To have is to be? Psychological functions of material possessions - Dittmar - 2008 - Article

When people describe themselves they sometimes feel that the descriptions they use are not influenced by material context. But in fact, material possessions do influence how we see the identity of others. Material possessions also influence how people see themselves and how they want themselves to be. They give people control, independence and emotional comfort, all of which are important psychological functions. The link between material possessions and identity seems to be of central psychological importance.

Material possessions play a huge part in our everyday live. The television channels are full of advertisements and people seem to always talk about the clothes, cars or other stuff of others. The most material possessions we own are to make life more comfortable and controllable. People use cars to get from one place to another. Yet, it seems that material possessions that make our life easier also serve other psychological functions. The car you buy, for instance, can show others that you are part of a certain group. People who buy sports cars are seen as active and rich. Advertisements use symbolic links between consumer goods and identity of the buyer. Advertisements seem to suggest that a person is not good enough without the product that is being advertised and that the person can come closer to his or her ideal self if he or she buys the product. Most people would think that we are not that naive to believe advertisement and that we are clever enough to know that material goods are not part of our internal identity. This chapter, however, will try to show that material possessions are seen as integral parts of us and that they play a big part in the construction of self identity.

Parts of the self

There are many cultures that believe that material possessions are part of owns identity. Indians were buried with their weapons, because the others didn’t want to become contaminated with the identity of the deceased person. Researchers also shows that people see material possessions more closely to the self than to not-self. When asked in an open-ended interview to describe oneself, many people name material possessions. Material possessions are often seen as self-extensions of the identity and it is difficult to draw a line between material goods and the self-concept. The mere ownership effect means that owning a product makes it more attractive to us. People want to have positive self-image and they will therefore enhance what they own to enhance themselves. Research has shown that when people received feedback that they failed on a task, they displayed a stronger mere ownership effect. Self-image seems to be bolstered by an object. Because we use possessions for defining and evaluating the self, our self-esteem would be lessened when we lose a possession. Theft of property can involve more psychological trauma than we might think. Residential burglary probably has the strongest impact, because the home is seen as an identity shell. It is a place for privacy and has many possessions that are symbols of the self. The items reflect our history, personal value and attitudes. People can get seriously traumatized by this. People who lost their possessions because of natural disasters can also have severe psychological trauma.

Control

A cross-cultural study has been conducted that looked at the meaning of and reasons for possession. The participants in that study very children, adolescents and adults from America, Israeli from cities and Israeli kibbutzim. Kibbutzim are highly collective and don’t give too much about possessions, while the Israeli from cities and the Americans are individualistic. Furby proposed that infants want to control object (this is a universal motivation of the human) and this might become dangerous when children learn how to walk. Adults will occasionally try to stop them from touching certain things and the infant will (therefore) get attached to the things he or she is allowed to touch and see these things as belonging to them, while he or she will have no attachment to the things he or she isn’t allowed to touch and will see these things as belonging to someone else. Possessions draw a boundary between what is self and what is other. Furby also proposed that for adolescents and adults possession are important because they offer control over the social environments and because they are closely linked to the self. Research has supported the first claim. Many studies have shown that people use possessions to enhance control over their life. In the previous piece, it was told that people show a stronger ownership effect when they have been told that they didn’t do well on a task. Another research showed that when people are confronted with their own mortality, they focus more on material possessions. The second part of Furby’s claim (that material possessions are linked to the self) is controversial, because studies have different findings on this topic. One study looked at the link between possessions, values and attitudes. Possessions were divided into two groups: instrumental possessions and symbolic possessions where the former is a means of transport or a tool and the latter could be an expressions of the self or a sign of the possessor’s status. The data showed that there was a link between possessions (whether instrumental or symbolic) and values.

Symbols

Goffman’s classic study of self mortification shows how possession can be used to maintain self-identity. In his text he explains how prisoners are literally stripped of their identity, because their belongings are taken away from them. Not only do these prisoners feel humiliated, but they also feel like a number, because they no longer possess the things that make them into their own person (clothing, rings, chains). Another research shows that when you wear something that doesn’t define you as a person (like wearing a hoody or a cap) you can overcome certain boundaries that you normally would not have done (like hurting somebody). Other research has found that people who lived in elderly homes and were able to keep their belongings coped better than people who were not able to bring their belongings to the elderly home. They felt more in control, less helpless and more supported by staff.

The Symbolic Self-completion Theory proposes that people use material possessions to compensate for inadequacies in their self-concept. Material symbols can create and enhance identity. Material symbols can help us to get closer to our ideal self. A feminine symbol is wearing makeup and high heels. A young woman might wear makeup and high heels to show others (and herself) that she is feminine. Not everybody can use every symbol: symbols have to fit in with a person’s age, gender or social role. Research has showed that business students who lacked good qualifications showed more relevant material symbols, such as suits, briefcases and watches than students with good qualifications. Another study showed that law students made more use of material symbols of particular identity when they lacked experience in identity domains than practicing attorneys. This study also showed that first-year students made more use of material symbols than students further advanced in their study. This study unfortunately doesn’t show why students did this. Is it because the students really felt that their identity as lacking some things or because of peer pressure? Maybe there is yet another reason.

