Just print it! The effects of self-printing a product on consumers’ product evaluations and perceived ownership

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed the diffusion of 3D printing technologies that allow consumers to create products with the push of a button. While these technologies may change how value is created in the marketplace, there is little research on 3D printing from a consumer perspective. Against this background, this research conceptualizes 3D printing as a form of co-creation and presents four studies aimed at understanding how consumers respond to products they have printed themselves. Study 1 shows that self-printing a product positively affects product evaluations by increasing perceived ownership. Study 2 finds that this effect occurs even when people are not able to observe the printing process. Study 3 shows that the positive effect of self-printing is moderated by the affective quality of the products being printed. Specifically, while self-printing enhances the evaluations of hedonic products, it has no effect on the evaluations of utilitarian products. Finally, Study 4 identifies a strategy that may offset the disadvantage that utilitarian products face in a 3D printing context, that is, ingredient branding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to our framework, self-printing allows consumers to develop stronger feelings of ownership for a product, thus leading to more favorable evaluations. However, these feelings of ownership are unlikely to develop if and when consumers have a very low interest in the product in the first place.

  2. 2.

    Obviously, these findings rest on the assumption that keychains are more of a hedonic than a utilitarian product. As such, whereas a key is a utilitarian object that serves a specific purpose, a keychain is typically more of a decorative accessory. To validate this assumption, we conducted a post-test with 50 participants (38.60 years, 62.00% female) recruited through Amazon MTurk. Using the same three-item scale as for the manipulation check in Study 3 (α = .95), we asked participants to indicate if they considered keychains to be more utilitarian or hedonic (higher numbers on the scale are indicative of a hedonic perception). As expected, keychains were considered more of a hedonic than a utilitarian item (M = 5.05 on a 7-point scale, t(49)diff_from_4 = 4.25, p < .001).

  3. 3.

    Specifically, the film was about the use of 3D printing technologies for architectural applications such as the rapid production of scale models and the production of entire components for mid-sized houses.

  4. 4.

    Arguably, participants’ positive responses to self-printed products may also be affected by the fact that 3D printing is a novel and somewhat “exciting” technology. To account for this possibility, we measured and controlled for perceptions of novelty in Studies 2 to 4 (i.e., we included perceptions of novelty as a covariate). As there are no substantial differences in the results when perceptions of novelty are controlled for, we decided to report the results without novelty as a covariate.

  5. 5.

    To substantiate our argument that self-printing affects psychological ownership by making people feel in control, we also measured feelings of control in Study 4 and performed our mediation analysis with perceived control as the mediator instead of perceived ownership. In line with our reasoning, the analysis revealed fairly similar results for the two mediators. Furthermore, lending additional support to our argument, a correlation analysis confirmed that feelings of control and feelings of ownership are strongly correlated (r = .754, p < .001).

References

  1. Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers' identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 171–184.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atakan, S. S., Bagozzi, R. P., & Yoon, C. (2014). Consumer participation in the design and realization stages of production: How self-production shapes consumer evaluations and relationships to products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31, 395–408.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2, 159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226–232.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beckers, S. F., van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2018). Good, better, engaged? The effect of company-initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 366–383.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229–237.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67, 14–28.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Berens, G., Van Riel, C. B., & Van Bruggen, G. H. (2005). Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Berman, B. (2012). 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons, 55, 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Beverland, M. (2006). The ‘real thing’: Branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade. Journal of Business Research, 59, 251–258.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Buechel, E. C., & Janiszewski, C. (2013). A lot of work or a work of art: How the structure of a customized assembly task determines the utility derived from assembly effort. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 960–972.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chan, E. Y. (2015). Endowment effect for hedonic but not utilitarian goods. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32, 439–441.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dellaert, B. G. (2019). The consumer production journey: Marketing to consumers as co-producers in the sharing economy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dellaert, B. G. C., & Stremersch, S. (2005). Marketing mass-customized products: Striking a balance between utility and complexity. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 187–202.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Desai, K. K., & Keller, K. L. (2002). The effects of ingredient branding strategies on host brand extendibility. Journal of Marketing, 66, 73–93.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Despeisse, M., Baumers, M., Brown, P., Charnley, F., Ford, S. J., Garmulewicz, A., Knowles, S., Minshall, T. H. W., Mortara, L., Reed-Tsochas, F. P., & Rowley, J. (2017). Unlocking value for a circular economy through 3D printing: A research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115, 75–84.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dong, B., & Sivakumar, K. (2017). Customer participation in services: Domain, scope, and boundaries. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4, 944–965.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2008). Product uniqueness as a driver of customer utility in mass customization. Marketing Letters, 19, 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2010). Why customers value self-designed products: The importance of process effort and enjoyment. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 1020–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Schreier, M. (2008). Complementing mass customization toolkits with user communities: How peer input improves customer self-design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 546–559.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Steger, C. J. (2009). Testing the value of customization: When do customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences? Journal of Marketing, 73, 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010). The “I designed it myself” effect in mass customization. Management Science, 56, 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., & Schreier, M. (2010). The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers’ product demand. Journal of Marketing, 74, 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., Schreier, M., & Dahl, D. W. (2013). All that is users might not be gold: How labeling products as user designed backfires in the context of luxury fashion brands. Journal of Marketing, 77, 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gibson, I. R., David, W., & Stucker, B. (2010). Additive manufacturing technologies. Rapid prototyping to direct digital manufacturing. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gill, T. (2008). Convergent products: What functionalities add more value to the base? Journal of Marketing, 72, 46–62.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hildebrand, C., Häubl, G., & Herrmann, A. (2014). Product customization via starting solutions. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 707–725.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Janiszewski, C., & Van Osselaer, M. J. (2000). A connectionist model of brand-quality associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 331–350.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jiang, R., Kleer, R., & Piller, F. T. (2017). Predicting the future of additive manufacturing: A Delphi study on economic and societal implications of 3D printing for 2030. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 84–97.

