing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Retail Behavior Studies
- Keywords
- tipping points, status change, purchase decision
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