Wealth, status and group membership

Clothes are really strong symbols. The clothes somebody wears help us to identify which group the person is affiliated with and what his or her socio-economic status is. Some possessions serve as status symbols. Your house interior shows much about your status. Status symbols can also change over time. When things become easier available, they cease to serve as status symbols because they are not exclusive anymore. Once the television was a symbol of affluence, now almost everybody has it. The people who don’t have it are seen as poor. There are trickle-down and trickle-up effects. Low-status groups adopt status symbols of groups that are more affluent than they are until these groups adopt new ones to differentiate themselves. Sometimes people also adopt symbols that are not related to high-status but from rebellious subcultures, like punks. Fashion can have a big impact as it is adopted by different social groups. At an individual level though, people also chose certain symbols to differentiate themselves from other social groups. When another group also uses the same symbols, they will abandon these symbols and chose new ones as to differentiate themselves from others and communicate identity.

Stereotypes are usually ascribed through personal qualities. The writers of this article were curious as to whether there are stereotypes related to material possessions. They used three different social groups for this study (students, unemployed and business employees) and asked them to list what they thought were the favourite possessions of themselves and of the other two groups. The results showed that members from other groups were perceived as being more similar than they actually are: people listed possessions for other groups as less diverse than the possessions for their own group. Also, differences between groups were perceived as greater than they actually were. This is also found in other studies of discrimination. Results show outgroup homogeneity and between-group differentiation.

Material possessions show us which socio-economic group somebody belongs to and people hold stereotypes associated with these groups. This should also mean that first impressions of a person differ depending on which materials they are surrounded with. Are the objects of higher, middle or lower wealth? To test this hypothesis, participants were showed one of two videos.

In both videos a young man or woman comes home from his or her job, walks into the kitchen and goes to the living room and sits down with a newspaper. Almost everything in the videos is the same, except that in one of the videos the kitchen is high tech and a designer pine kitchen, while in the other video the kitchen is basic and not high tech. Also, in one of the videos the car that is driven by the person is expensive, while in the other video the car is rather small. The participants were from two different social backgrounds, an affluent middle-class and a working-class. The middle-class participants saw the affluent video as more similar to their background, whereas the working-class saw the less affluent video as more similar. According to the Social Identity Theory people form more positive impressions of people who are more similar to one owns ingroup. So according to this, people from the working-class should form a better first impression of the working-class than the affluent middle-class. But according to the wealth stereotypes, the two social groups should both like the affluent middle-class group better because they have more expensive possessions. The results showed that the wealth stereotypes were right: both social groups thought that the person with the expensive possession was more intelligent and more in control and therefore made a better impression. These attributes are valued culturally. Not everything was seen as positive though. The affluent person was seen as less warm and less expressive.

Integrative model of the functions of material possessions

Researchers have asked participants to list their favourite possessions and tell why their possessions are important to them. First, a distinction is made between functional-instrumental uses of possessions and symbolic-expressive functions. Functional-instrumental functions can be further divided into use-related uses and emotional uses. When you want to get from one place to the other, a car is use related. When this car also symbolizes the independence or sex-appeal of the owner, it has emotional use (the owner feels better about himself).

The symbolic-expressive functions can also be divided. One of these functions is categorical symbolism. Possessions can serve as signs of social identity. People can express their social standing, status, group and wealth. The second function is that of interpersonal relationships. The third function is that of self-expressive symbols. They are signs of personal identity and represent a person’s value, attitudes and qualities. Materials don’t have to be one of these uses, they can be several.

Differences in functions

The feelings towards certain possessions change through a lifetime. Infants usually develop a relationship with one or two material objects during the first two years of their life. This can be a transitional object and this teaches the child autonomy and gives the child emotional comfort through symbolising a person (mom) when he or she is not physically present. The child also learns to draw a boundary between the self and the external world. This, however, does depend on the culture. Most children from the Western society have an objects they take to bed, whereas children from Africa and India do not have such an object.

One research showed that younger persons found possessions important if they had a function for establishing autonomy and independence for them. Older people liked possessions more if they had a symbolic status for them, like photographs. Older children (age 10) named sports equipment and toys as the most important possessions because they give them feelings of enjoyment and freedom. Young adults liked material possessions like cars and jewelry because of their memorabilia and the enjoyment these things provide. This all has to do with different needs for the different ages. Whereas young people need security, old people have already formed bonds and want to remember and look back at those.

Possessions can differ for different cultures. The US has an individualist culture and privileges an independent self-construal and identity is autonomous and defined by personal goals. Collectivist cultures privilege an interdependent self-construal and identity is connected with that of others and defined by group goals. In Niger, for instance, people felt more connected towards certain possessions because of their status with the community and shared values. It seems that possessions symbolize personal identity in individualistic cultures and social identity in collectivistic cultures.

There is also a difference between men and women when it comes to their possessions. Men prefer action-oriented goods (like vehicle) and look more at the practical, control- and activity-related features of the possessions. Women choose sentimental possessions and they look at interpersonal relations of possessions and the emotional significance. This has to do with the way men and women construct their identity: men have an independent form of identity and women an interdependent form of identity. Men have instrumental and self-oriented perspectives whereas women have relational and symbolic perspectives. Gender differences are relative and not absolute.