    Google Scholar 

  36. John, D. R., Loken, B., Kim, K., & Monga, A. B. (2006). Brand concept maps: A methodology for identifying brand association networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 549–563.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kaiser, U., Schreier, M., & Janiszewski, C. (2017). The self-expressive customization of a product can improve performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 816–831.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kleine III, R. E., Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the self: A social-identity perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 209–235.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Knetsch, J. L., & Sinden, J. A. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99, 507–521.

    Google Scholar 

  41. LeBoeuf, R. A., & Simmons, J. P. (2010). Branding alters attitude functions and reduces the advantage of function-matching persuasive appeals. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 348–360.

  42. Maimaran, M., & Simonson, I. (2011). Multiple routes to self-versus other-expression in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 755–766.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mochon, D., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2012). Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 363–369.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Moreau, C. P., & Herd, K. B. (2010). To each his own? How comparisons with others influence consumers’ evaluations of their self-designed products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 806–819.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Moreau, C. P. (2011). Inviting the amateurs into the studio: Understanding how consumer engagement in product design creates value. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 409–410.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Moreau, C. P., Bonney, L., & Herd, K. B. (2011). It's the thought (and the effort) that counts: How customizing for others differs from customizing for oneself. Journal of Marketing, 75, 120–133.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Muthukrishnan, A. V., & Ramaswami, S. (1999). Contextual effects on the revision of evaluative judgments: An extension of the omission-detection framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 70–84.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Newmeyer, C. E., Venkatesh, R., & Chatterjee, R. (2014). Cobranding arrangements and partner selection: A conceptual framework and managerial guidelines. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 103–118.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2012). The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 453–460.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 185–193.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: An investigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 453–466.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Petrovic, V., Gonzalez, J. V. H., Ferrando, O. J., Gordillo, J. D., Puchades, J. R. B., & Griñan, L. P. (2010). Additive layered manufacturing: Sectors of industrial application shown through case studies. International Journal of Production Research, 49, 1061–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pew Research Center (2016). 28% of Americans are ‘strong’ early adopters of technology. Retrieved June 24, 2018 from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/12/28-of-americans-are-strong-early-adopters-of-technology/

  56. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organization. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 146–153.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84–107.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018). Offerings as digitalized interactive platforms: A conceptual framework and implications. Journal of Marketing, 82, 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: Concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 290–315.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rayna, T., & Striukova, L. (2016). From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: How 3D printing is changing business model innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 214–224.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Rindfleisch, A., & O’Hern, M. (2015). Brand remixing: 3D printing the Nokia case. Review of Marketing Research, 12, 53–81.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rindfleisch, A., O’Hern, M., & Sachdev, V. (2017). The digital revolution, 3D printing, and innovation as data. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34, 681–690.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011). Psychological ownership and affective reaction: Emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychological, 21, 439–452.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known for the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: Brand extension authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 967–983.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Stone, M. (2014). 3D printed dresses are radically changing the meaning of haute couture. Retrieved August 8, 2019 from https://www.businessinsider.com/3d-printed-fashion-2014-8?IR=T

  67. Strategy&. (2017). The future of spare parts is 3D: A look at the challenges and opportunities of 3D printing. Retrieved May 17, 2017 from https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/report/future-spare-parts-3d

  68. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Troye, S. V., & Supphellen, M. (2012). Consumer participation in coproduction: “I made it myself” effects on consumers’ sensory perceptions and evaluation of outcome and input product. Journal of Marketing, 76, 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Umesh, U. N., Peterson, R. A., McCann-Nelson, M., Vaidyanathan, R. (1996). Type IV error in marketing research: The investigation of ANOVA interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 17–26.

  71. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 310–320.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Wakefield, K. L., & Inman, J. J. (2003). Situational price sensitivity: The role of consumption occasion, social context and income. Journal of Retailing, 79, 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Walasek, L., Rakow, T., & Matthews, W. J. (2017). When does construction enhance product value? Investigating the combined effects of object assembly and ownership on valuation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 144–156.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to prosume: Toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor, the associate editor, and three anonymous reviewers for their guidance and encouragement in the review process and Sarah Hübner for her help in collecting the data.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Wentzel.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Gergana Nenkov served as Area Editor for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 3735 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1

Fig. 6
figure6

Keychain used in Studies 1 and 2

Appendix 2

Ingredient brand descriptions

Utilitarian version of Hover: Hover considers 3D printing to be an efficient and effective new way of production. With its materials it wants to contribute to a flexible and uncomplicated production process. It wants to offer you materials that are practical and functional to use and that can provide the basis for products that fulfill their purpose.

Hedonic version of Hover: Hover considers 3D printing to be more than just a production method. It believes that 3D printing can turn production itself into an experience. With its materials it wants to contribute to your personal ability to express yourself through your individual creations. The use of its materials should provide you with enjoyment and allow you to become creative and experiment.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wiecek, A., Wentzel, D. & Erkin, A. Just print it! The effects of self-printing a product on consumers’ product evaluations and perceived ownership. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 48, 795–811 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00700-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Co-creation
  • Co-production
  • 3D printing
  • Perceived ownership
  • Hedonic and utilitarian consumption
  • Ingredient branding